Jump to content

Ukraine 15 - Minsk II and other disappointing sequels


Horza

Recommended Posts

Mark Galeotti not terribly optimistic:





Getting Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko and Putin together pretty much ensured that the summit had to lead to something. Had Putin simply dug in his heels and rejected every overture, then he would have been demonstrably the villain of the peace. More to the point, he would have personally snubbed Merkel and Hollande, and political credibility and amour proper would have forced them to push for a tougher line in Europe. As is, this ensured that Russia will not be on the agenda for the 12 February summit of EU leaders.



Now, though, they are at least for a few days committed to seeing this ceasefire agreement through, at least until—like the last one, let’s not forget—it is demonstrably a hollow sham.



It also puts Poroshenko into a bind. He cannot afford to alienate Europe, nor can he appear not to be able to control his own security forces, so he needs to demonstrate adherence to the terms of the ceasefire, at least at first. That includes the withdrawal of artillery no more than two days after the start of the ceasefire, as well as combat units from the front line. If the government forces do this but the rebels do not, then this opens up the scope for a one-off coup de main by the latter (Debaltseve? The Avdiivka coke plant? Mariupol?).


The terms of the ceasefire include nuts and bolts issues that are welcome and may actually be achievable, such as prisoner exchanges. They also include big picture issues that neither Poroshenko nor Putin technically ought to be able to promise.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Galeotti not terribly optimistic:

I think that he is correct in stating that it will be difficult for Putin and Poroshenko to fulfill any promises made. I don't think Putin has the control over the separatists that many assume and I wonder how much control Poroshenko has over the fighters on the ground and the hardliners in government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article in Der Spiegel on Merkel and her efforts with regards to Ukraine. If the reporting is accurate then there has been a real effort in Minsk to hammer out a deal, which all sides seem to genuinely want.



Link.



Also, Putin seems more popular than ever at home. That most be depressing to Western leaders. Link.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strategic town of Debaltseve all but cut off, Zakharchenko says ceasefire doesn't apply to it.

This is crazy. I don't see how this doesn't come off as a rebel victory unless the Ukrainians try to break through. But according to the rebels they would consider that a breach of the ceasefire and the fighting would have no hope of stopping then. What do the Ukrainians trapped in Debaltseve do at this point I wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess war is fluid. But I would think that if you send that many soldiers to a strategic area, you'd make sure they had sufficient ammo and supplies. Not infinite, but sufficient. And also a plan to resupply or evacuate.

However, I'm not sure if the Ukrainian military command is competent or not. Also, Poroshenko insists that they have access to the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Spiegel article the Ukraine army is demoralized and under equipped. If true they might not hold out that long without re-supply.

Sucks. They're really in a bad spot. I'm definitely not buying that they're being beaten by a rag tag rebel group. There are definitely professional Russian soldiers involved.

Also, I read that Canada will be sharing satellite images with Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not certain but I think quite a few of the rebels are former members of the Berkut anti-riot forces that were dismissed after the overthrow of Yankuvich. Some are also Ukraine militry from the East, which was how the separatists ended up with as much hardware as they did originally. Couple that with Russian "volunteer" forces and you have a fairly decent fighting force. Plus they are much better equipped.



My government is giving aid the best they can. No doubt PM Harper would love to be able to do more.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree with much of Horza's post in the last thread. This disaster in Ukraine can't be solved militarily, at least not if well-being of Ukraine and its people is taken into account. Which I fear it isn't. The US and much of the West see Ukraine primarily as a way to fuck over Russians and their ambitions, and continue the containment policy. Russian elites see Ukraine as integral part of their sphere of influence and a buffer zone. Neither side is all that concerned about the people. If Ukraine becomes a giant flattened parking lot, so be it if the other side loses the advantage. The very definition of pissing contest.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US and the West sees the whole Ukrainian situation as Russia stomping on a neighbour and them wanting, to varying degrees, to contain and/or stop that because it encourages bad behaviour.



I'd say the West is "concerned about the people" in that they'd pour in humanitarian and stabilization efforts if Russia just stopped dicking around.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess war is fluid. But I would think that if you send that many soldiers to a strategic area, you'd make sure they had sufficient ammo and supplies. Not infinite, but sufficient. And also a plan to resupply or evacuate.

However, I'm not sure if the Ukrainian military command is competent or not. Also, Poroshenko insists that they have access to the city.

Just yesterday I came across a Facebook post from a Ukrainian soldier begging for donations of gloves. Take it from me, they do not have sufficient ammo supplies. The only reason they have ammo (or body armour or life saving medication or, apparently, gloves) at all is because Ukrainian civil society scrapes up the money to buy it for them. The state gives them almost nothing.

Ukrainian army, before and after volunteers find donations.

Edit: Here's a useful explanation of the biggest volunteer groups supporting the Ukrainian army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is precisely the problem. And as Russia continues its expansion policy, the need of buffer zones and "spheres of influence" gets, well, you know.

Chicken and egg and all that. While there's merit to what you say, there's a school of thought that describes things a bit differently. I've already linked to it, but there's no harm in doing it again.

As you perhaps know, George Kennan (google him!) is one of the most prominent US foreign affairs experts of the 20th century. The guy basically shaped post-WWII US policy in a major way. He was an enormously influential thinker and one of the foremost experts on Russia and Soviet Union. And he said this after NATO expanded eastward in the 90s, *before* Russia returned to more expansionist policies (article from 1998): http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html

It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.

(...)

Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S.

And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders.

Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.

My point? The situation is a little bit more complicated than "evil Putin munching on his neighbors". If we are to build a more harmonious world order, it would be prudent to learn from the mistakes of the past. And before someone gets smart ideas Godwin would be proud of, no, I don't mean Munich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as stated before, Russia is not in a war against the imaginary "west", nato or the us, it is attacking unaligned neighboring countries.

Sure. After something very close to the West-supported coup happened there, several hours after signing a power-sharing agreement that was supposed to lead to early elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...