Link: Violence between right-wing protesters and police outside Kiev Parliament.
The announcement by Ukrainian officials of a ceasefire with separatists has resulted in angry demonstrations from conservative and right-wing protesters outside of Parliament in the capital city of Kiev. The conservative political groups in Ukraine have traditionally been strong, and the crisis in the east of the country has only added to their influence. Ukrainians living in the west of the country are particularly incensed with the lack of progress in combatting the separatists, and the shaky coalition that President Petro Poroshenko requires to stay in power is under great pressure. Conservative Ukrainians were not satisfied with the provisions of the "Minsk II" agreement, which really never got off the ground, because the separatists began violating the agreement almost as soon as it was announced. Some of the more controversial provisions of "Minsk II" never saw the light if day, until now, when they were repeated as part of the new ceasefire agreement, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, September 1. The Ukrainian right-wing objects to the agreement for declaring a "special status" for the disputed areas, and also for introducing the idea of autonomy to the negotiations. On the other hand, the government claims that the ceasefire agreement only calls for the decentralization of authority, designed to give more power to local government. In reality, the demonstrations in Kiev were coming, sooner or later, as Conservative Ukrainians grow more dissatisfied everyday with the current situation in the east. The number of Ukrainian troops in the east is almost matched by the number of volunteers, who have picked up weapons and transported themselves to the front line, "to fight for the freedom and integrity of Ukraine", as one protester explained. Poroshenko and his EU puppet masters must understand that this outpouring of rejection is not only in response to this latest ceasefire agreement, but also a message that the people of Ukraine do not believe in any more treaties with the separatists.
Since the genesis of this crisis, every agreement with the Russian-backed separatists has been violated by the rebels. Actually, the modus operandi of this movement mirrors typical fascist behavior. Violate every agreement, but continue to sign them, as long as the enemy is stupid enough to continue negotiating under the pretense of "good faith". While the separatists continually violate agreements, the Russians keep lying about the involvement of the Russian military and use of Russian equipment. The obscene fact that even after the overwhelming amount of evidence, the Russian government and the separatists still refuse to admit that a Russian "Buk" missile destroyed Malaysian Airlines flight 17 (MH17), killing all 298 on board. in July 2015, a draft resolution to set up an international tribunal into the MH17 air disaster was put before the United Nations Security Council. Malaysia had requested a tribunal to take place, but the proposal was blocked by a Russian veto. It was the only nation on the 15-member UN Security Council to oppose the request. There can be only one reason why the Russian government would oppose an investigation by the world's leading experts on the subject: to hide its complicity. We don't believe the Russians themselves fired at the airliner. We are convinced that the basically untrained separatist volunteers who were manning the Buk missile launcher, mistook the airliner for a large Ukrainian Air Force cargo plane, a hypothesis which is supported by evidence, including recorded cell phone conversations from one separatist unit to another.
The citizens of Ukraine who are opposed to the current agreement stood by Poroshenko for some time. He was a sympathetic figure, attempting to do his best to appease the European and U.S. governments, and also continuing to look strong in the face of Russian aggression first in Crimea, and then in Donbas. Poroshenko was forced to walk a tricky tight rope. From his perspective, Ukraine would be lost without the steadfast support of Europe and the United States; therefore, if France, Germany and the Obama Administration advised compromise, then Poroshenko would compromise. Hollande, Merkel and Obama told Poroshenko that the Russians would eventually be obliged to back down, because the sanctions regime was going to cripple the Russian economy. As we predicted last year on this blog, Putin never had any intention of backing down because of the sanctions. He understood as we did; that the Russian people take particular offense at that type of punishment. The Russians are made of tougher stuff than that. They won't be made to compromise because a few items disappear off the shelves and everyone has to tighten their belt a bit. So the sanctions have failed, and Poroshenko has authorized negotiators in Minsk to compromise with the separatists and Russians, as directed by the Europeans and Americans. What was the result? Two agreements that were violated by the separatists before the paint was dry. In the last year, the separatists have expanded the territory under their control, to include the strategic town of Debaltseve. There has been no offensive activity on the part of the Ukrainian Army, not really.
So its clear why most Ukrainians have lost faith in Poroshenko and why demonstrators were protesting in Kiev. Its not just for this terrible agreement, but for the previous two which were violated, and for the failed sanctions regime, which was supposed to force Russia to compromise. Putin is winning this chess game hands down, because Europe and the United States are too frightened to allow Ukraine to take any Russian pieces. Earlier this year, we called for the United States to begin providing weapons to the Ukrainian Army, including F16s and Abrams tanks if necessary. The Ukrainian people have no love-lost for the Russians, and they have already watched Putin steal the Crimea right from under their nose. They are anxious to settle this issue on the battlefield, but the Obama Administration has hamstrung the Ukrainian Armed Forces by refusing to sell them weapons and equipment. Why don't the Ukrainians just go to someone else to get weapons? Because everyone else who is not in Russia's orbit, is following the lead of the United States. Its a tremendously depressing situation. Poroshenko would probably like to be more militarily aggressive, but to be so would probably cost him the support of France, Germany and the United States. We expect the Ukrainian people to bring about another change in government, which may result in full deployment of the Ukrainian military to eastern Ukraine for the purpose of ending the illegal separatist movement. But if the Russian military becomes directly involved, the Ukrainians will be hard-pressed to keep up, without an influx of new equipment and supplies. The end of this drama will probably result in a new Ukraine, minus the industrial southwest. And Putin will be man of the year in Sevastopol and Donetsk.
Showing posts with label Debaltseve. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debaltseve. Show all posts
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Ukrainian separatists pretend to abide by the Minsk Agreement by re-deploying certain forces.
Links: A. Calls for the implementation of the Minsk Agreement.
B. Right wing protests Poroshenko in Kiev.
Both Kiev and Moscow are very interested in giving the impression of support for the Minsk negotiations. The discussions, which include the Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia, evolved after the failure of the Minsk Protocol, a 5 September 2014 agreement to halt the war in the Donbas Region. The Minsk Protocol included twelve main points, but within the first few weeks, both sides had violated the agreement. By January 2015, it was acknowledged by all parties concerned that the Minsk Protocol was a failure, and that negotiators had to return to Minsk and begin again. On 11 February 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia agreed to a new package of measures which for all practical purposes, revived the Minsk Protocol. As opposed to the first agreement, it appears at this early stage that both parties are interested in at least giving the appearance of compliance. As an addendum to the Minsk II agreement, both parties (Ukraine and the Donbas separatists) agreed to a heavy weapons withdrawal that includes tanks and certain "previously excluded" lighter weapons. On June 21, monitors for the Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) reported that both Ukrainian and separatist forces had begun removing the proscribed weapons from the front lines, even though the addendum had yet to be actually signed. Although the intention of the addendum was to reduce the intensity of the fighting in southeast Ukraine, the separatist almost immediately issued a declaration that they will retain armor around the key cities of Donetsk and Debaltseve. It is apparent that the separatist will utilize a well-worn strategy of continually moving heavy weapons and firepower from one location to the next, to give the impression that they are abiding by the agreement. In reality, as long as the armor and heavy firepower are present in Donbas, they can be maneuvered into position to fire on Ukrainian targets within a day's notice (and in most instances, less).
Not surprisingly, the separatists will agree to whatever particular parts of the agreement that suits their military and political objectives. While Ukrainian President Petro Poroschenko bends over backwards to demonstrate to his European supporters that he is willing to negotiate with the separatists (and the Russians), regardless of the continual violation of previous agreements and the brutal destruction of a civilian passenger airliner by an SA-11 missile fired by Russian Buk missile launcher, he faces mounting disapproval in his own capital. The Right Sector Movement (RSM), the political movement which led the demonstrations that eventually removed Poroschenko's successor, has become increasingly more active and vocal in their opposition to the manner in which Poroschenko is handling this crisis. Poroschenko must be very careful how he maneuvers around this pot-hole, because the RSM, which contributes volunteers to actively fight alongside the Ukrainian Army, is very popular in western Ukraine. One issue that receives a great deal of attention in Ukraine, is the fact that Poroschenko continues to refer to the crisis as an anti-terrorist action (!) as opposed to an actual war. Poroschenko has also been opposed to calls in Parliament (supported by RSM and the majority of Ukrainians) to institute and economic blockade of Donbas, and he does not support the various volunteer military units that have sprung up in support of the Ukrainian Army. All of these measures would be seen by the European "friends of Ukraine", as being inflammatory and not in the spirit of de-escalation, so its obvious from where Poroschenko is currently receiving his marching orders. And you can't blame Poroschenko for taking direction from the leaders of nations that haven't been to war in over five decades, at least not declared. He is being advised by honor graduates of the Neville Chamberlain "sacrifice anything and everyone for peace in our time" school of diplomacy. It should come as no surprise; this is how Europeans think in 2015. Considering the devastation of two World Wars, I certainly understand their wish to avoid aggravating the situation. But dangerous times call for courageous leadership. This is the time and place for the United States to act as the leader of the European delegation, and start dealing with Putin directly. Since the entire planet recognizes that he is calling the shots for the separatists, why to we continue to avoid dealing with him directly?
At present, we in the United States are without a President who is willing to utilize both our diplomatic and military resources appropriately and aggressively, in defense of international freedom and security. Since 2008, the United States has basically been adrift internationally, occasionally reacting to important events, but always the last one to show up at the party. The establishment of ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of the rash removal of U.S. forces in contrast to the phased-out, long-term withdrawal schedule preferred by the Pentagon. And Ukraine is obliged to cling to the coat tails of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande because our government is preaching the same, defeatist diatribe as they are (and they're closer). If I could only remember the number of Democrats who have argued against long-term sanctions at one time or another (Cuba comes to mind); and now these same Democrats watch Vladimir Putin and the Russian people totally ignore the sanctions regime in-place against Russia, and call for.....continued sanctions! Putin will eventually swallow Ukraine piece-by piece. Why? Because its in his nature; he is a megalomaniac, and like true megalomaniacs, he won't stop until HE IS STOPPED. When we made the point in favor of aggressive and appropriate diplomatic and military action, we were recognizing that the United States and our European partners have the opportunity to persuade Putin to climb back into his box. We must show that we are determined to protect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, and this can be accomplished by providing all supplies and military equipment that the Ukrainian military requests. Would you like a chuckle? If the Iranian nuke treaty is approved, we will then be able to sell F16s and Abrams tanks to Iran, but no to Ukraine! We can also influence Putin's decision-making by returning U.S. military forces to Europe, but in new locations, possibly, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania? The threat of a missile-defense shield for eastern Europe is another issue that annoys Putin (and that we have sacrificed for absolutely no political gain). We have military options in dealing with both Putin and ISIS; now all we need is the motivation and the backbone.
2016 can't come fast enough.
B. Right wing protests Poroshenko in Kiev.
Both Kiev and Moscow are very interested in giving the impression of support for the Minsk negotiations. The discussions, which include the Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia, evolved after the failure of the Minsk Protocol, a 5 September 2014 agreement to halt the war in the Donbas Region. The Minsk Protocol included twelve main points, but within the first few weeks, both sides had violated the agreement. By January 2015, it was acknowledged by all parties concerned that the Minsk Protocol was a failure, and that negotiators had to return to Minsk and begin again. On 11 February 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia agreed to a new package of measures which for all practical purposes, revived the Minsk Protocol. As opposed to the first agreement, it appears at this early stage that both parties are interested in at least giving the appearance of compliance. As an addendum to the Minsk II agreement, both parties (Ukraine and the Donbas separatists) agreed to a heavy weapons withdrawal that includes tanks and certain "previously excluded" lighter weapons. On June 21, monitors for the Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) reported that both Ukrainian and separatist forces had begun removing the proscribed weapons from the front lines, even though the addendum had yet to be actually signed. Although the intention of the addendum was to reduce the intensity of the fighting in southeast Ukraine, the separatist almost immediately issued a declaration that they will retain armor around the key cities of Donetsk and Debaltseve. It is apparent that the separatist will utilize a well-worn strategy of continually moving heavy weapons and firepower from one location to the next, to give the impression that they are abiding by the agreement. In reality, as long as the armor and heavy firepower are present in Donbas, they can be maneuvered into position to fire on Ukrainian targets within a day's notice (and in most instances, less).
Not surprisingly, the separatists will agree to whatever particular parts of the agreement that suits their military and political objectives. While Ukrainian President Petro Poroschenko bends over backwards to demonstrate to his European supporters that he is willing to negotiate with the separatists (and the Russians), regardless of the continual violation of previous agreements and the brutal destruction of a civilian passenger airliner by an SA-11 missile fired by Russian Buk missile launcher, he faces mounting disapproval in his own capital. The Right Sector Movement (RSM), the political movement which led the demonstrations that eventually removed Poroschenko's successor, has become increasingly more active and vocal in their opposition to the manner in which Poroschenko is handling this crisis. Poroschenko must be very careful how he maneuvers around this pot-hole, because the RSM, which contributes volunteers to actively fight alongside the Ukrainian Army, is very popular in western Ukraine. One issue that receives a great deal of attention in Ukraine, is the fact that Poroschenko continues to refer to the crisis as an anti-terrorist action (!) as opposed to an actual war. Poroschenko has also been opposed to calls in Parliament (supported by RSM and the majority of Ukrainians) to institute and economic blockade of Donbas, and he does not support the various volunteer military units that have sprung up in support of the Ukrainian Army. All of these measures would be seen by the European "friends of Ukraine", as being inflammatory and not in the spirit of de-escalation, so its obvious from where Poroschenko is currently receiving his marching orders. And you can't blame Poroschenko for taking direction from the leaders of nations that haven't been to war in over five decades, at least not declared. He is being advised by honor graduates of the Neville Chamberlain "sacrifice anything and everyone for peace in our time" school of diplomacy. It should come as no surprise; this is how Europeans think in 2015. Considering the devastation of two World Wars, I certainly understand their wish to avoid aggravating the situation. But dangerous times call for courageous leadership. This is the time and place for the United States to act as the leader of the European delegation, and start dealing with Putin directly. Since the entire planet recognizes that he is calling the shots for the separatists, why to we continue to avoid dealing with him directly?
At present, we in the United States are without a President who is willing to utilize both our diplomatic and military resources appropriately and aggressively, in defense of international freedom and security. Since 2008, the United States has basically been adrift internationally, occasionally reacting to important events, but always the last one to show up at the party. The establishment of ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of the rash removal of U.S. forces in contrast to the phased-out, long-term withdrawal schedule preferred by the Pentagon. And Ukraine is obliged to cling to the coat tails of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande because our government is preaching the same, defeatist diatribe as they are (and they're closer). If I could only remember the number of Democrats who have argued against long-term sanctions at one time or another (Cuba comes to mind); and now these same Democrats watch Vladimir Putin and the Russian people totally ignore the sanctions regime in-place against Russia, and call for.....continued sanctions! Putin will eventually swallow Ukraine piece-by piece. Why? Because its in his nature; he is a megalomaniac, and like true megalomaniacs, he won't stop until HE IS STOPPED. When we made the point in favor of aggressive and appropriate diplomatic and military action, we were recognizing that the United States and our European partners have the opportunity to persuade Putin to climb back into his box. We must show that we are determined to protect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, and this can be accomplished by providing all supplies and military equipment that the Ukrainian military requests. Would you like a chuckle? If the Iranian nuke treaty is approved, we will then be able to sell F16s and Abrams tanks to Iran, but no to Ukraine! We can also influence Putin's decision-making by returning U.S. military forces to Europe, but in new locations, possibly, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania? The threat of a missile-defense shield for eastern Europe is another issue that annoys Putin (and that we have sacrificed for absolutely no political gain). We have military options in dealing with both Putin and ISIS; now all we need is the motivation and the backbone.
2016 can't come fast enough.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
With the intensification of the conflict, what is Putin's goal in the Ukraine?
Links: A. Fears of New Separatist Offensive in Ukraine.
B. Concern over likely new Offensive.
The conflict in Ukraine shows no indications of de-escalation, as Russian-backed separatists continue to dictate the course of events. Since last September's "cease fire", the Separatists have conducted a number of important operations, including the seizure of the airport at Donetsk and the occupation of the strategic town of Debaltseve. So what, exactly was the purpose of the cease fire? A serious analysis of the conflict over the past year, with a focus on where both sides are today, makes it apparent that the Russians have had no trouble outmaneuvering, outgunning, and outthinking the Ukrainians. Yes, the sanctions are in place, and yes, they have damaged the Russian economy. But they have failed miserably in their intention, which was to encourage a cease fire and pressure Russia into de-militarizing eastern Ukraine. In fact, the opposite has occurred. No doubt we here at MB were not the only bloggers who predicted that Russia would thumb its nose at sanctions. The Russian people no do respond well to that type of pressure. Traditionally, they have shown much more understanding for conflicts that are settled on the battlefield. We predicted that the Russian people might become even more galvanized behind Putin if the west insisted on a sanctions regime. Evidence points to our correct interpretation of the circumstances. The Russian media is loath to print or air a story that is critical of the Separatists, and the concocted stories regarding the Ukrainian government and alleged "atrocities" against ethnic Russians take a page right from Nazi tactics on the German-Polish border, circa 1939. Someone needs to deliver a polite message to Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Barack Obama: Sanctions have failed. Please tell us you have a plan B. If not, Putin may be tempted to split Ukraine right in half.
The Ukrainian military has not shown the strength and decisiveness that MB had predicted. Outgunned and outflanked repeatedly, the Ukrainians have been obliged to evacuate a number of strategic towns and locations. Its possible that this is a direct result of the lack of military support from the west, in particular the United States. With Congressmen of both parties urging President Obama to start providing weapons and supplies to the Ukrainians, Obama did nothing, although U.S. military advisors are on the ground, as well as instructors, and the United States has been sharing sensitive imagery and intelligence with the Ukrainians from the beginning of the conflict. One disturbing trend has been the increasing number of foreign mercenaries that have been fighting on behalf of Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine continues to function normally, as Russia has not curtailed the supply of gas. It does appear that the port city of Mariupol is the next strategic target for the Separatists, which would make sense, given Putin's obsession with the turning the Black Sea into a Russian lake.
As of mid-April, 2015, the military situation is extremely delicate for the Ukrainian government. While its true that the majority of Ukraine's military has not been brought into the conflict, there are reasons for that decision. The government has the obligation of ensuring at least a modest defense of the capital city of Kiev, should the conflict escalate. If the actions of the present Ukrainian government are any indication, then the military decisions have been made conservatively and the bulk of Ukraine's armor and air resources have not been deployed (although a great deal of artillery seems to have made its way to the front). The Ukrainian military authorities are concerned that the regular army, with so many new conscripts, will get pulverized on the eastern front. So the arrival of U.S. advisors/instructors is welcome. But the United States must set an example and demonstrate that it can discern the difference between the "good guys and the bad guys". If we can arm Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey, then we should be able to assist Ukraine in a battle for survival against a 21st century fascist state.
As for Putin's goal, your guess is as good as ours. It appears that possibly he has decided to emasculate Ukraine by splitting it in two and depriving Kiev of any port access to the Black Sea. I can understand why some analysts might hypothesize that Putin intends on destroying independent Ukraine. No matter how we size it up, we cannot imagine that Putin actually intends on occupying the entire Ukraine. Western Ukraine is very Nationalist and Russia in particular is despised (with good reason). Trying to occupy anything west of Kiev would be more trouble than its worth, not to mention the Ukrainian military, such as it is, would take a toll on the Russians before all was said and done. But Putin has become hard to predict. In fact, he new policy seems to be, "what can I do to surprise the west today", so truly, the only surprise would be if Putin reverted back to what we believe was the original strategy and offers to evacuate eastern Ukraine in exchange for official recognition of Russian suzerainty over the Donbas Basin.
B. Concern over likely new Offensive.
The conflict in Ukraine shows no indications of de-escalation, as Russian-backed separatists continue to dictate the course of events. Since last September's "cease fire", the Separatists have conducted a number of important operations, including the seizure of the airport at Donetsk and the occupation of the strategic town of Debaltseve. So what, exactly was the purpose of the cease fire? A serious analysis of the conflict over the past year, with a focus on where both sides are today, makes it apparent that the Russians have had no trouble outmaneuvering, outgunning, and outthinking the Ukrainians. Yes, the sanctions are in place, and yes, they have damaged the Russian economy. But they have failed miserably in their intention, which was to encourage a cease fire and pressure Russia into de-militarizing eastern Ukraine. In fact, the opposite has occurred. No doubt we here at MB were not the only bloggers who predicted that Russia would thumb its nose at sanctions. The Russian people no do respond well to that type of pressure. Traditionally, they have shown much more understanding for conflicts that are settled on the battlefield. We predicted that the Russian people might become even more galvanized behind Putin if the west insisted on a sanctions regime. Evidence points to our correct interpretation of the circumstances. The Russian media is loath to print or air a story that is critical of the Separatists, and the concocted stories regarding the Ukrainian government and alleged "atrocities" against ethnic Russians take a page right from Nazi tactics on the German-Polish border, circa 1939. Someone needs to deliver a polite message to Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Barack Obama: Sanctions have failed. Please tell us you have a plan B. If not, Putin may be tempted to split Ukraine right in half.
The Ukrainian military has not shown the strength and decisiveness that MB had predicted. Outgunned and outflanked repeatedly, the Ukrainians have been obliged to evacuate a number of strategic towns and locations. Its possible that this is a direct result of the lack of military support from the west, in particular the United States. With Congressmen of both parties urging President Obama to start providing weapons and supplies to the Ukrainians, Obama did nothing, although U.S. military advisors are on the ground, as well as instructors, and the United States has been sharing sensitive imagery and intelligence with the Ukrainians from the beginning of the conflict. One disturbing trend has been the increasing number of foreign mercenaries that have been fighting on behalf of Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine continues to function normally, as Russia has not curtailed the supply of gas. It does appear that the port city of Mariupol is the next strategic target for the Separatists, which would make sense, given Putin's obsession with the turning the Black Sea into a Russian lake.
As of mid-April, 2015, the military situation is extremely delicate for the Ukrainian government. While its true that the majority of Ukraine's military has not been brought into the conflict, there are reasons for that decision. The government has the obligation of ensuring at least a modest defense of the capital city of Kiev, should the conflict escalate. If the actions of the present Ukrainian government are any indication, then the military decisions have been made conservatively and the bulk of Ukraine's armor and air resources have not been deployed (although a great deal of artillery seems to have made its way to the front). The Ukrainian military authorities are concerned that the regular army, with so many new conscripts, will get pulverized on the eastern front. So the arrival of U.S. advisors/instructors is welcome. But the United States must set an example and demonstrate that it can discern the difference between the "good guys and the bad guys". If we can arm Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey, then we should be able to assist Ukraine in a battle for survival against a 21st century fascist state.
As for Putin's goal, your guess is as good as ours. It appears that possibly he has decided to emasculate Ukraine by splitting it in two and depriving Kiev of any port access to the Black Sea. I can understand why some analysts might hypothesize that Putin intends on destroying independent Ukraine. No matter how we size it up, we cannot imagine that Putin actually intends on occupying the entire Ukraine. Western Ukraine is very Nationalist and Russia in particular is despised (with good reason). Trying to occupy anything west of Kiev would be more trouble than its worth, not to mention the Ukrainian military, such as it is, would take a toll on the Russians before all was said and done. But Putin has become hard to predict. In fact, he new policy seems to be, "what can I do to surprise the west today", so truly, the only surprise would be if Putin reverted back to what we believe was the original strategy and offers to evacuate eastern Ukraine in exchange for official recognition of Russian suzerainty over the Donbas Basin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)