The Minsk Peace Deal: Farce Or Sellout? — Paul Craig Roberts
February 12, 2015 | Original Here Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter
The Minsk Peace Deal: Farce Or Sellout?
Paul Craig Roberts
Judging by the report on RT http://rt.com/news/231667-minsk-ceasefire-deal-breakup/
I conclude that the Ukraine peace deal worked out in Minsk by Putin,
Merkel, Hollande, and Poroshenko has little chance of success.
As Washington is not a partner to the Minsk peace deal, how can there
be peace when Washington has made policy decisions to escalate the
conflict and to use the conflict as a proxy war between the US and
Russia?
The Minsk agreement makes no reference to the announcement by Lt.
Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of US Army Europe, that Washington is sending
a battalion of US troops to Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces how to
fight against Russian and rebel forces. The training is scheduled to
begin in March, about two weeks from now. Gen. Hodges says that it is
very important to recognize that the Donetsk and Luhansk forces “are not
separatists, these are proxies for President Putin.”
How is there a peace deal when Washington has plans underway to send arms and
training to the US puppet government in Kiev?
Looking at the deal itself, it is set up to fail. The only parties to
the deal who had to sign it are the leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk
break-away republics. The other signers to the Minsk deal are an OSCE
representative which is the European group that is supposed to monitor
the withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides, a former Ukrainian
president Viktor Kuchma, and the Russian ambassador in Kiev. Neither
the German chancellor nor the French, Ukrainian, and Russian presidents
who brokered the deal had to sign it.
In other words, the governments of Germany, France, Ukraine, and
Russia do not appear to be empowered or required to enforce the
agreement. According to RT, “the declaration was not meant to be signed
by the leaders, German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said.” http://rt.com/news/231571-putin-minsk-ukraine-deal/
The terms of the agreement depend on actions of the Ukrainian
parliament and prime minister, neither of which are under Poroshenko’s
control, and Poroshenko himself is a figurehead under Washington’s
control. Moreover, the Ukrainian military does not control the Nazi
militias. As Washington and the right-wing elements in Ukraine want
conflict with Russia, peace cannot be forthcoming.
The agreement is nothing but a list of expectations that have no chance of occurring.
One expectation is that Ukraine and the republics will negotiate
terms for future local elections in the provinces that will bring them
back under Ukraine’s legal control. The day after the local elections,
but prior to the constitutional reform that provides the regions with
autonomy, Kiev takes control of the borders with Ukraine and between the
provinces. I read this as the total sell-out of the Donetsk and
Lugansk republics. Apparently, that is the way the leaders of the
republics see it as well, as Putin had to twist their arms in order to
get their signatures to the agreement.
Another expectation is that Ukraine will adopt legislation on
self-governance that would be acceptable to the republics and declare a
general amnesty for the republics’ leaders and military forces.
Negotiations between Kiev and the autonomous areas are to take place
that restore Kiev’s taxation of the autonomous areas and the provision
of social payments and banking services to the autonomous areas.
After a comprehensive constitutional reform in Ukraine guaranteeing
acceptable (and undefined) autonomy to the republics, Kiev will take
control over the provinces’ borders with Russia.
By the end of 2015 Kiev will implement comprehensive constitutional
reform that decentralizes the Ukrainian political system and provides
privileges of autonomy to the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
Both Putin and Poroshenko are both reported as stating that the main thing achieved is a ceasefire starting on February 15.
The ceasefire is of no benefit to the Donetsk and Lugansk republics
as they are prevailing in the conflict. Moreover, the deal requires the
republics’ forces to give up territory and to pull back to the borders
of last September and to eject fighters from France and other countries
who have come to the aid of the break-away republics. In other words,
the agreement erases all of Kiev’s losses from the conflict that Kiev
initiated.
All of the risks of the agreement are imposed on the break-away
republics and on Putin. The provinces are required to give up all their
gains while Washington trains and arms Ukrainian forces to attack the
provinces. The republics have to give up their security and trust Kiev
long before Kiev votes, assuming it ever does, autonomy for the
republics.
Moreover, if the one-sided terms of the Minsk agreement result in failure, Putin and the republics will be blamed.
Why would Putin make such a deal and force it on the republics? If
the deal becomes a Russian sell-out of the republics, it will hurt
Putin’s nationalist support within Russia and make it easier for
Washington to weaken Putin and perhaps achieve regime change. It looks
more like a surrender than a fair deal.
Perhaps Putin’s strategy is to give away every advantage in the
expectation that the deal will fail, and the Russian government can say
“we gave away the store and the deal still failed.”
Washington’s coup in Kiev and the attack on the Russian-speaking
Ukrainians in the east and south is part of Washington’s strategy to
reassert its uni-power position. Russia’s independent foreign policy
and Russia’s growing economic and political relationships with Europe
became problems for Washington. Washington is using Ukraine to attack
and to demonize Russia and its leader and to break-up Russia’s economic
and political relations with Europe. That is what the sanctions are
about. A peace deal in Ukraine on any terms other than Washington’s is
unacceptable to Washington. The only acceptable deal is a deal that is a
defeat for Russia.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Russian government
made a strategic mistake when it did not accept the requests of the
break-away provinces to be united with Russia. The people in the
Donetsk and Lugansk provinces favored unification with the same massive
majorities that the people in Crimea showed. If the provinces had been
united with Russia, it would have been the end of the conflict. Neither
Ukraine nor Washington is going to attack Russian territory.
By failing to end the conflict by unification, Putin set himself up
as the punching bag for Western propaganda. The consequence is that
over the many months during which the conflict has been needlessly drawn
out, Putin has had his image and reputation in the West destroyed. He
is the “new Hitler.” He is “scheming to restore the Soviet Empire.”
“Russia ranks with ebola and the Islamist State as the three greatest
threats.” “RT is a terrorist organization like Boco Haram and the
Islamist State.” And so on and on. This CNN interview with Obama
conducted by Washington’s presstitute Fareed Zakaria shows the image of
Putin based entirely on lies that rules in the West.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duu6IwW3sbw
Putin could be no more demonized even if the Russian military had invaded Ukraine,
conquered it, and reincorporated Ukraine in Russia of which Ukraine was
part for centuries prior to the Soviet collapse and Ukraine’s separation
from Russia at Washington’s insistence.
The Russian government might want to carefully consider whether
Moscow is helping Washington to achieve another victory in Ukraine.
Is Peace or War at Hand? — Paul Craig Roberts
February 9, 2015 | Original Here Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter
Is Peace or War at Hand?
Paul Craig Roberts
King World News illustrates this article with photos. If you enjoy visuals, go here: http://kingworldnews.com/paul-craig-roberts-world-now-cusp-total-war/
At this time we do not know the outcome of the meeting in Moscow between Merkel, Hollande, and Putin.
The meeting with Putin was initiated by Merkel and Hollande, because
they are disturbed by the aggressive position that Washington has taken
toward Russia and are fearful that Washington is pushing Europe into a
conflict that Europe does not want. However, Merkel and Hollande cannot
resolve the NATO/EU/Ukraine situation unless Merkel and Hollande are
willing to break with Washington’s foreign policy and assert the right
as sovereign states to conduct their own foreign policy.
Unless Washington’s war-lust has finally driven Europeans to take
control over their own fate, the most likely outcome of the
Putin-Merkel-Hollande meeting will be more meetings that go nowhere. If
Merkel and Hollande are not negotiating from a position of independence,
one likely outcome after more meetings will be that Merkel and Hollande
will say, in order to appease Washington, that they tried to reason
with Putin but that Putin was unreasonable.
Based on Lavrov’s meeting in Munich with the Europeans, the hope for
any sign of intelligence and independence in Europe seems misplaced.
Russian diplomacy relied on European independence, but as Putin has
acknowledged Europe has shown no independence from Washington. Putin
has said that negotiating with vassals is pointless. Yet, Putin
continues to negotiate with vassals.
Perhaps Putin’s patience is finally paying off. There are reports
that Germany and France oppose Washington’s plan to send weapons to
Ukraine. French president Hollande now supports autonomy for the
break-away republics in Ukraine. His predecessor, Sarkozy, said that
Crimea chose Russia and we cannot blame them, and that the interests of
Americans and Europeans diverge when it comes to Russia. Germany’s
foreign minister says that Washington’s plan to arm Ukraine is risky and
reckless. And on top of it all, Cyprus has offered Russia an air base.
We will see how Washington responds to the French statements that
European interests with regard to Russia diverge from Washington’s.
Washington does not recognize any valid interest except its own.
Therefore, it has been fruitless for Russia to negotiate with
Washington and Washington’s EU vassals. To come to an agreement with
Washington has required Russia’s surrender to Washington’s terms.
Russia must hand over Crimea and Russia’s warm water port, and Moscow
must stand aside while the Russian people in eastern and southern
Ukraine, the “break-away” provinces, are slaughtered. Russia must
support the hostile regime in Kiev with loans, grants, and low gas
prices.
That is the only deal Russia has been able to get from Washington,
because the EU has supported Washington’s line. With French presidents
reportedly now saying, “We are part of a common civilization with
Russia,” Europe is on the road to independence.
Can Europe stay on this road, or can Washington bring Germany and
France back in line? A false flag attack could do it. Washington is a
control freak, and the neoconservative ideology of US hegemony has made
Washington even more of a control freak. Europe with an independent
foreign policy means a great loss of control by Washington. If
Washington retains or regains control, I see two clear options for
Russia.
One is to disengage totally from the West. The West is a morally
depraved and economically bankrupt entity. There is no reason for a
decent country like Russia to wish to be integrated with the evil that
is the West. Russia has the option of abandoning the dollar payments
system and all financial relationships with the West.
By trying to be part of the West, Russia made a strategic error that
endangered the independence of Russia. Russia found herself dependent
on Western financial systems that gave Washington power over Moscow and
allowed Washington to place economic sanctions on Russia.
It was Russia’s desire to be part of the West that made possible
Washington’s sanctions and Washington’s propaganda against Russia.
It was Russia’s desire to be accepted by the West that produced the
weak Russian response to Washington’s audacious coup in Kiev.
Washington is using Ukraine against Russia. After seizing control in
Kiev, it is unlikely that Washington will accept a peaceful solution in
which the “break-away” provinces are permitted to become autonomous
republics of Ukraine.
Is negotiation with Washington possible when Washington only wants conflict?
Russia’s other clear option is to destroy NATO by ceasing to sell
energy resources to NATO members. The countries would choose energy over
NATO membership.
Why should Russia empower its obvious enemies by meeting
their energy
needs? Russia could also encourage Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal
to default on their loans and rely on Russia, China, and the BRICS Bank
for financing. China holds a massive amount of dollars. Why not use
them to break up Washington’s European empire?
Russia could also default on its loans to the West. Why should Russia pay an enemy that is trying to destroy her?
If Europe cannot gain its independence, at some point Russia will
either have to surrender to Washington or demonstrate decisive action
that causes the Washington’s European vassal states to understand the
cost of vassalage to Washington and decide to abandon Washington in the
interest of their own survival.
Alternatively, Russia can forget about the West and integrate with
China and the East. Considering Washington’s hegemonic posture, there is
no counterparty for Russia’s diplomacy.
Predictions are difficult, because policies can have unintended
consequences and produce black swan events. For example, the Islamic
State is the unintended consequence of Washington’s wars in the Muslim
world. The Islamic State was created out of the Islamist forces that
Washington assembled against Gaddafi in Libya. These forces were then
sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. As Muslims flocked to ISIS’s banner
and its military prowess grew, ISIS realized that it was a new and
independent force consisting of radicalized Muslims.
Radicalized Muslims are tired of Western domination and control of
Muslim lands. Out of ISIS’s self-awareness, a new state has been
created, redrawing the Middle Eastern boundaries created by the British
and French.
It is curious that Iran and Russia regard the Islamic State as a more
dangerous enemy than Washington and are supporting Washington’s moves
against the Islamic State. As the Islamic State is capable of disrupting
Washington’s policy in the Middle East, Iran and Russia have an
incentive to finance and arm the Islamic State. It is in Washington, not
in the Islamic State, where Sauron resides and is gathering up the
rings in order to control them all.
In their attempts to negotiate with Europeans, Putin and Lavrov
should notice the total unwillingness of the EU to negotiate with its
own members. Right in front of our eyes we see Merkel and Hollande
driving their fellow Greek EU compatriots into the ground.
The EU has told the new Greek government that the EU doesn’t care a
whit about Greece and its people. The Europeans only care that they
don’t get stuck with the cost of the bad loans the German and Dutch
banks made to Greek governments in the past.
As I described in my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism,
one purpose of the “sovereign debt crisis” is to establish the
principle that private lenders are not responsible for their bad
judgment. Instead, the peoples of the country who were not parties to
the loans are responsible. The EU is using the crisis not only to
protect powerful private interests, but also to establish that
over-indebted countries lose control of their fiscal affairs to the EU.
In other words, the EU is using the crisis to centralize authority in
order to destroy country sovereignty.
As Washington and the EU do not respect the sovereignty of Greece,
one of its own, why does the Russian government think that Washington
and the EU respect the sovereignty of Russia or Ukraine? Or of India,
Brazil and other South American countries, or China. Currently
Washington is trying to overthrow the governments of Cuba, Venezuela,
Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina.
Washington respects no one. Thus, talking to Washington is a waste of time. Is this a game Russia wants to play?
