By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-the-non-existent-sea-of-azov-crisis/
source: https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20181101/1021618870.html
After the resolution of the European parliament that, contrary to international law and common sense, condemned the actions of Russia in the Sea of Azov, Ukraine cheered up and achieved the bringing of the question concerning elections in the DPR/LPR to the consideration of the UN Security Council.
Russia couldn’t block the introduction of this issue into the agenda both for moral and long-term political reasons.
The fact is that Moscow in 2015 also tried to obtain, and actually did obtain, the approval of the Minsk Agreements via the decision of the UN Security Council. This allowed to put Ukraine on the hook of international legitimacy. Kiev, which desired to jump away from the topic, couldn’t state any more that it doesn’t consider itself to be bound to any agreement with “terrorist-separatists” and that it isn’t obligated to them at all. The decision of the Security Council also enshrined that Russia isn’t a party to the conflict. Kiev after this shouted a lot, caused a fuss, sabotaged the implementation of all without exception points of the Minsk Agreements, but didn’t at all dare to officially withdraw from them.
But every coin has two sides, it is possible to find something bad in any good situation, and in any bad situation – something good. The same thing applies here: cementing its position via the decision of the Security Council, Russia couldn’t, without suffering serious reputation losses, deny the Security Council its right to consider the implementation of the decisions approved by its resolution.
Of course, the Security Council couldn’t adopt an anti-Russian or anti-Donbass resolution in connection with the existence of Russia’s veto. But the 5 member countries of the Security Council (France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Great Britain) made a statement of non-recognition of the elections being prepared in Donbass and urged Russia to cancel them. The statement was supported by Germany, Italy, and Belgium. It is strange that there was no America among the declarants. However, this allows to present the statement as the collective position of the European Union, while Washington receives the opportunity to later express itself in support of its allies, but in the meantime to make one more attempt to carry out behind-closed-doors bargaining with Moscow.
Both parties are formally right. Ukraine and its Euro-American intercessors specify that elections in Donbass, according to the Minsk Agreements, have to take place under Ukrainian laws, but Minsk will be violated if they take place now. The People’s Republics, whose position Russia supports, state that this may of course be true, but Ukraine long ago had to adopt a whole complex of acts and carry out other measures, including disengaging troops and ceasing shelling before the turn of the People’s Republics to observe the Ukrainian electoral laws comes.
Judging by separate passages of the speech of the Russian envoy in the UN Security Council, Moscow suggests to consider these elections as the simple legitimation of the heads of the republics, who, unlike their predecessors, weren’t elected by anybody. The West is proposed to look at these elections as the solution to a purely technical problem. Moscow has a trump card on its side – the fact that the head of the DPR Zakharchenko was killed and charges of organising murder were brought to official Kiev structures.
Europe, however, didn’t want to accept the arguments of Russia, which is demonstrated by the statement of 8 EU states. This, of course, can be the usual diplomatic demarche without consequences — occupying an advantageous position for bargaining in the great global game. But there can also be more serious undertakings that as a result will lead to the realisation of Kiev’s dream of disavowing Minsk, but for reasons that are not at all joyful for Ukraine.
We remember that Germany and France weren’t at all afflicted when Russia froze meetings in the Normandy Format until Ukraine took a more constructive position. They sighed freely, because Kiev bothered them worse than a bitter radish, and sat down in the first row of the parterre to see how Volker will get out of the situation. But they remain guarantors of the Minsk Agreements. It is clear to all that Minsk will never be fulfilled. Kiev doesn’t hide from the West that it is afraid of a domino effect if Donbass is given special status. But Paris and Berlin can’t just say “we changed our mind, Minsk doesn’t work any more”. It is for this same reason that Russia can’t deny the UN Security Council its right to periodically consider the question of implementing the Minsk Agreements. France and Germany themselves insisted on these agreements, they participated in their development, they declared that this is their big victory. The political losses that both countries and their leaders will incur if they change their position will be too great.
France and Germany need to have a pretext to free themselves from the obligation of solving the Ukrainian crisis. If it is impossible to withdraw from the agreements at their own will, and if it is impossible to allow it to be disrupted by a Kiev supported by the West, then it is necessary to shift the blame onto Russia and the People’s Republics.
The West perfectly understands that the refusal under obvious pressure to hold elections in the People’s Republics will cause essential damage to Russia’s international authority. That’s why it acts maximally publicly, up to the level of collective statements following the results of the UN Security Council meeting, closing for Moscow the option of changing its mind and once again “postponing” elections. After the elections have taken place, the West can refuse to recognise Pushilin and Pasechnik as negotiators in connection with the non-recognition of the elections that they were elected in. Also the powers of other delegates signed by them during negotiations can also not be recognised. This is enough to bury the Minsk process under an absolutely plausible excuse.
But if indeed the West does this, then it won’t be done to start a new round of negotiations and reach compromises that are more acceptable for Kiev. If there was the desire to save Ukraine, then it would be enough for Germany to stop the construction of “Nord Stream-2” and not prevent Poland from paralysing the work of “Nord Stream-1”. The geopolitical situation surrounding Kiev would immediately significantly change, and the chances – albeit tiny – of lasting at least 5 years while Russia searches for new markets and delivery routes for its gas would sharply grow for the regime. But Germany initially didn’t plan to opt for such sacrifices, which indeed granted us [Russians – ed] the right to affirm that the destiny of Ukraine, in principle, has been decided, therefore it is better for the Kiev regime to immediately die because long agony only increases the torture.
The West in general, and Europe in particular, needs to jump away from the toxic topic, because it is already clear that Russia will soon raise the question of who will pay for the restoration of Ukraine, like how it already raised such a question concerning Syria. By the time that such a question will be asked by Moscow, it is necessary not to have any formal connections with the Ukrainian crisis. The destruction of the Minsk and Normandy Formats — formally not due to their own fault — allows France and Germany to distance themselves from the problem, while at the same time keeping their finger on the pulse. After all, Poland, Hungary, and Romania won’t be able to avoid border problems connected with their minorities in the West of Ukraine. This means that the EU will anyway be involved in a settlement. But Germany and France will be free from obligations and will be able to dictate to their younger partners in the EU the conditions of support for their position, threatening to leave them alone with their problem in the event of obstinacy.
The Azov crisis should be considered from the same point of view. The West didn’t notice this problem during a year, and then suddenly the European Parliament started to care about it, while even Ukraine recognises that although the economic losses from Russia’s actions in the Sea of Azov and big, Moscow acts in full accordance with international standards – no violations of protocols by Russian customs groups were documented.
There is nothing extraordinary about Russia’s actions. The US examined the vessels going to Cuba not only in the days of the Caribbean Crisis. Israel examined the vessels going to Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, which even caused a diplomatic incident and the cooling of earlier excellent relations with Turkey. It is possible to give a plethora of examples: a warship’s right to examine a trade vessel in the high sea is the ABC of international law.
Nevertheless, the European Parliament started talking about a possible aggravation in the Sea of Azov and began to threaten with sanctions.
Who will aggravate? Russia has no need to do this, Ukraine can’t, and there isn’t anyone else there. Sofa “experts” already started talking about the entrance of the “NATO fleet” in the Sea of Azov. Those who are cleverer speak about its entrance in the Black Sea, understanding that a warship can only pass in the Sea of Azov with the permission of Russia, and a breakthrough – moreover, by a whole “NATO fleet” – equals war. In addition, large ships anyway can’t breakthrough there, but small cutter boats and dinghies can be brought to the Sea of Azov by Ukraine via land routes without any NATO. But this won’t change anything since Russia can sink everything that floats on this sea. This water area is completely exposed to barrelled artillery fire from the coast, not to mention missile systems. If someone wants to launch a war against Russia, then they will find a more convenient place than the Sea of Azov.
NATO ships, for the purpose of flying the flag, entered, enter, and will continue to enter the Black Sea. The Sea Breeze exercises are staged there annually, but, having an unsinkable “aircraft carrier” named Crimea, Moscow reliably dominates in its water area so much so that a hypothetical attack of Russia using the forces of a really large squadron or shock aircraft carrier grouping is possible no closer than from the region of the Aegean Sea. In the Black Sea a fleet hostile to Russia becomes too vulnerable. Because of Crimea it has nowhere to manoeuvre, and it can’t quickly leave in case of danger – a large grouping of ships can’t overcome the Turkish straits overnight.
So all of this is a fairy tale in favour of idle chatter. The non-existent Azov crisis is invented, on the one hand, for the purpose of mobilising Russophobic voters in the EU for the European Parliament elections in May, 2019, and on the other hand — this noise masks the real actions of the West, and allows it to drift away from Ukraine, imitating its comprehensive support.
Otherwise it is difficult to explain why the West didn’t see the danger of the situation being aggravated during a whole year (when it really existed), but saw it precisely now when the problem was solved. The fishermen of “Nord” were exchanged for the Ukrainian poachers lassoed by Russia. It is only left to exchange captains, then vessels, and then the crisis will fizzle out. Especially if Kiev doesn’t forget to return “Mekhanik Pogodin” after “Nord”.
By the way, apparently Kiev started to suspect that something was amiss, because the comments of Ukrainian officials concerning the Azov crisis were wonderfully weighted, especially against the background of the West’s hysterics. The Kiev regime doesn’t even want to denounce the agreement on the status of the Sea of Azov, contrary to its habit of disrupting all agreements with Russia. However, the regime is now concentrated on destroying the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and creating a pocket “local church”. It is too busy for the Sea of Azov.
So here’s the nugget, not Azov, but Minsk.
“That’s why it acts maximally publicly, up to the level of collective statements following the results of the UN Security Council meeting, closing for Moscow the option of changing its mind and once again “postponing” elections. After the elections have taken place, the West can refuse to recognise Pushilin and Pasechnik as negotiators in connection with the non-recognition of the elections that they were elected in. Also the powers of other delegates signed by them during negotiations can also not be recognised. This is enough to bury the Minsk process under an absolutely plausible excuse.”
Thus the Republics are up for grabs however Russia decides. And right now they are grouped for aid and curating (Surkov’s job) like South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Transnistria. So that will be their status, post-Minsk 2.
More insight from Ishchenko:
“But if indeed the West does this, then it won’t be done to start a new round of negotiations and reach compromises that are more acceptable for Kiev.” . . . “But Germany initially didn’t plan to opt for such sacrifices, which indeed granted us [Russians – ed] the right to affirm that the destiny of Ukraine, in principle, has been decided, therefore it is better for the Kiev regime to immediately die because long agony only increases the torture.”
It is a fait accompli. Ukraine will be set adrift. The EU wants no part of the cost to feed, warm and patrol Nazi-populated streets. Leaving such a mess on Russia’s border is sufficient good works to the Russophobes of Brussels. (What the Khazarian Russophobes of the US and Canada do is another thing.)
Rostislav Ishchenko continues:
“The West in general, and Europe in particular, needs to jump away from the toxic topic, because it is already clear that Russia will soon raise the question of who will pay for the restoration of Ukraine, like how it already raised such a question concerning Syria. By the time that such a question will be asked by Moscow, it is necessary not to have any formal connections with the Ukrainian crisis. The destruction of the Minsk and Normandy Formats — formally not due to their own fault — allows France and Germany to distance themselves from the problem, while at the same time keeping their finger on the pulse.”
The oligarchs of Kiev have no say. They will fight it out. The US will back the presidential “winner”. Ukies will be pushed into their own minefields and across gray zones to perish. But the European guarantors will be gone.
The Ukraine Solution is unknown. However, there are articles weekly about various towns and cities that want to return to the Russian world. The poor, hungry and terrorized caught in the geopolitical war know that only Russia can save their lives and homes. When Russia will be allowed to help them is that unknowable thing.
Meanwhile, the volatile religious war is being stoked by Kiev and Constantinople. Anything that prevents a resolution will be tried before the horror ends.
(Thanks to Ollie and Angelina for the translation.)
Why would the West need to care about who will rebuild the Ukraine or, for that matter, Syria? Who cares what Russia says? All the West cares about is power and money. So the West might help rebuild Syria if Assad goes and all Iranian forces leave, plus Damascus accepts perpetual loss of the Golan Heights. The same general idea would apply in the Ukraine.
Europe is horrified by 1 million “refugees”/immigrants each year, the Ukraine can easily triple that number and bring total chaos to neighbouring countries and cause the end of Schengen. Europe helped sow Maidan, now it is scared of what it might reap.
The immigration crisis in Europe is by design. For one thing, it is the Kalergi plan. Furthermore, they can control the borders if they want to. They can also keep Kiev afloat for a small amount of money.
The EU would be scared by a big war in the Ukraine, not another wasted Eastern European country. A big war could actually bring in tens of millions of refugees, and that would be a crisis. For better or for worse, Moscow seems to have no desire to even enter the Donbass, let alone all of the Ukraine.
Pro-Kremlin folks have been talking about how the Ukraine is about to fall “next winter” for a long time. It isn’t going to happen, especially when Russia didn’t make any effort to push her over the edge. Just because Kiev is a lousy government doesn’t change much. Most of the world has lousy governments, and certainly most of the former USSR.
Pro-Kremlin folks need to take the rose-colored glasses off and realize that this is as good as it gets. The Donbass, with all the cruelty of regular artillery fire and an inability for foreign trade or getting passports, is stuck. To get better requires the approval of the Trump administration or the US State Department. Volker and Bolton are all ears.
— because the bill for damages will have easily twelve digits, after the first.
And because it looks increasingly like the ‘reconstruction’ effort will not be allowed to include the help of any ‘NGO’ fifth columnist groups, let alone any military bases.
L445, This is where I so greatly appreciate when you weigh in on your observations and opinion.
Thanks
I thank you for the kind remark, McDuff.
The crisis is a rabid dog next door, not the Sea of Azov. If Russia finds a solution, it will be through a new elite or counter-elite, not through reviving the Party of Regions oligarchs and paying them. The people have no power, as was seen in the so-called Russian Spring. Where Russia intervened, things went great. Where she used words about protecting women and children, massacres occurred. And the US only respects force and money, and the same is true for Ukrainian oligarchs.
In any case, the Ukraine is 100 times more of a problem for Moscow than Berlin or Washington. What is not to like about it from a Western point of view?
Five years from now, the Ukraine may well be a big Georgia with a Saakashvili in charge and Nazi brigades still doing their thing. And plenty of supporters of the Russian World still in prison. There might be fewer articles about the impending collapse of Kiev, though.
You might like to consider what and who constitutes a ‘failed state’. failed states do not stop, they go on. Moldova, Somalia, being examples. Ukraine a state which relies of IMF handouts – against the constitution of the IMF – incidentally. Has all the makings of a failed state which nonetheless goes on, without going anywhere in particular.
Turning to the economic and social ramifications of the 2014 coup it will be observed that the full weight of the neo-liberal economic policies has been foisted on the Ukraine, courtesy of the IMF. This was already apparent in the early 80s but the trend accelerated after the coup. The standard IMF/WTO Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) a package of ‘reforms’ and ‘fiscal consolidation’ (I just love these IMF euphemisms) consisted of cuts in government expenditure, accompanied by extensive liberalisation of product and labour markets, together with abandonment of exchange rate control and capital flows. These policies along with political instability have had, among other things, a disastrous effect on population growth. Ukraine’s population was 52 million in 1992 and the decline started in that year. By 2016, this figure had fallen to 42.5 million, its 1960 figure, and was accelerated since the coup of 2014. The current Fertility rate stands at 1.3. Any figure less than 2 will mean a shrinking population. The death rate has also increased, along with mass migration with some 2 million Ukrainian guest workers decamping to Russia and Poland in search of work. This is a slow-motion demographic calamity.
Although a certain Mr Anatoly Karlin writing in the Unz Review has a rather different, rose-tinted view of the Ukrainian economic recovery, the bald fact is that none of the indicators carry any hope of a long-term revival. The fact of economic disaster as measured in various statistics is, however, unmistakable: Debt-to-GDP ratio has climbed steadily to 85%, per capita income languishes at US$2,200 (compared to El Salvador US$4,200). Unemployment stands at (officially at least) 10%, and in terms of external trade the current account has not been positive since 2003, those glorious days which gave rise to the ‘Orange revolution’. Finally, there are the rating agencies who provide the following ratings for Ukraine’s sovereign bonds– S&P, B-minus, Moody’s, Caa, and Fitch, B-minus, which means below investment grade if we are being polite, junk bonds if we are not. (3) The currency – the hryvnia, exchange rate against the British pound is £1 = 35, hyrvinia. When I was last in Ukraine (2012) you would get only between 8 and 12 hyrvnia for a £. Welcome to the Sunflower Republic.
All of this in spite of the IMF’s loan and its unilateral debt forgiveness of the Ukraine’s outstanding debt to Russia which had become due. In doing this the IMF infringed its own constitution. As Michael Hudson explains:
‘’The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (i) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the loan (the “No More Argentinas” rule, adopted after the IMF’s disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (ii) Not to lend to a country that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (iii) Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan. Finally (iv), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF’s austerity “conditionalities.” Ukraine did agree to override democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.’’
This was obviously a political decision made by an organization which is supposed to be politically neutral.
The monumental stupidity of a nation which subordinates economic common-sense to anti-Russian gestures and rhetorical bluster was visibly illustrated in the trade deal involving the import of European gas and South African coal to the exclusion of Russian gas and Donbass coal.
‘’In both cases, however, Ukraine was simply buying the same goods from Donbass and Russia but resold at a significantly higher price by South Africa and Europe simply acting as middle-men at a huge cost to the Ukrainian tax-payer.’’ (4)
All of which illustrates the intractable political and economic debacle unfolding and goes some way to explaining the present impasse of a backward movement into under-development. Ukraine is becoming deindustrialised – not unlike the fate of many post-soviet nations – its trade with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan-Kyrgyzstan severed. This was formerly a very large and important export-import market, imports consisting of energy commodities coming from the EEU, and exports to the EEU consisting of Ukraine’s advanced industries in the east situated in Donetsk, Lugansk, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zhaporizyha and Nikolayev oblasts. These exports consisting of machinery, equipment, aircraft, vessels, nuclear reactors and boilers, railway, tramway rolling stocks and inorganic chemicals.
‘’ … The machinery industry alone had an annual revenue of nearly US$20 billion and is responsible for employing 600,000 people in the southern and eastern oblasts. Not only would trade disruptions in the EEU devastate the southern and eastern economies, they would also lead to the deindustrialisation of the Ukraine, and this process has already started.’’ (5)
Apart from Moldova, Ukraine is now the poorest country in Europe. And once the process of deindustrialisation starts, charting a way back will be very difficult, even with the best will in the world and with the necessary manpower, skills and expertise to carry out such a transformation. Moreover, this imbecility is compounded by military expenditures including the costs of an army of 250,000 that is doing nothing other than getting drunk and occasionally shelling towns and villages – against International Law it might be added – on the front line in the Donbass. Ukraine’s defence expenditure stands at 5% of GDP compared with NATO’s 2% and most NATO countries don’t even reach 2%. For the pen-ultimate poorest country in Europe this is frankly bizarre. If you wanted to run a country and its economy into the ground this is the way to do it.
Looks like a failed state to me.
So it will become a failed state. And my argument is that Russia will be hurt, not the US, and not really Germany. The EU will only take in the young or educated, and they will be able to work in the EU.
The destruction of many countries, such as Bulgaria or Greece, is a positive, not a negative. Why would the Ukraine be any different?
Presumably the 3b owed to Russia is still owed…..?
Presumably the sanctions recently announced against Ukraine-including Tymoshenko-won’t have much of an effect?
The recent announcement of closing airspace for missile launch exercises in Kherson region-?- Russia was not happy about….considering their timing alongside the Norwegian exercises…….
Details
“Kiev carried out dangerous exercises with real missile fire on the border with Russia near the Crimea, an event which was announced the Ukrainian Air Force.
“In the Kherson region of Ukraine, at the Yagorlyk Polygon, firing exercises were carried out on S-300PS, S-300PT, Buk-M1 anti-aircraft missile systems, S-125M1 anti-aircraft missile flight tests and Osa-AKM2 modernized system,” the statement said on Facebook.
On November 1, it was reported that anti-aircraft exercises were beginning in the Kherson region to test offshore missiles. The airspace over the Black Sea in this area will be closed from November 1 to 4 because of these missile launch tests.
Kiev ensures that exercises with real fire proceed in accordance with all rules of international law. To carry out the launching, a danger zone was drawn in the northwestern part of the Black Sea, which completely excludes any threats.
Russian politicians and military experts are confident that exercises in the territory of the neighboring state pose no threat, since “in technical-military terms Ukraine is not a rival comparable with Russia.”
Ukraine has performed similar tests previously. On December 1 and 2 2017, the country launched missiles into Russia’s sovereign airspace over the Black Sea near the Crimea. Kiev declared the airspace over these territories “dangerous for flights.” Subsequently, Ukraine established a new “dangerous” zone on the neutral waters and partly the Russian waters, to the southwest and southeast of the Crimea, without explanation of reasons.
Russia pointed out that Kiev did not coordinate such actions with the Russian authorities, demanding immediate revocation of the Ukrainian side’s warnings. However, the Russian entity has stated that flights over the Crimea are not in danger and that airspace over the peninsula will not be closed.
Expert Semyon Uralov commented on the Ukrainian decision to close the airspace.
“The legal issue in relations between Ukraine and Russia is no longer on the agenda, because the legal issue is replaced by the question of rationality and external guarantees. But the US and Europe close their eyes on Ukrainian actions, so speaking of right in principle does not make sense,” said Semyon Uralov.”
If Russia could, then they would intervene in Dombas – Lughansk since 2014. Now is to late, and 10 times more difficult. No matter what Russian elite says, they cannot solve the problems with Ukraine by using force. Ukraine is designated to be a great Jewish state, and no one can change anything. They did same thing with Germany and no one can change anything. In the hands of Jewish are the most important Political and Economical keys of UK, France, Germany, Poland, Now in Ukraine and Partially in Russia after 26 December 1993.
Ukraine, a failed state, desperate elites, dry rot society:soon a land to be sold to judeo-germans.
https://southfront.org/kiev-attempting-to-provoke-further-tensions-with-moscow-seizing-another-ship-in-azov-sea-port/
So there is a ” crisis”..?.it is claimed this as a result of the newly imposed Russian sanctions….ship registered in Liberia and is claimed that because it perhaps delivered steel from Lughansk it is funding terrorists so is seized by Ukraine in Mariupol.
No Minsk meetings planned it looks like before xmas?
The Peoples Republic of China learned a lot from the Russians in their dealings with the Ukraine and Crimea. They watched the American color revolution playbook with all its cast of characters including the media, politicians, military, and allies behaving like members of a hive. Despite the Americans, best-laid plans they failed! The amount of experience and knowledge gained by the Chinese is priceless!
How will the PRC apply what they have learned in dealing with the Americans in Taiwan? Well, only time will tell!
China is playing cards patiently and cleverly.
They learned a lot from Cruel British Colonialism, US neocolonialism (Vietnam War), and Russia counter revolution (26 December 1993).
They learned a lot from “The 8 Worst Mistakes Made by the Axis During World War II “, and from Hitler’s
blunders.
Germany’s Invasion of Russia, and Hitler’s Declaration of War on the United States.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-8-worst-mistakes-made-by-the-axis-during-world-war-1514922468
If Germans would postpone their blunders for at least one year then they would have in great numbers:
Arado Ar 234
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234
Messerschmitt Me 262
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262
Horten Ho 229
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
and much more …