EU’s Clear and Consistent Capitulation?

By Halya Coynash

1402796907The EU has invited Russia to join talks on the EU-Ukraine trade agreement  This radical climbdown from previous refusals to engage in trilateral negotiations is reportedly called “significant” by EU officials who claim it reflects a “new climate” at the talks.  What kind of ‘climate’ the EU has in mind remains a mystery.  The invitation was announced one day after Russian tanks crossed into Ukraine at a border crossing by Kremlin-backed militants, and less than 24 hours before militants used advanced missiles to shoot down a military plane, killing 49 Ukrainian soldiers and the crew of the plane.

On June 14 EU President Herman Van Rompuy stated that there is “no doubt that the armed fighters that are terrorising and disrupting the lives of citizens in Ukraine are enjoying external support, including arms supply and reinforcement through foreign fighters.  As a neighbouring state, Russia bears a primary responsibility in ensuring that any such traffic and external support through its borders is immediately stopped.”

Why such circumspect language when the many ‘foreign fighters’ have so far all been Russian nationals and the militants themselves openly acknowledge Russian ‘support’?

On May 2 when similar surface to air missiles were used to down helicopters, Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt tweeted “Some elderly ladies bought some RPG’s or missiles at the local grocery store, I assume.”  Kyryl Savin from the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Kyiv office points out that “these are advanced weapons that can’t simply be bought anywhere on the market, not even on the Russian black market. Every expert knows that. They should just stop with the lies and speak plainly: This is a war, and Russia is a party in this military conflict.

With respect to the military tanks, the US State Department stated clearly on June 13 that they “assess that separatists in eastern Ukraine have acquired heavy weapons and military equipment from Russia, including Russian tanks and multiple rocket launchers”.

On Saturday, NATO even provided images backing the conclusion that the tanks and armoured vehicles are Russian.  “The tanks do not bear markings or camouflage paint like those used by the Ukrainian military.  In fact, they do not have markings at all, which is reminiscent of tactics used by Russian elements that were involved in destabilizing Crimea.”

These images raise significant questions concerning Russia’s role in facilitating instability in eastern Ukraine and its involvement in the movement of military equipment from Russian territory into Ukraine.   If these latest reports are confirmed, this would mark a grave escalation of the crisis in eastern Ukraine in violation of Russia’s Geneva commitments.”

The message is blunt albeit with a slightly perplexing opt-out clause.  How are these ‘reports’ to be confirmed if the images and expert assessments are not enough?

It was a month after Russia’s invasion of the Crimea before Russian President Vladimir Putin finally admitted the use of Russian troops in the Crimea. He is continuing to deny them against all evidence in eastern Ukraine.

Shortly after Putin announced Russia’s effective annexation of the Crimea, western countries were weak on sanctions, but apparently strong on commitment. On March 21 both the EU and US added candidates for individual sanctions; cancelled the EU-Russia summit in June and promised that “any steps by Russia to destabilize Ukraine will have far-reaching consequences on relations in a broad range of economic areas.”

UK Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of the EU’s “”clear, strong and consistent message.”

All threats since then of serious consequences “if” Russia destabilized Ukraine have remained bafflingly in the future tense despite ample evidence that Russia is waging an undeclared war against its neighbour now. The message has certainly been clear and consistently understood as such by Moscow who is scarcely even trying to concern Russian involvement.

Back on March 21 the European Council indicated that the EU would sign the political elements of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and that it was committed to signing the remainder.

The EU has now reversed its position on three-way talks and is prepared to treat Russia as an interested party to the agreement.  What this means in real terms can only be guessed.  As Barroso put it, “I want to reiterate our willingness, as European Union, to pursue talks with Russia, to discuss the concrete implementation of these agreements, in case there are any concerns on the Russian side.”

“So our message, as European Union, is a message of dialogue and cooperation, not a message of confrontation. At the same time we have to be firm in the respect of the sovereign right of any country to decide its own future.

Over the last three months, Russia has actively fuelled bloody confrontation in eastern and southern regions of Ukraine.  The EU has threatened far-reaching consequences, but come up with next to none.  If it is now to treat Russia as a stakeholder in Ukraine’s affairs and confine itself to calls for dialogue, the consequences for European security and EU credibility will be devastating.

Read more:
• The Destabilizing effect of empty sanction threats
• Russian tanks and Ukrainian orphans in Moscow’s unabated offensive
• Check your sources, Mr Lavrov
• Russian media claims ‘genocide’ in Semenivka [Donbas]
• Innocent civilian or terrorist: Russian TV caught using old footage
• No holds barred in Russia’s propaganda war
• Neo-Nazis in Moscow’s Service
• Pro-Russian separatists start their own anti-Semitic TV channel
• Pro-Russian, anti-Roma, anti-Semitic and hunting out Ukrainian speakers
• The Donetsk anti-Semitic leaflets – what should not be overlooked
• East Ukraine crisis and the ’fascist’ matrix

Source: Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Reprinted with permissions. 

This entry was posted in "Voices" in English, Analytics, English, English News, Odesa, Others, Reblogged, South&Eastern Ukraine and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to EU’s Clear and Consistent Capitulation?

  1. chervonaruta says:

    Reblogged this on Euromaidan PR and commented:

    EU’s Clear and Consistent Capitulation?

  2. Pingback: EU’s Clear and Consistent Capitulation? - Israel Foreign Affairs News

  3. Pingback: EU’s Clear and Consistent Capitulation? - Israel Foreign Affairs News

  4. sandy miller says:

    Halya…are you sending your articles to NYTimes, Washington Post, Washington politicians, European papers as opinion. We need people on the internet pointing out Russian lies with facts. Why isn’t the UN there. Why isn’t someone organizations from the UN or European Union on the Eastern front to verify your articles. We need help from credible sources in USA as well as in Europe commenting against Putin lies. I’m on Euromaiden PR but I don’t notice much commentary….Can you get your stuff onto Huffington Post or AOL or other internet sites that reach the entire world. We need more commentators and we need more of your and other articles on Euromaiden PR to get onto more sites. CNN needs to be hit hard with opinions and information. Unfortunately, Americans aren’t very interested in getting involved in another war. I believe the left and right in this country are playing games both pro and anti-obama and neither party here gives a shit about Ukraine. Get some of the Ukrainian billinaires to contribute to their re-election campaign that will change the entire situation . Set up Ukainian organizations all over the world get the ukrianian billionaires to support them and organizations contribute to campaigns of both repub’s and democrat’s. It’s the only chance Ukraine has of getting help from other countries.

  5. ravicher says:

    What I would like would be an unbiased investigation into the snipers. Your darn right I’m not interested in a WW, or spreading a NATO EU line of thinking without a proper investigation into the snipers. My grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew that left after WWI for Cuba, then for the US. He signed with the US Army and died in the Battle of the Buldge fighting Nazis. I will not support that type of amorality, not there or in Israel or anywhere, and no convincing can change that. I will accept any and all critics, but I will not accept slander or the trolls that I’ve already encountered. I want unequivocal and UNBIASED evidence that the new party in Kiev is not associated with Nazis, I will not support Nazis no matter what country them claim to be from or what flag they may wave. Further, this report seems to be one sided as it does not take an unbiased view at international intervention from many countries in this economic ideological multifaceted proxy war. The leaders should all be ashamed to be foisting the flags of war in the face of global warming. In closing, I am not Pro Russian ~ I am anti and condemn the actions of Senator McCain and his march for war as most recently evidenced by the pipeline in Bulgaria.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.