Reprinted from Paul Craig Roberts
Mutual mistrust over eastern Ukraine after Minsk peace talks
(Image by YouTube) Permission Details DMCA
In my last column I provided reasons for believing that the deal will fail. I saw a larger downside for Russia and the Donetsk and Luhansk republics because Putin and the break-away provinces will be blamed. English is the world language, and this enables Washington and its presstitutes to control the explanation.
The Saker and I are in agreement that the provisions of the peace deal are ridiculous and cannot and will not be implemented. However, The Saker sees an advantage for the republics in the provision, if implemented, to remove heavy weapons from the conflict zones.
The Saker's viewpoint is worth knowing. Whereas I have stressed that the conflict could be ended by Russia accepting the republics' requests for unification with Russia and that the longer the conflict is drawn out the more the West can demonize Putin and the break-away republics, Saker sees the conflict ending this year with the economic, military, and political collapse of Ukraine.
Alexander Mercouris makes the point that one positive feature of the Minsk agreement, which isn't actually a deal or an agreement, is that Europe is now involved and opposes Washington's plan to escalate the military conflict. He writes that the outcome in Ukraine depends on what the Europeans do, a point with which I concur.
It is difficult to believe that European governments are not aware that the entire Ukraine crisis is a Washington orchestration. Now that Europeans are beginning to realize the risk and recklessness in Washington's aggressive hostility toward Russia, Europeans might develop an independent foreign policy, as opposed to lining up with Washington, and cast off their vassalage.
If this were to happen, Washington's hegemonic aggression would cease to have enablers. The Evil Empire would begin its break-up, and the chances for peace would improve.