All night negotiations in Minsk between Russia, Germany, France and the Ukraine have resulted in a diplomatic victory for Russia. As Putin told the press, “It was a rough night but it’s a good morning.”
First, the big picture. Russia’s primary geo-political concern was the blatant attempt by the United States to use the Ukrainian “zone of democratic freedom” as a “forward base of operations” for U.S. hegemony. The neocon gambit of incorporating the Ukraine into N.A.T.O. was as anathema to Russia as the neocon wet dream of controlling the naval base at Sevastopol. Although the Minsk-II agreement is silent on the matter, Ukrainian participation in N.A.T.O. is simply inconsistent with its terms, which call for the withdrawal of “all foreign troops” from Ukrainian soil.
This withdrawal provision is a diplomatic joke inasmuch as Russia denies having any troops in the Ukraine in the first place. Since both N.A.T.O. and Russian troops are not there, the reference to “withdrawal” arguably means that “there shall be” no foreign troops on Ukrainian soil.
In all events, the notion that Russia should not be militarily engaged in the Ukraine so that N.A.T.O. can be, is one of those hypotheses not likely to lift off the ground.
Russia’s next concern was the threat of economic sanctions. From the Russian perspective, sanctions were costly and humiliating. The arrogance of the United States is so overweening that President Obama felt no constraint in saying, only yesterday, that his country reserved the right of “twisting the arms” of countries who “don’t do what we need them to do.” Such a bully-boy attitude may be self-gratifying in Washington but it tends not to play well elsewhere. It will apparently not be played again against Russia; according to BBC News, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said European leaders would be discussing ways to "help and sustain the agreement", but she ruled out the threat of fresh sanctions on Russia.
As for the Ukraine itself, the matter can be broken down into two facets: the economic and the political. Here, Russian diplomacy has effected a marvelous tromp d’oeil in as much as the agreement preserves Ukrainian political unity just enough to make it responsible for paying debts while its economic integrity is broken just enough to allow the eastern part of the country to maintain its own economic ties with Russia.
This, more than anything else, is Putin’s kick in the teeth to Virginia “Fuck Europe” Nuland.
Obviously a country’s economic balance sheet runs only so far as its political writ. Preserving Ukraine’s political integrity was not only a point of national honor for Poroshenko, it was also a question loans. After all, a country’s size, resources and industrial assets are collateral. IMF “investment” in the Ukraine was directly proportional to the extent of Ukraine’s political sovereignty. Keeping the eastern part of the country “within” the Ukraine was a key aim of the Kiev government which did its level best to ethnically cleanse and/or terrorize the Russophile population in the East.
The diplomatic buzz words here are “federalization” and “decentralization” — the former meaning the de facto break up of the Ukraine and the latter meaning the nominal preservation of Ukrainian territorial integrity.
Having been fairly trounced militarily (a fact seldom reported in the servile U.S. media), Poroshenko went into the talk hoping he would at least be able to keep the shirt of his territorial integrity. Just look at the man’s worried face in the halls of Minsk. Putin let him keep his shirt, but only of the thinest cotton.
Poroshenko won the battle of labels. The Minsk-II agreement speaks only of “decentralization.” There will be no break up of the Ukraine, as such. Oh, but what integrity!
According to RT News, “Kiev and the rebels will negotiate the terms for future local elections in the rebel-held areas, which would bring them back into Ukraine’s legal framework. Kiev would adopt legislation on self-governance that would be acceptable for the self-proclaimed republics.”
In other words, whatever “decentralization” means exactly, it will mean what the rebels want it to mean. Not only is the Ukrainian government reduced to “negotiating” with rebels, the rebels hold the ultimate veto.
Not only that, but whatever decentralization means, Kiev’s control over its eastern borders is made contingent on reaching an agreement with the rebels. Again, according to RT news, “after the local elections are held in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, Kiev is to restore control over their borders with Russia. The transition may take time, which would be needed for a comprehensive constitutional reform in Ukraine.”
First, the big picture. Russia’s primary geo-political concern was the blatant attempt by the United States to use the Ukrainian “zone of democratic freedom” as a “forward base of operations” for U.S. hegemony. The neocon gambit of incorporating the Ukraine into N.A.T.O. was as anathema to Russia as the neocon wet dream of controlling the naval base at Sevastopol. Although the Minsk-II agreement is silent on the matter, Ukrainian participation in N.A.T.O. is simply inconsistent with its terms, which call for the withdrawal of “all foreign troops” from Ukrainian soil.
This withdrawal provision is a diplomatic joke inasmuch as Russia denies having any troops in the Ukraine in the first place. Since both N.A.T.O. and Russian troops are not there, the reference to “withdrawal” arguably means that “there shall be” no foreign troops on Ukrainian soil.
In all events, the notion that Russia should not be militarily engaged in the Ukraine so that N.A.T.O. can be, is one of those hypotheses not likely to lift off the ground.
Russia’s next concern was the threat of economic sanctions. From the Russian perspective, sanctions were costly and humiliating. The arrogance of the United States is so overweening that President Obama felt no constraint in saying, only yesterday, that his country reserved the right of “twisting the arms” of countries who “don’t do what we need them to do.” Such a bully-boy attitude may be self-gratifying in Washington but it tends not to play well elsewhere. It will apparently not be played again against Russia; according to BBC News, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said European leaders would be discussing ways to "help and sustain the agreement", but she ruled out the threat of fresh sanctions on Russia.
As for the Ukraine itself, the matter can be broken down into two facets: the economic and the political. Here, Russian diplomacy has effected a marvelous tromp d’oeil in as much as the agreement preserves Ukrainian political unity just enough to make it responsible for paying debts while its economic integrity is broken just enough to allow the eastern part of the country to maintain its own economic ties with Russia.
This, more than anything else, is Putin’s kick in the teeth to Virginia “Fuck Europe” Nuland.
Obviously a country’s economic balance sheet runs only so far as its political writ. Preserving Ukraine’s political integrity was not only a point of national honor for Poroshenko, it was also a question loans. After all, a country’s size, resources and industrial assets are collateral. IMF “investment” in the Ukraine was directly proportional to the extent of Ukraine’s political sovereignty. Keeping the eastern part of the country “within” the Ukraine was a key aim of the Kiev government which did its level best to ethnically cleanse and/or terrorize the Russophile population in the East.
The diplomatic buzz words here are “federalization” and “decentralization” — the former meaning the de facto break up of the Ukraine and the latter meaning the nominal preservation of Ukrainian territorial integrity.
Having been fairly trounced militarily (a fact seldom reported in the servile U.S. media), Poroshenko went into the talk hoping he would at least be able to keep the shirt of his territorial integrity. Just look at the man’s worried face in the halls of Minsk. Putin let him keep his shirt, but only of the thinest cotton.
Poroshenko won the battle of labels. The Minsk-II agreement speaks only of “decentralization.” There will be no break up of the Ukraine, as such. Oh, but what integrity!
According to RT News, “Kiev and the rebels will negotiate the terms for future local elections in the rebel-held areas, which would bring them back into Ukraine’s legal framework. Kiev would adopt legislation on self-governance that would be acceptable for the self-proclaimed republics.”
In other words, whatever “decentralization” means exactly, it will mean what the rebels want it to mean. Not only is the Ukrainian government reduced to “negotiating” with rebels, the rebels hold the ultimate veto.
Not only that, but whatever decentralization means, Kiev’s control over its eastern borders is made contingent on reaching an agreement with the rebels. Again, according to RT news, “after the local elections are held in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, Kiev is to restore control over their borders with Russia. The transition may take time, which would be needed for a comprehensive constitutional reform in Ukraine.”
In the “fuck you” language of which Victoria Nuland is so fond, Ukraine gets its borders back if and when it behaves.
And, as if good behaviour needed spelling out, the agreement provides “Kiev will implement comprehensive constitutional reform by the end of the year, which would decentralize the Ukrainian political system and give privileges to Donetsk and Lugansk. The privileges include language self-determination, the freedom to appoint prosecutors and judges, and to establish economic ties with Russia.”
It could not be more plain. “Not federalization” means that Russian will become the official language of Donetsk and Lugansk which are allowed to establish their own economic ties with Russia, regardless of what Kiev wants.
But here is the real deep kick. Since Ukraine’s sovereign integrity is so very important to Poroshenko, he will certainly agree that, as a national government, “Kiev will restore economic ties, social payments and banking services in the dissenting areas.” If he wants to play the part, let him pay the part.
Oh sweet revenge! The eastern provinces get to trade with Russia as they want, but the government in Kiev has to go on paying for pensions, education and health care and for maintaining that banking system which is being and will be directly funded by the I.M.F. whose loan repayments will be the responsibility of the national government in Kiev.
So much for Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard and the hyena snarling of Washington’s neocons. During the night Virginia Nuland got fucked hard. It was a rough night, but a good morning.
©Barfo 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment