Putin to work with Merkel to keep crisis-hit Ukraine intact

[bemildred]

Source: Independent.UK

President Vladimir Putin has agreed that the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine must be maintained, amid concerns that Russia could send in the military to defend its interests in the east of the crisis-hit country.

Mr Putin has previously been one of the missing Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych’s staunchest allies, but he pledged in a phone call with Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel that the country must be allowed to appoint a new, functional government.

“They underscored their joint interest in a stable Ukraine - both in economic and political terms,” said a spokesperson for Ms Merkel, who added that the two leaders had agreed to keep in close contact in the coming days.

A spokesperson for the Kremlin confirmed that the pair had spoken, and their conversation came as Britain’s William Hague warned Russia against any kind of “intervention” that might further destabilise the country.

Read more: http://www.independent.ie/world-news/putin-to-work-with-merkel-to-keep-crisishit-ukraine-intact-30034785.html

[quadrature]

1. Merkel, Putin and the NSA to keep in touch...

how wonderful.

[dlwickham]

2. maybe it's not a bad thing that we're spying on everyone

I doubt anyone with half a brain cell would trust Putin not to intervene in someway or another especially since his boy was just kicked out of power in Kiev

[okaawhatever]

12. Germany is energy dependent on Russia. They're pretty much co-owned by Russia now. It's the

same problem past Ukraine PMs had. Putin has cut off natural gas in the middle of the winter to Ukraine several times in the last ten years.

When the Nord Stream pipeline deal was signed many in Europe feared it was the point of no return for Germany's independence from Russian influence. It seems this is turning out to be coming true.

[another_liberal]

3. Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, talks to Secretary of State, John Kerry . . .

For a second time in two days, the Russian Foreign Minister has telephoned John Kerry:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has again spoken with US Secretary of State John Kerry. In their second telephone conversation in two days, Lavrov told Kerry "the most important thing now is to provide for the complete fulfillment" of the EU-brokered agreement.

"The Ukrainian opposition is deviating from the agreement, having in effect seized power in Kiev, refused to disarm and continued to place its bets on violence," Lavrov told Kerry, according to a ministry statement.

http://rt.com/news/kiev-clashes-rioters-police-571/

It would seem the new Ukrainian President, just appointed by a truncated national Parliament, doesn't feel he is bound to honor the agreements his party, the Yanukovich government and the EU reached way back all of two days ago? That was just too far in the past to apply anymore, or so one suspects.

[amandabeech]

4. The article doesn't mention that Russia did not sign the agreement.

Instead, Lavrov went back to Russia before the final negotiations.

The same article now states that Russia has recalled its ambassador from Urkaine. IIRC, recalling one's ambassador is one of the most serious diplomatic maneuvers out there.

Not to be too dramatic, but I recall that Roosevelt recalled the U.S. ambassador after one of Hitler's pre-assault-on-Poland land grabs.

The situation is moving quickly beyond the agreement that the Russians didn't sign.

[another_liberal]

5. What difference does it make if the Russians signed or not?

The people who have seized power in Kiev from the democratically elected government most certainly did sign it, and now they have unilaterally torn that internationally negotiated agreement to shreds.

Russia has significant economic and regional defense interests in regard to the Ukraine situation. They have every right to be concerned about the undemocratic and thoroughly rogue manner this coup government in Kiev is proceeding in consolidating its power over a neighboring nation.

[amandabeech]

6. Generally, a party that has not signed a contract cannot enforce that contract.

n/t

[dipsydoodle]

7. The opposition however did sign the agreement

egged on by the Polish minister telling them that if they didn't they'd probably all die.

[another_liberal]

10. They did sign it, though.

Yanukovich signed it too, and carried out his obligations under the terms included. The coup leadership, on the other hand, forgot about the whole thing as soon as riot police were withdrawn from the streets of Kiev.

[another_liberal]

9. The international agreement reached last Friday night is much more important than a mere "contract."

And a great deal more than just money is at stake for Russia.

That being said, just how is Russia trying to "enforce" anything? They are expressing concern about those who are now seizing power in a country which shares hundreds of miles of border with them. They want some reliable assurance in regard to the lives and welfare of their citizens in areas bordering on Ukraine, not to mention understandable worry about the millions of ethnic Russians who are citizens of Ukraine. Doesn't that strike you as justified considering the free-for-all chaos this new, exclusionary, basically one party government is operating in?

[Igel]

8. Then there's the flip side.

He signed the agreement, then bugged out and left a security vacuum. Taking with him a few large trucks full of stuff. Apparently he didn't intend to return or he doesn't exactly pack light. We'll ignore the reports that he was prevented from leaving the country.

His was the agreement to enforce. Instead he turned to his own supporters.

Responsible? Hardly.

Then the VR approved a bill restoring the 2004 constitution. His long-distance response was to say that what the VR did was illegal, inappropriate, and he'd ignore it. So he failed--refused, some might say--to sign the bill that restored the previous constitution, which was one of the most easily implemented parts of the agreement. And in so doing, he broke the agreement.

The response was to remove him from power and to unilaterally re-approve the measure reinstituting the 2004 constitution, with his refusal being one of the reasons given during debate for removing him from the presidency. Much of the charge against him was led by members of his own party that abandoned either him and stayed in the PR or defected from the PR.

Lavrov didn't bother to mention this. Nor would he. He's an old hand at shaping the narrative; people base judgments on what they know, not on what they don't know. They know what Lavrov said, so that's the basis for their judgment. Worse is that people will want to believe Lavrov's truncated narrative is complete.

It's also not like Yanukovych is there to defend himself. Or Mezhihir'ya and the financial records he left behind that are one of his most recent scandals and alleged crimes. It's claimed even his home in the east is undefended, whatever you want to make of that.

[another_liberal]

11. I am not a big fan of Yanukovich, not by any means . . .

However, if you have actually watched the videos of his ministers and the Rada members of his coalition being assaulted and beaten, both in the streets and in the halls of the Rada building itself, you have to admit that saying he just "bugged out" is pretty inaccurate. He was justifiably in fear for his personal safety, if not for his very life. This has been a violent coup, and that is how history will judge it.

The parliament now sitting in Kiev is a truncated, basically one party assembly. Members of Yanukovich's former majority there have either been forced to change party affiliation, resign their seats or flee for their lives, just as the democratically elected President was forced to do. That is not democracy, far from it.