More sanity from Hollande: Europe faces total war if West arms Ukraine

"We have two choices. We can adopt the logic that the participants ought to be armed. Since Russia is arming the separatists, we will do the same for Ukrainians so that they can defend themselves. But can you draw the line between defensive and offensive weaponry?" - asked Hollande. "The other option is to try and find a compromise and convince both sides to cease fire. Diplomacy, negotiations, but they ought not continue endlessly...Because we are dealing with a war - war which can become total."

These are the words of Hollande, very straightforward and direct which is very uncharacteristic for contemporary European politicians, and they are a reflection of the high level of fear in continental Europe. And, what's important, it's fear that appeared suddenly, unexpectedly, forcing the leaders of the two biggest European countries to hurry to Kiev and Moscow. What did just happen?

Judging by the State Department announcements and the arrival of Kerry to Kiev, the catalyst of such a pained European reaction are the US intentions to start openly arming the Ukrainian army, which would guarantee a Russian response that would transform the conflict on the Donbass into something entirely different, which Hollande referred to as "total war". Keeping in mind that both the junta and the Donbass announced a mobilization of up to 100 [thousand] recruits, and that Poroshenko said he is ready to introduce martial law and use new NATO-provided weapons, all of this can lead to the biggest regional conflict since WW2.

It's possible that the unprecedented French and German diplomatic initiative is the last attempt to restrain the US from taking this step by proposing Kerry a new variant of peace negotiations. Perhaps this is why there will be an unscheduled meeting between Merkel and Kerry, after which both Merkel and Hollande will fly to Moscow.

Kommersant writes that the "core of the French-German initiative may be a ceasefire along a new line of demarcation which will not be the same one as what was agreed on in September of last year, with the traditional condition that the Donbass remains in Ukraine with special conditions. It also cannot be ruled out that the two traveled to Kiev with more radical proposals, for example, introducing peacekeeping troops into the Donbass (something like that was discussed at the UN a long time ago, and Pushilin already expressed his consent). Then there is definitely a need for the principals to talk face to face.

One way or the other, Europe is seriously alarmed. This was evident at the press conference where Hollande suddenly realized that "every day there are men, women, civilians dying on the eastern borders of Europe." He also said that both France and Germany have a "special responsibility" because both are closely tied to Russia and Ukraine. In other words, the Europeans suddenly realized that America is far away but they are close, and that the "total war" will hit their part of the "Western World" the hardest. One can't say that they did not understand this before, but were always hoping that Russia would retreat at the last moment. However, it is now finally clear that Russia will not retreat. While Moscow is trying to put out the fire of war, it will not be intimidated by the prospect of it becomes large-scale.

P.S. Hollande has followed in Merkel's footsteps by saying that he does not even intend to consider the issue of arming Ukraine. This is directly opposed to Washington's wishes. It does not speak to a split within the West, since as before different Western countries accept the burden of the military component in different conflicts, but it is another indication of the sentiments in continental Europe.

J.Hawk's Comment: We don't yet know what Merkel and Hollande discussed with Poroshenko (though, apparently, not with Yatsenyuk who once again is making the rounds making hysterical pronouncements and unbelievable demands) or what they will discuss with Putin. One possibility is that there is no split within the West, and that the Mellande (Horkel?) dynamic duo are the "good cop" to Obama's (or, rather, Biden's) "bad cop." But then Kerry seems to have suddenly remembered (after all these months!) that the Minsk Protocol also makes Ukraine responsible for providing the Donbass with a special status, something that Kiev has conspicuously failed to do (not that it took seriously any other requirements of the Minsk Protocol). Moreover, the three leaders in question don't get their knowledge about the situation in Ukraine from NPR or Fox News. No, that's propaganda for the masses. They know everything that the readers of this blog know: the Ukrainian economy is a shambles, the Ukrainian military is facing a massive desertion and discipline problem (one does not empower commanders to shoot their own soldiers on the spot if there is not a compelling need to do so), and any transfers of weapons to the Ukrainian side would have no perceptible impact except to make Russia exceptionally angry and to accelerate the collapse of the Ukrainian state. Historically, Russia has shown little willingness to appease. It's preferred approach is to exert maximum pressure, political, economic, and, if need be, military, in the direction of the threat. To the point of marching into Paris and Berlin, if the circumstances require it. The greater the threat, the stronger the Russian push-back. Any Western overt military support would only increase the Russian pressure on Ukraine long before these weapons would even reach the battlefield. So what would NATO have to respond with? More sanctions? I think the message has sunk in that Russia will not be "brought to heel" by sanctions? Direct military involvement? Even if the whole of Bundeswehr were to be deployed to Ukraine, it would last maybe two weeks. Merkel and Hollande know this. Moreover, both Merkel and Hollande have flatly ruled out supplying Ukraine with weapons. For the Obama administration to proceed to arm Ukraine would mean a very visible breach between the US and the EU.

It is more likely that, as Cassad points out, the hurried if varied reaction (Obama threatens to arm the junta, while Merkel and Hollande fly to Kiev and Moscow) has to do with the battlefield successes of Novorossia's army which is threatening to inflict a major and humiliating defeat on UAF. It is entirely possible that Novorossia forces held back precisely in order to give Merkel and Hollande time to formulate their peace proposals and to fly with them to Kiev, rather than to face them with a fait accompli. Though should Merkel and Hollande rise to the occasion, there is always time for the UAF grouping at Debaltsevo to be salutorily finished off. .

The problem is, once again, located in Kiev, because for Poroshenko it's a lose-lose proposition, and it's not even clear which of the two losing options is the worse one. In fact, he probably has a better chance of physically surviving if the whole country goes down in flames as a result of the escalating conflict (escalating not because of Russia's intervention but because of internal unrest and repression) then if he makes peace with Novorossia. Because it's then that the knives will come out--somebody has to be the scapegoat, and it ain't gonna be the "war party". It's not clear what, if anything, Merkel and Hollande can do to change that calculation for him.

As to Yatsenyuk and Turchinov, they probably prefer a continued war because they are too incompetent to govern under any other circumstances. War makes it possible to shift the responsibility for every mishap onto the conflict itself and away from oneself. Plus, of course, the war suits their "arsonist firefighter" temperaments just fine. And this can continue until...it can't. Until the country breaks down. It still looks like the "doomsday" scenario is the most plausible one.

Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.