Will EU push Kiev back to Minsk II, or it it EU Duplicity?

August 27th, 2015
NovorosInform – translated for Fort Russ by J. Arnoldski
“A forcing back to Minsk-2 or Duplicity?”
Calling Petro Poroshenko to the carpet in Berlin right on Ukrainian Independence Day showed not only the degree of the actual independence of the country, but the real extent of the independence of Europe. Outwardly, of course, everything looked pretty decent – “Bad boy Pete” was chided for violations of the Minsk agreements and ordered to make peace with Russia. In fact, this isn’t entirely true.
On the one hand, Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel made it clear that the EU will insist on the fulfillment by Ukraine of the Minsk-2 agreements that were reached. The Chancellor of Germany, stressing that the ceasefire in Donbass is not respected, that the different parties constantly claim violations of the ceasefire, and the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the separation line has not been carried out, said it is necessary “to finish, finally, the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the demarcation line”. In turn, French President Francois Hollande, noting the lack of progress on the issue of the ceasefire, said that the countries of the Normandy format should ensure that the residents in the east receive legal representatives and that their interests are not ignored.
In addition, the head of the German government, promising to report to Putin about the results of the talks, stressed that “it is impossible to refuse ties with Moscow, even though meeting with Putin in the quadripartite format didn’t happen.” Literally a few days earlier, French foreign Minister L. Fabius, in an interview with JDD, said: “The Minsk agreements, for which we share responsibility, defined the conditions under which Ukraine could return to correct relations both with Russia and with the European Union. This is our compass.” This position is very constructive, if not for a few “buts”.
Firstly, Europe has not refrained from indicting rhetoric, playing the role of the judge ,and of persistent attempts to qualify the events in Ukraine as a war with Russia.
The above-mentioned L Fabius promised “to remind them both that they cannot do anything else than fulfill that which was promised, otherwise they will be published.” The hypocrisy is obvious, since diplomatic vehicles from EU countries covered the putschists from the “Berkut” charge, and the fiery speeches of European politicians from the rostrum of the Maidan went around the world. And if someone is to be considered a party of the conflict which led to the civil war in Ukraine, it is the Europeans themselves.
Secondly, at the final press conference following the talks, neither Merkel nor Hollande denied the outright lies of Poroshenko that “Ukraine is committed to implementing the commitments in respect to the ceasefire, cooperation with the OSCE, the withdrawal of heavy equipment, and the fulfillment of humanitarian issues”. There was no confusion among European leaders and the gallant “we” in the opus: “We declare clearly that today, unfortunately, the Russian Federation and the militants that it supports represent a common threat to peace and stability in the region”. Presumably, they agree with these words.
But if the lack of refutation of the outright lies during the press-conference can be attributed to the exclusive manners of A. Merkel and F. Hollande and the requirements of diplomatic protocol, then the “amazing” blindness of the leaders of leading countries of the European Union regarding the actions of the Kiev regime suggests that they condone the aggressive plans of Kiev.
In just a few hours before departure to Berlin, at the parade in honor of independence day, Poroshenko quite frankly admitted that just the night before, the largest group of tanks, howitzers, armored vehicles, and artillery in the history of Ukraine was sent to the war zone. Before the end of the year, “the peacemaker” Poroshenko promised this year to give the army 300 armored personnel carriers, 400 BMP, 30 thousand missiles, ammunition, increase defense spending, and to continue the wave of mobilization called “mogilization” [tomb-ization or grave-ization – J. Arnoldski] by the people.
Heavy guns are not only not taken away from the line of contact, but continue to be used for the brutal shelling of Donbass cities. According to the Deputy Commander of the militia of the DPR, Eduard Basurin, in only the last week preceding Poroshenko’s visit in Berlin, Ukrainian punitive forces “released 520 projectiles from MRL’s, 422 artillery shells of a calibre of 152 and 122 millimeters, 116 tank shells, and 581 mortar shells with a caliber 82 of 120 millimeters.” While writing these lines, the author’s sister from Gorlovka called and reported that on the night of August 24-25, immediately after the false assurances Poroshenko, around 20 shells fell where she lives and destroyed several homes, two schools and a kindergarten.
Contrary to the provisions of the Minsk agreements, the transport blockade of Donbass has been strengthened. On August 17, the National Security Council of Ukraine adopted a decision to close several transport corridors to DPR and LPR. The need to ensure security during attacks motivates the Ukrainian side to take this step. But what stops the punitive forces, who have since March banned the delivery of food to the rebellious republics, from stopping the shelling?
The plans of Kiev to effect a large-scale offensive against Donetsk are more and more clearly visible. Plans of the General Staff to destroy the republics were transmitted by representatives of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to the militia of Novorossiya, and on August 24, fighters recorded that the UAF is removing minefields in order to allow the passage of military equipment. Ukrainian politician, V. Volga, reported on his blog on Facebook that hospitals in Mariupol, Severodonetsk, Dnepropetrovsk, and Zaporozhye are preparing to receive a large number of wounded.
However, such blindness of Europeans is not surprising, since on the Ukrainian side in the civil not only mercenaries but also military personnel from the EU countries are involved. According to the newly appointed Ambassador of Ukraine to the USA, V. Chaly, Ukraine receives new weapons “including lethal weapons, and no one can deny this to a sovereign Ukraine. Another thing that is not acceptable is to publicize the list of countries, but it’s more than a dozen states from Europe. We have different levels of military-technical cooperation, and this is developing at the current stage.”
The Austrian journal, Contra Magazine, confirmed this information, and writes that “For a long time supplies of arms from the West have been going to Ukraine. EU governments and the US deny this. Nevertheless, Poroshenko said that Kiev received 500 units of special equipment from abroad.”
Local residents of the DPR and LPR, as well as the militia have reported a sharp increase in the use of unknown weapons of foreign manufacture by Ukrainian punitive forces, the calibers of which far exceed what is permitted by the Minsk Agreements.
Thus, with one hand Europe holds P. Poroshenko back from ripping into battle, and with the other hand rushes him weapons to continue the war against his own citizens. The EU is torn between the desire to secure the safety of its own borders, forever getting rid of the unreliable partner always asking for money, and striving to keep in power the puppet regime falling into financial abyss, which it supported.
Whether A. Merkel and F. Hollande successfully held Poroshenko back from a suicidal offensive will be seen the coming days. In any case, it will not be decided in Kiev, or even in Berlin, but in Washington.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Ukraine and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.