A Geneva meeting today on Ukraine ended with a joint statement by the US, European Union, Russia and Ukraine on how to deescalate the situation, which on the surface read like the US demands of the past several days.
And while the Obama Administration will undoubtedly interpret the statement as a victory for its demands of unilateral surrender by eastern protesters, the very different interpretations of the situation mean the language will likely mean something entirely else to Russia.
Calls to vacate “illegally occupied streets” would mean ending the protests, to the US, but it isn’t clear that public protests are illegal in those cities to begin with, and Russia is likely to consider the demonstrations largely lawful.
Likewise, the call to unilaterally surrender “illegally seized buildings” and return them to “legitimate owners” undoubtedly focuses on government buildings. But the US will interpret it is demanding protesters surrender buildings they’ve occupied to the interim government, while Russia has made a point of not considering Ukraine’s interim government “legitimate” at all.
Russia has been pushing for an increasingly federated system in Ukraine, with more autonomy for local regions, and is likely to push to have the buildings at least formally handed over to the local governments, which are largely sympathetic to the protesters at any rate.
For Western nations, including pejorative wording about “illegal” protests and the “legitimate” government was probably seen as a way to needle Russia about the situation. Yet ultimately those extra words are making what is expected to happen across Ukraine more vague and open to interpretation. The end result is likely going to be more public disputes back and forth, and both sides accusing the other of reneging on the deal.
"All illegal military formations are to disband and be disarmed"
The current Government in Kiev is NOT legitimate having come to power through FORCE replacing the legally elected Government of UKraine.
Ipso facto – The Armed Forces of this ILLEGAL Government are ILLEGAL
Will they now – in line with this agreement – lbe disbanded???
Every government building is the people's building for few reasons, 1- people who work there are people, these building are paid by the tax payers to be built, those who build it are the people, so, by people's paying the salaries of government employees whereby government paid for building these buildings, what is called "the government or states buildings" makes the people's as the owner not the states nor the government. Government have no money to pay for building any buildings, roads and etc, unless the projects are paid by taxpayers.
The other reason is the identity of the government itself, any government that voted to govern the country-nation are the entity of the people; therefore, no government can claim that this or that buildings, roads or lands are there's. There is no such deeds signed by the people giving the right of the ownership to "government buildings" to the government, unless government claims are based on demolishing the people's right, which in this case are. In the other hand, there is no such thing as "Ukrainian elected government" in Ukraine, but there are forces from Neo fascism and they are not for the people nor elected by the people, they want to demolish the people's right, so, they claim that these are the government streets, or government buildings and belongs to them.
Swedish government have sold every Swedish national pride owned by Swedish people without letting the Swedish people have a say, Volvo is no longer there, Saab is no longer there, atlas Copco and many others are no longer there, they simply did it to demolish the ownership of the Swedish people, and in Ukraine, they are going to do the same and Germans and other manufactories are standing in line, that's the nature of vulture capitalism.
As Lavrov pointed out in the press conference, ALL takeovers of government buildings are to be handed over. And he made sure that applies to the Galicia, that is West Ukraine, as well. Even before Yanukovich was ousted, Western Ukrainian regions have largely declared independence of Kyev, armed millitias took over regional and local governments, took over courts, police, and military bases with armaments. That is the case there today. Zhitomir, a region in Galicia, is mostly Polish, and is alarmed at what is happening there. They are calling for the status of an autonomous republic, with rights to Polish language, media, TV, etd. So, for as long as Kyev is OK by those regions being run by out-of-control militias, what is wrong with the Eastern Regions following the same plan?
The problem with Kyev is that it has only ONE base of support — and that is, West Ukraine. Those are the ones that want Greater Galicia, and pushing the Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine as far to the East as possible, and hopefully, with long-term repression, submitt them into disappearing.
This may work if US decides that it can afford to fund the project Ukraine for a long, long haul. By continuing to irrationally blame Russia for the chaos US created, it is hoping to keep the reluctant, and otherwise helpless Europeans on hook politically and to co-finance the project. But there is a potential for the break-up of a coalition that is made up of really crazed individuals. Most of them are indulging in genocide fantasies on the ways to kill minorities so they can have their Greater Galicia without the troublesome Russians, Jews, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians, Rusins, Poles, and Tatars. We are talking here about people that the world should condemn — like Yulia Timoshenko who is on record (recorded phone call) calling for "nuking" of Russians in response to question on the status of Russian minority.
The Irony here is that Russia sees the elected Government as being the lawful Government of Ukraine, elected as it was by the people, for the people! Where as the supposed leader of the Democratic World sees the Lawful Government, a Government that has taken over by occupying buildings by undemocratic means, without election and by force!
I'd love to know where Mr Ditz gets the idea that the local governments "are largely sympathetic to the protesters". That's not what I'm hearing from my friend in Kharkov, where they live in dread of Russian annexation. Also, the pictures coming out of the area show small demonstrations by middle-aged to elderly people who seem to have all suddenly acquired Russian flags. Clearely, those are not the armed, special forces-type people occupying public buildings. Why would elected local governments be "sympathetic" to foreign mercenaries who have simply invaded and taken over their area? That doesn't make sense!
What does your "friend in Kharkov" tell you about the 30 Right-Sector gunmen arrested there local law enforcement in March ? Is he ok with that ?
What does your "friend in Kharkov" tell you about the 30 Right-Sector gunmen arrested there by local law enforcement in March ? Is he ok with that ?