Paul
Goble
Staunton, October 1 – Neither the
Russian nor the American side put out an official statement about the meeting
of the two presidents in New York, but the comments by Vladimir Putin and US
Secretary of State John Kerry suggest the two agreed on far more about Ukraine
and Syria than Moscow or Washington have acknowledged, according to Andrey
Illarionov.
The Russian analyst says it one must
“distinguish between solemn declaration and hidden agreements” which can lead
to war, and thus it is especially important not to be caught up in either the
words of Vladimir Putin or the content of Barack Obama’s UNGA speech in
assessing where things are headed (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=560CC812C0709).
Despite the emotional terms in which
they were couched, Illarionov says, both the Putin and Kerry versions of the
agreement achieved “differ little from one another.” Moreover, “both sides noted
that the negotiations were open, civic and constructive.”
According to Kerry, “a significant
amount of time’ was devoted to Ukraine, and Putin and Obama reached four points
of accord:
“1. We together
want to solve ‘the Ukrainian crisis.’ 2. The joint task of Russia and the US is
to seek the fulfillment of Minsk-2. 3. For this in particular, on Octobere 2
will take place a meeting of Hollande, Merkel and Putin in Paris (Kerry did not
consider it necessary to mention the name Poroshenko). [And] the task is to
seek the fulfillment of Minsk-2 in the course of the next three months before
the end of 2015.”
“That is all,” Illarionov says. There
was no mention by the US of the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian
territory, an end to external support of the separatists, establishment of
Ukrainian control over the internationally recognized border, or an end to the annexation
of Crimea.
Again, the Russian analyst
continues, according to Kerry, Putin and Obama reached the following agreements
on Syria:
“1. Syria must be
preserved as united and secular. 2. There must be developed (continued) military
actions against ISIS. 3. There must be an administered transition process
within a definite period of a change in the political regime in Syria … 4.
Disagreements remain relative to what this transition process means and what
could be its results. 5. In this transition process must participate Russia,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar … 6. A coalition between the US and Russia
in the war against ISIS is ‘absolutely possible’ once there is agreement on the
transition process. 7. [The US now does not demand Asad’s immediate ouster.]
[And] 8. [Concerning Iran,] ‘The Iranians obviously will be a component of this
process.”
Kerry made three other comments,
Illarionov remarks. First, he said that
the US had asked Moscow to use its good offices to prevent Asad from using
barrel bombs against the population. Second, he stressed how pleased he personally
was to have “a chance to speak with President Putin.” And third, Kerry said
that if Russia acted alone in Iraq, it could have serious negative consequences
for Russia and for Putin personally.
All this suggests, the Russian
analyst continues, that there were real agreements between Putin and Obama on
both Ukraine and Syria. (Adding to that impression is the fact that Obama chose
not to meet with the Ukrainian president at UNGA but handed off that task to
Vice President Joe Biden.)
And he argues that Russian bombing
in Syria “is nothing other than the direct result of agreements between Putin
and Obama. Without Obama’s approval, the Russian military actions in Syria
would have been either impossible of unilateral. Now, however, they have
received official cover from the US administration.”
“With all due respect to those for
whom are dear and who sincerely believe in the correct, wise and remarkable
words spoken from time to time by Mr. Obama,” Illarionov says, “all the same
one must distinguish between solemn declarations which do not have practical
consequences and hidden agreements behind which wars begin” especially when
such agreements involve authoritarian regimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment