Conservative factions in Ukraine increasing pressure on Poroshenko.

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.

Ukraine separatists take full advantage of Minsk negotiations; France cancels Russian warship purchase.

Link: France cancels Russian warship order.


While pro-Ukrainian demonstrators in Mariupol argue against making concessions during the latest round of negotiations in Minsk, separatists continue to accuse the Ukrainian military of double-dealing.  The issue at hand deals with the withdrawal of heavy weapons and tanks from sensitive areas.  The negotiations have reached the point at which anything that the Ukraine agrees to will be manipulated for press consumption; how the participants on the Kiev side can continue to negotiate in good faith is a mystery to us.  The separatists regularly violated the Minsk II agreement to withdraw heavy weapons from contested areas, but for some reason current negotiators are discussing the same issue, with the idea that the separatists will, for some reason, decide to abide by the agreement this time.  Every effort on behalf of both the separatists and the Russian government is intended to further the determination to dismember the Ukrainian state as we know it.  The frustration expressed by the numerous nationalist groups in Kiev, Mariupol, Odessa, Lvov, and other Ukrainian cities, is beginning to put tremendous pressure on the government of President Petro Poroshenko.  The current government in Kiev has shown incredible restraint, taking great care to not upset its European and U.S. allies.  Unfortunately for Poroshenko, his popularity is in free-fall as the Ukrainian public grows increasingly frustrated at the lack of direct military support from Europe and the Obama Administration.  The crisis in Donbas is no closer to being resolved than it was at the commencement of the original Minsk negotiations.  No doubt the separatists consider the subject of national boundaries to be an issue of occupation.  At this stage, its hard to imagine Ukraine returning to its pre-conflict borders.

In 2011, Russia and France negotiated the purchase by Russia of two French Mistral-class amphibious assault ships.  The delivery of the ships was on schedule, when the Ukrainian conflict intervened.  The French government decided to review its decision to sell the modern warships, following Russia's obvious military support for the Donbas separatists.  The decision to reconsider the sale was controversial for both the French and the Russians.  The French weapons industry was anxious for the positive press that would accompany the on-schedule delivery of the warships, not to mention the financial windfall.  And the Russian military is determined to upgrade and modernize its amphibious capabilities.  Regardless, on Wednesday the French government, after lengthly deliberation, decided to cancel the contract and all payments to Russia.  The Russian foreign ministry has responded as anticipated, accusing the French of illegally breaking the contract.  This development will probably negatively impact the French arms industry temporarily, but the French are always in the forefront of developing new military hardware, and in the end, Paris will have its usual backlog of defense industry orders from international customers.

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.