PANDESAL forum moderator Wilson Lee Flores texts me: “Gud pm. Hi, China’s top journalist will be interviewing you this Thursday noon to noon at the Kamuning Bakery Café. Topics on the Ukraine crisis and its impact on the Asia…” The subject was dear to my heart, as evidenced by my two columns from last week: “Pushed against the wall, did Putin have any other choice? So while I limited my attendance at the regular event, being picky about what to discuss, I thought Wilson’s invitation was worth attending.

Turns out the main course of the day was a breakdown of election campaign pleas from some leftists I wouldn’t touch with a 10ft pole again – the Gabriela party slate, for example, having been exposed by the Group of national work to end Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac) Vice President Hermogenes Esperon Jr. as a legal front organization of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army funded from abroad and therefore a no-no for that the Electoral Commission (Comelec) was accredited as a candidate but, for some rather dubious reason, had nevertheless been qualified for the election. Thus, the accreditation of Gabriela on the party list can only explain what people generally perceive as great corruption within Comelec. For this reason, I have this personal crusade underway to abolish Comelec, since I do so, no good elected official can come out of an electoral process that is bad.

Anyway, I did not come to the forum for this agenda, but to share the discussion on the Ukrainian crisis with Chinese journalists and members of a newly formed think tank, Philippine Asian Century Strategic Studies Inc. (Phil-Acssi), Herman Tiu Laurel, Anna Malindog-Uy and Ado Paglinawan.

Much of what reaches the country about the war in Ukraine comes from the Western media and therefore must advance the concerns of Western powers. There is nothing wrong with that. Charity begins at home, as they say. What’s wrong is when we take the hook, line and sinker of Western media, so to speak. In this case, we behave as one with the West, which we are not.

As I pointed out in my last two columns, the war in Ukraine is not a war between Russia and Ukraine, but between Russia and the United States and the tandem of NATO, with the Ukraine only as a battlefield. It is the encirclement of the United States and NATO over the past two decades that has troubled Russia and Ukraine’s application for NATO membership must strike Russia as the only remaining move to its ultimate conquest by Western powers. What was there to do for Russia but strike or perish?

As various interviews show, Russian President Vladimir Putin did his best to avoid a confrontation with the United States and NATO. As early as 2020, he indeed offered to apply to join the alliance, but the offer was rejected. So from that moment he said, “If you can’t accept our covenant, don’t make enemies of us. The problem is that the United States and NATO surrounded Russia, gaining the alliance of neighboring countries, Romania, Poland, the Baltic States, until Ukraine offered to complete the maneuver of the Western pincers by asking for NATO membership. In addition to this maneuver, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty (INFT), which would allow it to deploy nuclear weapons anywhere in NATO countries; if Ukraine turns to NATO, the United States could position nuclear missiles capable of hitting Russia in 7-10 minutes, and in the case of hypersonic missiles, 5.

“We have made it very clear that NATO’s further eastward expansion is unacceptable,” Putin said in an interview. So, realizing that Ukraine’s membership would allow NATO to complete this expansion, what can Putin do but hit Ukraine first? This is a basic move in warfare.

Most analysts overlook this attitude of Putin as a necessary given in the Ukrainian crisis. All they see is a war waged by a powerful country against a weak country. They gobble up Western media histrionism by portraying Ukrainian civilians pitting bare physical guts against Russian armed troops and armored vehicles. First of all, where is the Ukrainian army in this regard? Why does he allow Ukrainian civilians to bear the brunt of the battles for them? And why does Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy tolerate this act which smacks more of cinema than science of war. You are attacked by columns upon columns of Russian troops, why send civilians to fight them? Western media proliferates with, say, motherhood under attack. It’s part of the story. The other part, mostly untold, is that Ukrainian troops, fighting the attacking Russian forces, take up firing positions in the hospital. So what do you expect Russian soldiers to do, not retaliate even if they get shot? It’s the war. The first act of a country’s military is to ensure the safety of its civilians. Judging by Western media accounts, in Ukraine the first act of the army seems to be hiding behind civilians. And when civilians are affected, do you mourn war crimes?

President Putin had posed the question very clearly: “I am addressing the Ukrainian military. Do not let the neo-Nazis, these banderites (Ukrainian nationalists) use your children, your wives and your old people as human shields. It will then be easier for us to reconcile with you than with a band of drug addicts and neo-Nazis who have settled in Kiev (Kyiv) and have taken the entire Ukrainian people hostage.

One of the facts of the Ukrainian crisis is President Putin’s passionate determination to bring this war to, in his words, a “logical end”. Here is a man born and raised during the rise and fall of the once mighty Russian Empire. Now that he finds himself at the helm of this reborn empire and once again entrenched in a dominant position in the world order, he is not ready to once again give up his newfound glory. If Ukraine must be recaptured to safeguard that empire’s protection against the insatiable Western lust for world domination, then let war settle the matter.

How could Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky live up to this magnificent Putin obsession? The best he seems able to do is hole up in his dungeon and endlessly complain about NATO’s inaction in the face of his desperate call for the imposition of a no-fly zone over of Ukraine to prevent Russian bombardment. Clearly, in pushing Ukraine to join, NATO had only been assessing Russia’s ultimate ability to repel its continuing aggression since the partition of the vast territory of the Soviet Union into 1991. With Russia responding resolutely now with what is effectively a war of self-defense, NATO realizes that it cannot afford a frontal confrontation and therefore must leave Ukraine to fight Russia alone.

In view of the facts, the United States and NATO are showing themselves to be faithful to their word not to engage Russia militarily in Ukraine. All the United States and NATO are prepared to do is impose economic sanctions which, in any event, infuriates Putin even more, retaliating with growing determination to take on Ukraine once for all. Zelenskyy’s oft-repeated statement to fight to the last Ukrainian is purely theatrical. He would do his best for his nation and his people by shedding his illusory cinematic pretensions and executing his only remaining honorable recourse, as did Emperor Hirohito who, in 1945, after America’s atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which razed the cities and killed some 200,000 Japanese and wounded many more, went on the radio announcing Japan’s final surrender in World War II:

“Furthermore, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, causing many innocent victims. If we continue to fight, it will only result not only an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also that would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”

The key for Zelenskyy to end the war is, in the previous quote, to substitute “Ukraine” for “Japanese nation”. Putin had made a sincere offer to settle the problems with the Ukrainian army. First of all, wasn’t Ukraine once part of Russia?

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday reiterated his call for the United States and other countries to pave the way for Soviet-era fighter jets to supplement his military and to impose a no-fly zone over his country, while expressing confidence in President Biden’s ability to do so.

The United States is looking for ways to meet Ukraine’s demand for fighter jets and replenish Poland’s arsenal if it hands over Soviet-era planes to its embattled neighbor.

In an interview, Mr. Zelensky told ABC News via a government interpreter that his country lacked air supremacy, noting the bombardment of civilian infrastructure with Russian missiles. He said he shared that view with Mr. Biden during a call on Monday.

While Mr Biden and other leaders have said creating a no-fly zone would force allies to fire on Russian planes, Mr Zelensky focused on the need to shoot down Russian missiles that , according to him, hit civilian infrastructure.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has rejected requests for a no-fly zone, saying it would risk war with Russia, an outcome that Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened if NATO members enter. the dispute.

He suggested that the question of whether Mr. Putin deliberately targets civilians is irrelevant: “Why should I care? The result is the same.”

Russia would not stop at Ukraine, he warned, but would continue to threaten other democratic countries.

“We are a place in Europe, a place of freedom, a zone of freedom,” he said. “When the limits of rights and freedoms are violated and trampled on, then you must protect us. Because we’ll come first, you’ll come second.

He confirmed reports that he had been offered safe passage out of the country if the situation deteriorated further, but said he would stay, noting that he is Ukraine’s democratically elected leader.

“I’m sure Ukrainians are ready to face Russia all their lives,” he said, noting the civilians who fought back against Russian forces.

“We are going to endure, and even if they come to all our cities, there will be an insurrection, an insurrectional war,” he said. “No one will give up our independence.”

Finally, Mr. Zelensky addressed the American public in English, saying that while Americans often talk about freedom, the example of Ukrainians resisting the Russian invasion demonstrated the meaning of freedom.

“We are not far from you,” he said. “If you see and understand how we feel… how we fight all enemies for our freedom, support us.

The meeting comes at a critical time in the war, as Russian forces encircle major cities and Ukraine reels in a humanitarian crisis. Russian and Ukrainian diplomats are continuing bilateral talks, but several diplomatic overtures by third parties, including efforts by French President Emmanuel Macron, have stalled.

Israel is in a unique position to potentially barter a deal, or at least send messages between Western allies Russia and Ukraine, given its alliance with the United States, its quiet cooperation with Russia in Syria and its shared cultural ties with Ukraine. Mr. Bennett and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are the only two Jews in the world to head national governments.

Mr. Bennett’s office said in a statement on Saturday evening that the meeting with Mr. Putin lasted about three hours and took place “in coordination and with the blessing of the US administration”. In addition, the statement added, Mr. Bennett was working in coordination with Germany and France and was “in permanent dialogue with Ukraine”.

There was no immediate information on the results of the meeting. A spokeswoman for Mr. Bennett said he spoke with Mr. Zelensky after his meeting with Mr. Putin.

The Israeli government has tried to maintain good relations with Russian and Ukrainian leaders during the current crisis, and Mr. Bennett had previously been invited by Mr. Zelensky to mediate between the parties.

Mr Bennett left Moscow on Saturday evening to travel to Berlin to meet German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Mr. Scholz was in Israel for a short visit this week and, in a meeting with Mr. Bennett, discussed Israel’s possible role in mediating between Russia and Ukraine.

Mr. Bennett had spoken by phone with Mr. Putin on Wednesday, hours after speaking with Mr. Zelensky, the latest of a few rounds of phone conversations between them.

In a sign of the mission’s urgency, Mr. Bennett, an observant Jew, left Israel Saturday morning over the Sabbath, breaking the religious injunction banning travel. According to Jewish religious law, the sanctity of the Sabbath is superseded by the principle of preservation of human life.

Mr. Bennett was accompanied by Zeev Elkin, Israel’s housing minister, who helped with the translation, according to the Israeli prime minister’s office. Mr. Elkin has frequently acted in a similar capacity over the past decade in meetings between Mr. Bennett’s predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mr. Putin.

Mr. Elkin, who is also an observant Jew, was born in Kharkiv, Ukraine, in 1971, when it was part of the Soviet Union, and emigrated to Israel in 1990. Mr. Elkin has a brother who still lives with his family in Kharkiv, where Russian and Ukrainian forces are fighting for control.

The Israeli delegation also included the prime minister’s national security adviser, Eyal Hulata, his diplomatic adviser, Shimrit Meir, and his spokesperson, Matan Sidi.

Mr Bennett had faced criticism in recent days, including from Mr Zelensky, for not taking the more vocal side of Ukraine and for refraining from supplying him with material military.

Israeli officials have said Israel must maintain good relations with Russia so that it can continue Israel’s military campaign against entrenching Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, where Russia maintains a significant presence.

They said Israel was also concerned about large Jewish communities in Russia and Ukraine. After Saturday’s meeting at the Kremlin, Mr. Bennett’s office said he also spoke with Mr. Putin about the situation of Israelis and Jewish communities following the conflict in Ukraine.

Saturday’s meeting comes after several requests by Mr. Zelensky, to both Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Bennett, to mediate between him and Mr. Putin. The latest request was made in a telephone conversation held on February 25, during which Mr. Zelensky also asked for military equipment. While refusing to send defensive equipment, Mr Bennett agreed to try to mediate between the countries.

Several rounds of phone conversations followed between Mr. Bennett and Mr. Putin, between Mr. Bennett and Mr. Zelensky, and between officials in their teams. Israeli officials believe Israeli mediation had some effect in getting Ukraine to agree to start talks with Russia in Belarus.

Mr. Hulata, Israel’s national security adviser, briefed the White House National Security Council on developments since the telephone conversation with Mr. Zelensky.

Israeli officials said the Kremlin meeting also touched on the progress of talks in Vienna for a return to a nuclear deal with Iran, and Mr Bennett voiced Israel’s opposition to a return to the nuclear deal. ‘OK.

Ukraine’s capital Kiev could fall to the Russians “within hours”, a senior Western intelligence official has said.

The warning, first reported by Bloombergcomes after Moscow on Thursday targeted airbases and other military infrastructure across Ukraine, following President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade its neighbor.

Russian troops crossed the border on Thursday morning from their own territory as well as from Belarus.

Kremlin forces have so far destroyed 83 of Ukraine’s “above ground military installations” since the start of the invasion, according to a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman.

Explosions were heard near the cities of Kharkiv, Kramatorsk, Mariupol and in Kiev in a multi-pronged attack by Moscow.

The Ukrainian port city of Mariupol in southeastern Ukraine has been the target of particularly heavy fire, a diplomatic source said. Reuters.

Elsewhere, Russian troops entered the area around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, capturing the area on Thursday afternoon.

Follow our live blog for all the latest updates on the Russian invasion

An adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that Kiev had lost control of the site, located about 100 km north of the capital, after heavy fighting.

Ukraine’s Health Ministry said Thursday evening that 57 Ukrainians had been killed so far, one of the victims believed to be a young boy, who was hit by a shell in the Kharkiv region.

Meanwhile, the first Ukrainian refugees arrived in Poland by road and rail after fleeing their homes.

Much of the international community has condemned the Russian assault, with G7 leaders calling it “unprovoked and totally unjustified” which violates international law.

“This crisis is a serious threat to the rules-based international order, with ramifications far beyond Europe,” they said in a joint statement.

The leaders added: “President Putin has reintroduced war on the European continent. He put himself on the wrong side of history.

“We call on the Russian Federation to stop the bloodshed, immediately defuse and withdraw its forces from Ukraine.”

Countries like the United Kingdom and the United States have announced new sanctions against Moscow for its aggression against Ukraine. These economic measures will cut off Russian banks from the sterling and dollar markets.

With all eyes on Donbass, a disputed territory on Ukraine’s eastern border with Russia, recent developments have opened the door to a simultaneous attack on multiple fronts that would include, according to US intelligencethe Ukrainian capital.

Last Friday, Biden publicly affirmed his belief that Putin had already made the decision to invade Ukraine and that his military efforts would be focused on Kyiv. He didn’t say “Donbass”, he said “Kiev”, in what should be understood as a very thoughtful way of measuring words.

So far, the border scrambles point to a scenario similar to that experienced in February and March 2014 with Sevastopol and, subsequently, the entire Crimean peninsula. Undercover agents infiltrate to wreak havoc, so-called autonomous militias form and only come in to finish the job.

Now it works for local invasions. It could be used to join Donetsk, for example, but that doesn’t seem to be what Biden was insinuating with his statements or Boris Johnson when he warned of “the worst war situation since World War II” on Saturday. For that, Putin would have to go straight to Kiev, invade the capital, kick out the government, enter with the tanks and establish a protectorate over the rest of the country without needing, perhaps, to occupy every city along the way.

All this is very difficult to do from the Donbass. US intelligence believes they are already 190,000 soldiers located around Ukraine’s various borders with Russia and Belarus; the majority, in fact, on the eastern frontier. As high as the number may seem, it is not clear whether they could travel the 593 kilometers between Donetsk and the capital unopposed. Ukraine would have time to prepare its defense and stand up. If Putin wants to seize the capital as quickly as possible and thus ward off any attempt to react, it is normal for him to do so from Belarus.

In this sense, the latest news this Sunday is worrying: after finishing the maneuvers with the Belarusian army this weekend, it seems that the thirty thousand soldiers assigned to Baranovichi, just two hundred kilometers from the border with Ukraine, will remain on the ground with the consent of Putin’s puppet and the Belarusian dictator, Alexander Lukashenko.

If Putin really intends to invade Ukraine in its entirety, he will normally do so from at least three fronts, for which he needs large contingents of troops on all three: Donbass, of course, and the eastern border in general; Belarus, to go in a straight line towards Kiev, and Crimea, to establish a fast connection along the coast of the Black Sea to Odessa.

False Flag War

How to justify an attack of such magnitude is another thing: that same Friday, social networks were filled with videos published by various pro-Russian communication agencies in which alleged attacks by the Ukrainian army were shown (their consequences rather broken glass, falling structures, screaming civilians…) while the separatist leaders of the river basin Donetsk They asked the population to cross the border with Russia to avoid an alleged massacre ordered by the government of Volodymyr Zelensky.

The problem with these videos is that they were fake, recorded, in fact, two days before. We guess there was gunfire in the Donbass on Friday afternoon because even the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Joseph Borrellgave the news for good in statements to Agencia Efe.

However, the extent of these possible shootings or launching of projectiles – qualifying them as “bombardments”, as Borrell did, seems indeed excessive -, remains to be determined in an area which has known a constant civil and military conflict for eight years. .

The international community has taken this series of fake news for what it probably is: the first steps towards a “false flag” war in which a false conflict is created and a military attack is justified to solve what you have. even invented.

There is no evidence that the Ukrainian military is increasing pressure on pro-Russian separatists. On the contrary, the Kiev government itself denounces more than fifty shares militias which would mean a break in the peace agreements signed in Minsk between Russia and Ukraine.

That Vladimir Putin is forcing the situation on Ukraine’s eastern border is obvious. At the time he said the troop withdrawal was about to begin and there is no evidence that this happened either. They are always there, on alert, waiting for orders. during weeks, United States regularly announces the imminence of an attack that does not occur.

Despite the criticism and the wear and tear on public opinion this produces, it may not be a bad idea: by warning of your enemy’s intentions, by trying to anticipate his actions, you are delaying them in a way . Putin not only wants to end the conflict in Ukraine by force, but to convince the world that “he has no other choice”.

Every time Biden or any other NATO member explains how and when this attack is going to happen, they kind of spoil Putin’s narrative. Let’s see how long this situation can last.

The end of the Olympic truce

Although Kiev seems to live in absolute calm, back to work after a pleasant weekend in relatively good weather, the threat of having 30,000 Russian troops two hundred kilometers away – could be even less if Lukashenko allows them to move on Belarusian soil to the border itself – is the most disturbing. It is not even known whether the Belarusian troops could mingle with the Russians and thus increase the contingent. They would never recognize him anyway.

In principle, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken plans to meet his Russian counterpart this week. The place and date have not yet been determined. Blinken even publicly considered the possibility that the invasion begin before the two can meet. One of the hypotheses considered in this last month of conjecture was that Russia wanted to respect the “Olympic truce” as a sign of respect for the Chinese government, organizer of the Winter Olympics in Beijing. These Games ended on Sunday.

Does this mean the attack is imminent? This implies, at the very least, that Russia only needs a spark to blow up the barrel of dynamite. The diplomatic solutions that Zelensky continues to ask for are running out: Blinken asked if the United States would recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea and Donbass as an emergency solution to avoid a war, the Secretary of State replied with a ” no” categorically.

Let us remember that, while we Europeans are particularly concerned about the situation in the east of our continent, the United States sees further: recognizing Russia’s sovereignty over independent territories or over that of another country would make its very difficult diplomatic position in the event of an invasion of Taiwan by part of China, which Xi Jinping has been alluding to for more than a year.

Follow the topics that interest you

Prime Minister Boris Johnson will hold further crisis talks with world leaders in a bid to bring Russia back ‘from the brink’ of war with Ukraine.

It comes as Downing Street warns a feared Russian invasion of Ukraine could come ‘at any moment’.

A Number 10 spokeswoman said: “The crisis on the Ukrainian border has reached a critical stage. All the information we have suggests that Russia could be planning an invasion of Ukraine at any time. This would have disastrous consequences for Ukraine and Russia.

“There is still a window of opportunity for de-escalation and diplomacy, and the Prime Minister will continue to work tirelessly alongside our allies to bring Russia back from the brink.”

Meanwhile, Ukraine has demanded to meet Russian officials within 48 hours after Moscow “failed to provide an explanation of its military activities on the border”.

Tweeting today, Dmytro Kuleba, Ukrainian Foreign Minister, said: “Therefore, we are taking the next step. We demand a meeting with Russia and all participating states within 48 hours to discuss its reinforcement and redeployment along our border and in temporarily occupied Crimea.

Kyiv has fulfilled all the obligations it took on during the Normandy Four talks in Paris in 2019 on the situation around Donbass. This was stated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba on the airwaves of the channel ICTV.

“As far as the Minsk agreements are concerned, I don’t know of a single country in the European Union that would claim that Ukraine is not respecting the Minsk agreements. We all remember the Normandy summit in Paris in 2019. From this summit, the leaders came out with certain agreements, and whatever Ukraine took upon itself, we did everything,” said the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs.

According to him, Moscow would have failed in its obligations. He also reiterated the assertion that Ukraine would not abide by the Minsk Accords “on Russian terms” under any circumstances.

“Such an option as pressuring Ukraine and forcing Ukraine to do something is not viable. There may be proposals, but if they are unacceptable to us, they will be rejected,” the minister stressed.

Earlier, at a press conference after negotiations with German Foreign Minister Annalena Berbock Kuleba, he said he had notified his German counterpart of Kiev’s refusal to conduct a direct dialogue with the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR, although this is planned by the Minsk. Agreements. According to him, this is a red line for Ukrainian leaders.

“We will not enter into direct dialogue with the so-called people’s republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. This is not provided for in the Minsk agreements. An attempt to establish such a dialogue is exclusively in the interests of the Russian Federation in order to get rid of the status of a party to the conflict and turn itself into a mediator,” the minister said.

Meanwhile, Moscow has repeatedly declared that Russia is not a party to the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

“According to the Minsk agreements, Russia is a mediator, and they want to make us a party to the conflict. There is no such thing in the Minsk agreements, and we did not accept that,” Vladimir Putin stressed on December 23, 2021 during the annual press conference.

Significance of Minsk-2

Meanwhile, in the EU and the United States, more and more statements are being made about the need to implement a package of measures approved in 2015. So, US President Joe Biden told Vladimir Zelensky about it during a telephone conversation in December 2021.

“The President emphasized that the United States continues to support the Normandy Format and ongoing efforts to implement the Minsk Accords, noting in particular that the United States generally supports this process,” the White House reported.

In turn, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on February 7, at a joint press conference with the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell in Washington, noted that it was Minsk-2 that was the best way to resolve the conflict in the Donbass. In his view, the process is hampered by the lack of a prescribed sequence of steps for the parties to follow and Russia’s alleged reluctance to comply with existing agreements. At the same time, nowhere in the text of the Minsk agreements is there any Russian participation in the implementation of this set of measures.

“Minsk” does not clarify some issues of the sequence of actions of the parties… The agreements talk about the special status of Donbass, and I think that with the right sequence of actions, the Ukrainians will be ready to move forward” , Blinken said.

The Secretary of State also recalled the next meeting of the political advisers of the leaders of the Four Countries of Normandy, which is to be held in Berlin in the coming days. This meeting will be part of the continuity of the dialogue between the countries, which resumed on January 26 in Paris. Its participants have already confirmed that the Minsk agreements underpin the work of the Normandy format. As reflected in their joint statement, they “aim to reduce existing differences”.

• US State Department

• Gettyimages.ru

• © Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency

French President Emmanuel Macron also spoke about the lack of alternatives to the Minsk agreements during a press conference following a meeting with Putin.

“The Minsk agreements can really solve and advance the crisis in Ukraine. I will talk about it… with Mr. President Zelensky,” he said.

A similar view was expressed in mid-December by Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi. “A peaceful solution cannot be found without the implementation by both parties of the 2015 Minsk agreements,” he said during a speech to deputies of the lower house of parliament.

Czech Foreign Minister Jakub Kulganek called for implementing the agreements on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Stockholm as soon as possible.

Internal Ukrainian contradictions

In Kiev itself, there is no consensus on the need to implement the Minsk agreements. So, on February 1, Volodymyr Zelensky, at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said that Ukraine is responsible for the Donbass agreements and knows who should implement them.

Also on topic

“They commit war crimes every day”: how Kiev justifies the use of Bayraktar drones in the Donbass

The new head of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry Oleksiy Reznikov said that the use of Turkish Bayraktar attack drones in Donbass is not…

However, on the same day, Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) of Ukraine, in an interview with The Associated Press, noted that the execution of Minsk-2 could destroy the country. In this regard, he expressed the opinion that it is necessary to sign new agreements.

The next day, Dmitry Kuleba, in an interview with the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, said that Ukraine would not respect the key conditions of the Minsk agreements – granting Donbass a special status and the right of veto.

Vladimir Putin, at a press conference after a meeting with Macron, expressed the opinion that “the authorities in Kyiv have set course for the dismantling of the Minsk agreements”. According to him, this conclusion is motivated by the lack of implementation of the Steinmeier formula in Ukrainian legislation, as well as decisions on constitutional reform, amnesty, local elections and legal aspects of the special status of Donbass.

Experts interviewed by RT note that the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry is dishonest, stating that Kyiv has fulfilled all its obligations in the Donbass, since no key points of the package of measures have not been implemented.

“The only thing that has really been done are measures aimed at destroying the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, including at the legislative level. Moreover, the constant military demonstrations on the demarcation line in the Donbass and the strikes against civilians in the DPR and LPR do not tally with Kuleba’s statement. In this regard, it can be said that Kyiv not only failed in its obligations, but also went far back in the opposite direction, ”said Vladimir Shapovalov, deputy director of the Institute of History and Politics of the Pedagogical University of Moscow State. a comment to RT.

• Independence Square in Kyiv

• Gettyimages.ru

• © TR/NurPhoto

He also noted that the inconsistency in the statements of Ukrainian officials on “Minsk-2” is a consequence of the lack of unity on this issue in the political circles of the country.

“Today, it is the weakest political team that has been in power since 1991. It is obvious that the low professional aptitude of politicians leads to such a mismatch. At the same time, in fact, no one in the current leadership of Ukraine supports the implementation of the Minsk agreements, no matter how Zelensky convinces us otherwise. They just use different methods to delay the implementation of Minsk-2 and shift responsibility to Russia,” the analyst explained.

Moreover, as Ukrainian political scientist Alexander Semchenko pointed out in an interview with RT, Kiev is interested in an ongoing conflict in Donbass.

“First, it is beneficial to its Western conservatives, and it is necessary to fulfill the tasks set by the West. Second, it solves domestic political problems, allowing you to insulate yourself from a disloyal electorate and to explain the failures of economics and social policy,” the expert explained.

According to him, if Europe and the United States were really interested in resolving the conflict in Ukraine, they would use all possible tools to force Kiev to defuse and fulfill its obligations, and not limit themselves to mere declarations.

Also on topic

Breaking with reality: why in Ukraine they started talking about President Zelensky’s broken promises

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has failed to keep his promises, which he made a year ago during the celebration of the 29…

“The assets of many Ukrainian politicians are located abroad. And we know how much the West likes to use sanctions, threatening to seize or alienate foreign assets in order to achieve its goals. However, the West has taken no such action either against Poroshenko or against Zelensky. So, in general, they are happy with Kiev’s policy there,” Semchenko added.

At the same time, Vladimir Shapovalov believes that Europe is already tired of the continuing tension on the EU’s eastern border. Moreover, they fear that a possible military conflict will make Europe hostage to the situation.

“Some European politicians are beginning to realize that the current situation could turn Europe into a battlefield. From then on, processes began to take place in which certain European politicians raised their voices in favor of a peaceful resolution of the situation. And the first step in this direction is Ukraine’s fulfillment of its obligations,” the analyst concluded.