Tag Archives: Macron

European Leaders- Man Who Starts War and Denies Involvement Is Reliable Partner in Ending War

PARIS– French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel see Russian President Vladimir Putin as a legitimate and reliable negotiating partner in resolving the conflict he started in Ukraine at Monday’s Normandy format meeting in Paris. Despite denying any involvement in the war initiated by Kremlin-backed mercenaries, many of whom were Russian citizens, Putin insists on being a party to the negotiations to end a conflict which he also insists his country has nothing to do with.

“I’m confident that Mr. Putin, who still claims his country is not a party to this conflict, is beyond a shadow of a doubt a legitimate, good-faith negotiator who can play an essential role in bringing peace,” a spokesman for Macron said.

“Even though we know he’s actually responsible for starting the war, any student of foreign relations knows that indulging delusional revanchist dictators in their version of events is the first stepping stone toward a lasting peace,” said a spokeswoman from the German Foreign Ministry.

800px-Vladimir_Putin_-_2006

Russian President Vladimir Putin denies any involvement in the Donbas conflict, yet insists on being party to the talks to end them. For some reason legitimate Western leaders and intellectuals accept this as normal. 

The talks were dubbed the “Normandy” format after leaders from Ukraine, France, Germany, and Russia met on the sidelines of the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings during World War II. Some historians have sought to compare and contrast that monumental conflict with the current situation.

“What we see happening in Ukraine’s Donbas is very different from the Second World War,” said Georgetown International Relations Professor Arnold Sickert.

“Hitler began the war by staging a false flag attack on German targets that he blamed on the Polish. Britain and France didn’t buy this pathetic ruse, and thus they declared war on 3 September 1939. But if they had been like today’s European leaders, they might have tacitly acknowledged Hitler’s claims and demanded that both sides of the conflict come to the negotiating table and hammer out a peace deal, with most of the onus being on Poland. It’s only good modern diplomacy.”

When asked about whether Putin should be allowed to be a party to the negotiations while simultaneously denying any involvement in the war, Sickert emphasized that “the only way you stop a war is by endlessly catering to the regime that started in until it hopefully gets bored and leaves whatever country it invaded.”

Still, there are few hopes that this most recent Normandy meeting will present any major steps toward ending the conflict that has killed over 13,000 people since 2014. Just days before the scheduled talks, pro-Russian separatist forces launched a number of attacks on Ukrainian military positions, showing that they have no shortage of arms or ammunition despite claims they are not controlled by Moscow.

A few commentators have suggested that the practice of acquiescing to Putin’s narratives on the conflict and treating him as a reliable negotiator might actually be the cause of the ongoing conflict. Western leaders, highly-educated diplomats, and think tank academics have dismissed such opinions as  “not serious,” however.

Formula for Disaster

Since my Youtube channel is currently dedicated to more entertainment-related topics, I figured I might as well do a little serious writing here for the time being (typically I publish that sort of material at Nihilist.li these days). It just occurred to me that apart from scattered tweets, I never really gave a comprehensive opinion on the so-called “Steinmeier formula” that’s been dominating news in Ukraine lately, which is of course another argument against using Twitter. So in case you were wondering, here is my position on Steinmeier, which is inevitably going to piss off a lot of people because Ukraine. 

 

My opinion is as follows: Steinmeier, both the man Frank-Walter Steinmeier (seriously who hyphenates their first name?!), and his “formula,” suck. Powerfully. That being said, Zelenskyy’s position on the matter isn’t necessarily the cause for panic that some see it as. The question is whether Zelenskyy sticks to his guns about the manner in which it is to be implemented. Zelenskyy says he insists on control over the border and foreign troops out of Ukraine before holding elections, which must be held according to Ukrainian law. This is different from what the “formula” originally states.

 

As presented in 2016, the plan could be extremely problematic because it calls for elections to be held before restoring control of the border to Ukraine. While they must be certified as free and fair by the OSCE, there’s nothing specifying exactly what degree of “free and fair” they must achieve to be considered valid under the formula. The OSCE’s ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) does not simply rate elections in a black and white, pass/fail style basis. This means that Russia’s proxies could potentially rig the elections in such a way that they get their people in key positions in the region but not so much that the OSCE declares them invalid (Russia would also no-doubt send their typical delegation of neo-Nazi and backward Communist “election monitors” who would declare the whole process free and fair). 

 

On the other hand, if Zelenskyy insists on return of the border and removal of troops first, then it is possible that actual free and fair elections could be held on those territories. The catch in this case is that Russia would most likely refuse to abide by the plan because they aren’t going to risk losing their foothold in Ukraine without some kind of guarantee that they’ll have their agents well-entrenched in the political system. So if Zelenskyy doesn’t go back on his promises, Russia is likely to refuse to cooperate and we stay at the long bloody status quo. 

 

Personally speaking, as bad as the status quo is, it is preferable to any scenario which could be presented as capitulation by the Kremlin and its propaganda organs. Apart from the demoralization in Ukraine, Russia would inevitably use such a “victory” to lobby for the removal of all sanctions related to their involvement in eastern Ukraine by severing them from those covering Crimea. This is why I think it’s good that people came out and protested the matter, if only to remind Zelenskyy not to cave to Russian or European demands. It is of course unfortunate that right wing fifth columnist organizations like the National Corps are trying to capitalize on and monopolize this protest movement, but grifters gonna grift, after all. 

 

On the other hand I can’t help but see a lot of the anger being misdirected at Zelenskyy when there are others far worthier of ire. The Poroshenko dead-enders, for example, seem to forget that St. Petro himself had endorsed and tried to push through similar “special status” laws back in 2015. Those moves also provoked major protests and a bomb attack that killed four people. Earlier he’d even voiced willingness for a referendum on federalization, one of Russia’s main demands, back in 2014. Sure, he said he personally was against the idea, and he had to have known the majority of Ukrainians would vote it down, but Ukrainian politics are a minefield where saying the wrong thing or even saying something innocuous with the wrong wording gets called out as ZRADA! (treason), and some of his fans seem to be forgetting these actions, quite conveniently. Furthermore, Poroshenko and his fans seem to forget that they have been pushing the “no alternative to Minsk” line this whole time. This crowd never ceases talking tough about the war and labeling any opponent as being in favor of “capitulations,” but I know from personal experience that when you press them on what their great military solution is they retreat to mumbling about Minsk, “isolating Russia,” and poorly understood military history about Croatia’s Flash and Storm offensives of 1995. It’s all just empty posturing, and Ukrainians see through it. The majority, in fact. 

 

It seems to me that the most anger should be directed at, after the Kremlin of course, Europeans like Frank-Walter Steinmeier. One of the most infuriating things about the behavior of Ukraine’s so-called “friends,” the OSCE, etc. is the constant both-sides tone you hear in their statements and recommendations. Obviously being the victim of military aggression isn’t a license to wantonly engage in any kind of morally reprehensible behavior, but in the case of this war Ukraine has demonstrated great patience and restraint given the circumstances. If there were a will, Ukraine could be fighting this war far more dirtier than it currently is (Yo, Ze, hit me up!). Yet despite this, European states and their leaders, and at times even the US government, still often act as though peace in Ukraine is equally on the shoulders of Kyiv as much as it is on Moscow. Even Emmanuel Macron, who won an election in which he was the only major candidate without an obvious soft-spot for Putin, was recently demonstrating his desire to reintegrate Russia in the West.

 

Zelenskyy himself is something of a mixed bag, but given everything I’ve covered above, it’s hard to imagine him seeing any alternatives. Since 2015 the world as well as Ukraine’s own president had been saying the only way out is Minsk, and Steinmeier is basically a simplified version of key points of that agreement. And bear in mind they were singing this refrain of “no solution but Minsk” even as the very first point on that agreement was flagrantly violated on a daily basis for years, even up to the present. Ukraine’s establishment and its supposed allies all demanded that the corpse called Minsk II be worshipped, insisted there was no substitute, and now people are supposed to get angry that a former comedian is basically acquiescing to that very notion? 

 

If one wants to rage against Zelenskyy over this, by all means do so, but don’t exclude those that came before him and set the rules of the game. Better yet, don’t engage in chest-beating posturing only to seek refuge in “fulfill Minsk!” whenever someone asks about your supposedly non-capitulationist position. At the moment I hope Zelenskyy sticks to his guns, causing the Russians to refuse, and maintaining the status quo, as bad as it may be. However, because I have a bit more imagination than “Minsk II then Operation Storm somehow,” I can see plenty of opportunities for Ukraine to strike back even if they did accept the formula as is and gave Donetsk and Luhansk  “special status.” But whatever happens, perhaps instead of pointing the finger at this or that Ukrainian politician it would be better to attack the bigger problems such as Minsk II and the broken, capitalist international nation-state system that leads Ukraine’s so called “allies” to treat Ukraine equally to Russia when apportioning blame for the war while chomping at the bit to reconcile with Tsar Putin. Ukraine’s hope was never going to come from some president.