The ceasefire agreement is the subject of intense discussion and has clearly left some people unhappy. I will make a few quick observations here before returning more fully to this subject later when I am under less time pressure than I am at present: 1. The ceasefire has been forced on Poroshenko and the junta as a result of (1) the disastrous military situation the junta now finds itself in and (2) the refusal of the NATO/EU powers to intervene militarily on his behalf to redress the balance. The last was again clearly reiterated by Obama at the NATO summit yesterday when he publicly refused even to supply the junta with weapons (NB: we should not take that seriously – weapons have already been supplied on a significant scale but clearly even the outward appearance of involvement through token public weapons transfers is being ruled out). Incidentally Obama’s talk about the importance of Article 5 of the NATO Charter was intended to underline this point. Obama brought up Article 5 not to “reassure the Baltic States” – which are not being threatened and do not therefore need this reassurance- but to underline to Kiev the point that as the Ukraine is not part of NATO it is not entitled to military help from NATO.
Tag: Ukraine
The armistice reached by contact group on September 5 in Minsk was the first peace initiative reached in Ukraine to be accepted by all parties. It’s a very positive move but there is a slim…
Within hours of the ceasefire taking effect in eastern Ukraine, Kiev’s forces were accused of breaching the truce with rocket attacks on civilian areas. The Western-backed Kiev junta, in turn, blamed pro-independence militia of breaking…
To study the effects of political propaganda in what used to be called the ‘free world’ there could hardly be a better time than now. We are living through an in stance of insidious…
Bring Back Adolf: Needed, A New Furor About the Führer New York: The ISIS gang makes great enemies. They dress in black, wear Halloween masks, wave flags, act viciously, and cut off the…
It was the prospect of Ukraine being drawn into the western military alliance that triggered conflict in the first place ‘Western powers are resisting the negotiated settlement that is the only way out in Ukraine…
Obama Begs for More War “In the implementing of their policies, our western partners– the United States first and foremost – prefer to be guided not by international law, but by force. They believe in…
Part I The NATO September 4-5 summit in Wales attended by heads of government, another 180 VIPs, and 4,000 delegates and officials leaders and senior ministers from around 60 other countries is over as the…
Only hours after Russian President Vladmir Putin managed to secure a fragile ceasefire between the Western-backed fascist regime in Kiev and the Russian-backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, NATO has rewarded Russia’s efforts by shipping NATO…
Encircling Russia and Arming Ukraine Are What’s Provoking the Bear Jack Matlock, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, says that the U.S. and NATO are to blame for the Ukraine crisis: The fact is they are going to intervene until they are certain that there is no prospect of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. And all of the threats by NATO and so on to sort of increase defenses elsewhere is simply provocative to the Russians. Now, I’m not saying that’s right, but I am saying that’s the way Russia is going to react. And frankly, this is all predictable. And those of us who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War almost unanimously said in the 1990s, “Do not expand NATO eastward. Find a different way to protect eastern Europe, a way that includes Russia. Otherwise, eventually there’s going to be a confrontation, because there is a red line, as far as any Russian government is concerned, when it comes to Ukraine and Georgia and other former republics of the Soviet Union.”