Ukraine Watch...

[raspberry-blower]

Is that proposed Russian base on the Turkish side of Cyprus?

No. It's proposed to be in Paphos which is under Greek control

Also this from The Saker

[biffvernon]

Why does the UK have an airbase in Cyprus? Is it to protect Norfolk?

[kenneal - lagger]

At the moment it is in case the Greek and Turkish Cypriots kick off again and anyway the troops like going there for the sunny weather; good for morale and all that! Historically it's because Cyprus was part of the Empire.

[kenneal - lagger]

By offering the Russians a base on Cyprus they are just applying pressure on the US who would do anything to keep the Russians bottled up in the Black Sea. We'll see how much that is worth in cash terms in the very near future.

[another_exlurker]

Is that proposed Russian base on the Turkish side of Cyprus?

No. It's proposed to be in Paphos which is under Greek control

Also this from The Saker

Cheers for the links. It's nice to get a situation put into context like that.

[emordnilap]

Ukrainian Healthcare and the Inept Reforms of New Ukrainian Westernizers

Oligarchs cannot be touched because they belong to the circle of the chosen one per cent of the richest. Capital is sacred for neoliberal gurus. Enter private property! What socialism? Let’s privatize what was collective, destroy public parks and green spaces, cut the state financing of culture, reduce the number of free university programs, reduce the financing of science – who needs all of that? Let ordinary people pay the price of the painful road to the bright European future.

[raspberry-blower]

Is that proposed Russian base on the Turkish side of Cyprus?

No. It's proposed to be in Paphos which is under Greek control

Also this from The Saker

Cheers for the links. It's nice to get a situation put into context like that.

Thanks for that, a_ex

You may be aware that, as a direct result of the Minsk Accord - details here a ceasefire is due to come into effect on 15th February.
Already there is widespread scepticism that this will hold.
First up here's Paul Craig Roberts: The Minsk Peace Deal: Farce or Sellout?

The terms of the agreement depend on actions of the Ukrainian parliament and prime minister, neither of which are under Poroshenko’s control, and Poroshenko himself is a figurehead under Washington’s control. Moreover, the Ukrainian military does not control the Nazi militias. As Washington and the right-wing elements in Ukraine want conflict with Russia, peace cannot be forthcoming.

The agreement is nothing but a list of expectations that have no chance of occurring.

Margaret Kimberley on the Orwellian approach NATO has taken in respect to this conflict: War is Peace in Ukraine

From the beginning, the so-called separatists in the eastern Donbass region of Ukraine proved themselves superior to Ukraine’s army. Ukraine’s willingness to sign the Minsk peace accords in September 2014 were proof that they were losing militarily. The situation has gone from bad to worse for government forces and the increased desperation shown by western leaders proves that point.

First the American government signaled a willingness to provide arms and advisers to the Ukrainians. Less savvy Republicans in congress are publicly calling for military aid while the Obama administration is a bit more circumspect. The White House has to contend with the wishes of allies like German chancellor Angela Merkel, who has publicly stated her opposition to throwing gasoline on the fire.

She and French President Francois Hollande were forced to hold hastily arranged meetings with Poroshenko and Russian president Vladimir Putin. That turn of events would not have occurred if the Ukrainians were winning instead of losing.

Finian Cunningham on why Poroshenko appeared keen to come to an agreement: Ceasefire May Spare Poroshenko From Knives Out in Kiev

But perhaps the biggest relief will be felt by Poroshenko. His attendance at Minsk was notable for appearing to have an added gear of zeal to clinch a deal. That zeal may be not so much out of humanitarian concerns for his countrymen, as out of personal reasons for his own political survival.

Poroshenko’s belated keenness for some good political news is understandable – given numerous reports that the knives are out among disgruntled paramilitary leaders that shore up the Kiev regime. They feel that the oligarch-turned-president and his army General Staff have been waging a disastrous campaign in the east.

Another constituency of seething discontent that needs to be placated is the wider Ukrainian population who are disgusted by the seemingly endless war and cronyism among the new Kiev rulers

Croyism is rife in fascist junta Ukraine - it's had deadly consequences for the Ukrainian military

One of the wealthiest individuals in Ukraine, along with Poroshenko, Kolomoisky is reckoned to have accumulated even more wealth over the past year’s turmoil by using his newfound paramilitary power to illegally expropriate businesses from rivals. In one tawdry episode, the Dnipr governor reportedly made a financial killing by selling $3.5 million-worth of fake body armour to the Kiev ministry of defence. The supposedly bullet-proof vests turned out to be useless.

Unknown numbers of young volunteers and conscripts have doubtless lost their lives during firefights wearing the dud body armour sold by Kolomoisky.

Echoes of Iraq and the dud bomb detecting gear

Back to the accord: Moon of Alabama is similarly unimpressed: Minsk 2.0 is Just The Pause button

Then, fromVineyard of the Saker:
Alexander Mercouris: The Minsk "Agreement"

In reality everybody knows that the Russians' preferred option is federalisation and the Europeans are now edging towards that solution. Whether it is a viable solution is another matter.

Once this key point is understood everything else starts to fall into place.

then The Saker himself: Minsk 2: The Useless Accord Which Everyone wanted

So so far, let's sum this up. M2A was:

1) signed by a person with no authority
2) on behalf of a junta with no powers
3) it does not say a word about the main reason for the meeting in Minsk
4) it contains clearly impossible sections

How is that for a brilliant text?

The most important part of propaganda is what is omitted. The Saker points out what is omitted in the Minsk Accord:

The fact is that what is the most interesting about M2A is not what it says, but what it does NOT say:

1) not a word about Debaltsevo
2) not a word about the junta actually sitting down to negotiate with the Novorussian authorities
3) not a word about the future status of the Ukraine
4) not a word about the Ukrainian economy (which is still in free fall)
5) not a word about any peacekeepers (which are indispensible to make any ceasefire stick)
6) not even a word about the fact that the Novorussians are not "terrorist" but people seeking national independence. Poroshenko has still not spoken to them directly.

It is possible that these issues were, in fact, discussed, but that this will not be revealed to the general public. There might be secret clauses to M2A. However, it is at least as likely that these issues were discussed and that no agreement whatsoever was found, hence they were set aside.

Update: from a Novorussian source admittedly, are stating that the Ukrainian forces launched an attack on the cauldron. It failed These were crack troops of the Ukrainian military. It is conceivable that the Ukrainian military could disintegrate completely which would leave a major political vacuum.

Edit for another update: from the same source: 17 volunteer battalions refuse to obey Kiev
If these reports are correct, then it looks like there is a high probability that another coup is brewing with dud bulletproof vest provider Kolomisky as the beneficiary.
How accurate this report is I'm not certain.

[kenneal - lagger]

One of the dangers here is that Ukraine is only one of many countries that have significant Russian populations shipped in during Stalin's time to keep those countries within the Russian sphere of influence. If Putin wins in the Ukraine you can bet that there will be a cascade of violence across Eastern Europe as minority Russian populations try to revert to Russian rule.

[raspberry-blower]

One of the dangers here is that Ukraine is only one of many countries that have significant Russian populations shipped in during Stalin's time to keep those countries within the Russian sphere of influence. If Putin wins in the Ukraine you can bet that there will be a cascade of violence across Eastern Europe as minority Russian populations try to revert to Russian rule.

No. The reason why the violence started in the first place was that the Ukrainian fascist junta declared the Russian speaking population of East Ukraine as "Unter menschen" and have been carrying out a genocidal policy towards them. The native populations of Donetsk and Lugansk organised defence militias as a purely defensive measure. They lack heavy weaponry, or, indeed, sufficient well trained manpower to be anything but a defensive outfit.

Russia does not want to have violence raging on its borders - it rightly sees NATO interfering where it should not be. Instead, Putin, knows that violence will not solve anything. By acting the statesman on the world stage, he is being far more effective than naked military aggression will ever be

[kenneal - lagger]

You are very kind to Putin!!

[oobers]

It still seems to me that the dominant narrative 'Russian aggression' still holds out against the alternative narrative 'NATO/Kiev provocation' (despite a few more voices joining the latter) because while the Russian aggression lot can claim Russia are arming the rebels and not have to present much evidence in order for the world to just believe it's true, proponents of the alternative narrative are not providing evidence to the contrary, ie proof that arms are being sourced from within Ukraine, as I think Orlov has suggested, or from elsewhere. Until such evidence is provided, I think the blame for this conflict will rest with Russia. Everytime I read the line "the West accuses Russia of arming the rebels, which Russia continues to deny", I think "why doesn't someone just ask the rebels where they are getting their weapons from then check it out?" or is that just militarily naive of me?

[Little John]

You are very kind to Putin!!

He is simply stating the facts as they appear on the ground and drawing, from that, reasonable inferences about Putin. What legitimate evidence can you point to that provides a counterpoint?

[raspberry-blower]

You are very kind to Putin!!

Respectful is the word there, Ken.

At least Putin adheres to that quaint thing called INTERNATIONAL LAW

The same cannot be applied to UK/US/NATO over Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine..

[raspberry-blower]

Chris Martenson's take on the Ukraine crisis and the fracturing of European/US relations

In short, the crisis in Ukraine was not the result of Russia's actions, but the West's. Had the prior President, Yanukovych, not been overthrown, it's highly unlikely that Ukraine would be embroiled in a nasty civil war. Relations between Russia and the West would be in far better repair.

Russia, quite predictably and understandably, became alarmed at the rise of fascism and Nazi-sympathetic powers on its border. Remember the repeated statements by Kiev officials recommending extermination of the Russian speakers who make up the majority living in Eastern Ukraine. Were a parallel situation happening in Canada, for example, I would fully expect the US to be similarly and seriously interested and involved in the outcome.

The only people seemingly surprised by this predictable Russian reaction towards protecting its people and border interests are the neocons at the US State Department who instigated the conflict in the first place. In my experience, these are dangerous people principally because they seem to lack perspective and humility.

The US' Suicidal Strategy on Ukraine

[raspberry-blower]

Ceasefire is supposed to be in effect although there reports of firefights in the Debaltsevo cauldron. Well this is no surprise as this area was never included in the Minsk accord in the first place..

Meanwhile, a couple of interesting articles on the current situation: Daniel McAdams asks an important question: What About the Foreign Troops in Ukraine?

But the statement is unequivocal: All foreign troops must leave Ukraine.

What about US troops, including CIA and Special Forces, that are said to be assisting the US-backed government in Kiev? Would Kiev not have the same obligation to expel these foreign troops? And, most importantly, what of the 600 US paratroopers that are to be sent by President Obama to train the Ukrainian military starting next month?

Would it not be a violation of "Minsk II" ceasefire agreement for the US to go through with sending 600 troops into Ukraine?

Also, Michael Hudson on the extraordinary terms of the IMF loan given to the Ukraine: Has the IMF annexed Ukraine?