Ukrainian parliamentarians finally decided to read the text of the Minsk agreements and were horrified
By Dmitry Rodionov, Free Press
(Excerpts)
October 8: It seems that the results of the “Normandy Quartet” meeting in Paris have left many politicians in Kiev confused. Today, some of them literally opened their eyes to the fact that the real outcome of the meeting did not correspond to the triumphant pronouncements of President Petro Poroshenko and Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin.
Moreover, it appears that many Members of Parliament simply did not read the text of the Minsk agreements, and were surprised to learn that in them Kiev has not only rights but also responsibilities, that the transfer of control over the border to Ukraine should be preceded by an amnesty for the militias and changes in legislation in consultation with representatives of the rebel republics. …
 |
| Anti-war protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine. |
Many Ukrainian politicians are simply afraid to read the text of the Minsk agreements, says political commentator Victor Shapinov.
VS: They really do not want to comply with what is written there. Likewise, they want to believe in the interpretation of Poroshenko, when he said that the agreements require no special status, or that you first need to transfer control of the border, and only then hold elections. They want to believe that, as sung in the anthem of Ukraine, “our enemies will vanish, like dew in the sun.” Or that Obama will take out the “enemies.” Unfortunately or fortunately, many in Kiev build their strategy and tactics not on the basis of reality, but on the basis of national-patriotic myths.
Free Press: “If we signed the agreement and affirmed strict observance, if it is approved by the UN Security Council and the mass of world leaders, how do we de facto avoid this sequence of events?” asks [fascist MP Semen] Semenchenko. That is, does he actually encourage evading compliance with the Minsk agreements?
VS: Exactly. The nationalist radicals see the very act of its signing as betrayal.
FP: What does Klimkin’s response mean? That Kiev has no clear strategy for the future? They live only for today?
VS: Klimkin, too, is waiting apparently for the enemy to vanish like dew in the sun. In fact, he said the following: We will delay the implementation of the agreements. Of course, this is also a strategy: waiting for the ass or the Shah to die. But the problem for Kiev is that a delay would very much upset its Western partners, especially Angela Merkel, who wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
FP: European media reports saythat after the pressure that Merkel and Putin put on Poroshenko in Paris, the Ukrainian parliament will have to grant amnesties, rewrite the constitution and recognize the election. Or does this have to do with a new arrangement? What is the probability that parliament will be dissolved?
VS: Based on recent leaks from the Verkhovna Rada, the Americans oppose new elections, because their outcome would be disappointing for the pro-Maidan forces. They agree only on the resignation of Yatsenyuk, who has broken all records of the corruption era. On the other hand, if the United States applies a certain amount of pressure, as it did when Nuland came and presided over the voting of the deputies, that would suffice to secure a vote for implementation of the agreements.
The entire Poroshenko bloc, half of the Popular Front, Kolomoisky’s “Revival” group, the People’s Will, and of course the opposition bloc will vote for it. Even Lyashko, given the number of criminal cases against deputies of his faction, may not object as intensely as last time, when he blocked the rostrum.
Up to this point the United States has not allowed Ukraine to carry out the Minsk agreements, only to pretend that they have. The next move in this game depends on many factors, including negotiations with Russia on the Middle East.
Translated by Greg Butterfield
Red Star News + Translations 