Analysis, Commentary & Analysis

Kerry’s Proposal

Original: El Murid
Translated by Alexander Fedotov / Edited by @GBabeuf


John Kerry, at a joint press conference with Yatsenyuk, has said that the United States is considering the question of supplying defensive” arms to Ukraine.

By this, the United States has traditionally meant arms used to counter tanks, armoured vehicles and aircrafta weapon they believe is defensive. Evidently, previously ‘leaked’ information about the supply of Javelin” systems, which are used against tanks and helicopters, seems to be quite accurate in this context. However, “defensive” weapons do not exist in principlethe same “Javelin” can perfectly well be used in offensive operations against an enemy’s fortifications. Everything depends on the problems to be solved with its help.

The Americans, catching the extremely nervous reaction of Moscow to the possible supply of arms to Ukraine, are now going to use the topic as blackmail, probing the limits of Moscow’s patience and capabilities. As a result, the arms will be delivered anywaythe question is what the United States will be able to bargain for the delay. If nothingthey will be delivered as soon as possible.

The expectation, if there is any, that there is a possibility of making an agreement with the Americans, looks either naïve or, frankly, treacherous. They are more than protected by shifting the conflict on to foreign territory, which, moreover, they do not need at allat least not intact.

The USA’s aims are furthered the more crudely and visibly they become manifest: they need to drive Russia into a direct conflict with Ukraine and (if possible) with Europe. Simply put, they want to force Russia to take a direct part in the conflict. Whether by the introduction of troops or by the legalised supply of equipment, weapons and expertsit does not matter. Russia has failed to demonstrate her ability to fight a modern war through indirect participation. The Kremlin managed to subjugate the Militia, but any control of it is possible only in a situation of its complete dependence on illicit and unacknowledged aid. Additional control via vacationers and demonstrative killings of unruly commanders finally made the Militia a guerrilla detachment of Moscow and stripped it of its independence.

Why this happened is clear. The Militia is actively resisting the attempts of Moscow oligarchs to build the same kind of thieves’ state against which the rebellion broke out. The Militia can be coerced to fight for the interests of thieves and robbers only by forceand Moscow now has to continue its destructive policy of “seeming non-participating”—over which the US toys with the Kremlin as does a cat with a mouse. The political failure will have to be camouflaged by military force: the later it happens, the worse will be the consequences. In this case, Moscow can no longer drop everythingCrimea became a trap; the war in the Donbass and the genocide of its population conducted by Kiev allows a delay of the final settling of the Crimea question. The idea that it is necessary to finish the war in Kiev, can no more visit the heads of Moscow politicianstime was foolishly wasted, the situation turned around 180 degrees.

Even if Russia suddenly decides to intervene in the Donbass in one form or another and legalise its military presence, it will still be the worst possible scenario, except that the surrender of everything will be even worse. But the pace has been lost, any action now will only be responsive. The initiative has passed into the hands of others.

Kerry made a proposal that, if adopted, would mean the capitulation of Russia: “… All we ask is that Russia and the separatists support and respect the commitments they undertook and that they implement a meaningful ceasefire, including export of arms and equipment, withdrawal of foreign troops from the territory of Ukraine, release of hostages, respect of Ukraine’s borders and its sovereignty. I guarantee you that the United States will be the guarantor of the peace, if this can be achieved…”

One interesting detail: the US does not officially recognize the presence of Russian troops on the territory of Donbass, but are urging Russia to withdraw some foreign troops. Thereby Kerry with a grin demonstrates that the US is well aware of the Russian presence, but still prefers to pretend that it does not notice. For the time being.

Kerry’s proposal also means that after the capitulation of Russia they will define how the situation in Ukraine is going to develop further. Kerry names the United States as the only guarantor of peace—without even mentioning any Europe. The natives remain natives. The sheriff worries little which tribe they are from.

It is clear that Moscow will not surrender. At least for now. Then Obama will make a helpless gesture with a sigh and say something like “Well, we did offer…,” and launch a new round of escalation.

All of this is payment for cowardice, inconsistency and betrayal. Supporters of the Kremlin’s various cunning plans, of course, will say that everything is going as it should be. Nothing specialthey would say as much about any decision of the authorities. There is such a joblicking superiors. However, in real life, 2014 was a year of complete and total failure of the Kremlin’s foreign policy, which brought in its wake an internal crisis. Thus far, only an economic one. But betrayal always costs dearly, there is no sense even to discuss it. What 2015 will be is hard to say. Judging by what is happeninga logical extension of 2014.


18 thoughts on “Kerry’s Proposal

  1. About “defensive” weapons being used for offensive purposes, when I was younger and more naive, I was working as an engineer at Raytheon developing test equipment for heat-seeking missiles. We were told these were used only for the purpose of shooting down military aircraft, by seeking the heat from their engines. I then found out from an investigative journalist account that heat-seeking missiles were being used in Afghanistan to bomb villages by dropping flares onto the area to attract the guidance system.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by kennedy applebaum | Feb 7, 2015, 00:53
  2. Anybody who believes what the USA says is quite simply mad/deluded, especially coming from a Skull & Bones sub-being like kerry (bush is also one).

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Ralph, in London | Feb 7, 2015, 02:06
  3. I don’t know about anyone else, but I find this article very contradictory about what actions Putin/Moscow should or should not have taken.


    Posted by gerryhiles | Feb 7, 2015, 04:14
  4. To fight a war, you need: 1) weapons. 2) people to use the weapons 3) enough stability to keep the government afloat. Even if the US were to give “defensive” weapons that were then turned offensive, that’s 1/2 of 1/3rd of what Kiev needs to continue fighting against Novorossiya.

    Kiev needs MONEY, a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY, and I can’t see anywhere it’s coming from. The IMF isn’t investing anymore, nobody seems interested in Soros 50 billion idea, the paltry 1 billion US is giving doesn’t cover Ukraine’s 3 billion bill to Russia.

    Kiev is recruiting women now. Men are refusing to join. Kiev has a very huge problem with its army. Furthermore, the Nazi’s are getting restless, and a coup in Kiev is a real possibility in the short term.

    I see the US’s pondering giving weapons as a bargaining chip to get the most leverage they can as the pieces of Kiev are picked up after its collapse here very shortly. US might be thinking it can expand west Ukraine borders by a few extra kilometers or something similar by putting weapons-offer on the table. In the end, the massive exploitation of resources by the west will only be done to western Ukraine – so keeping western Ukraine as large as possible is the biggest goal for the west.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Kevin | Feb 7, 2015, 04:49
  5. It’s a bad situation, and I have to question Russia’s inability to foresee the treachery coming from the U.S. administration, spearheaded by the free thinkers in the State Department. Sometimes the tail wags the dog. In Ukraine, I believe the power brokers who are instituting their agenda on the area decided they would get more mileage out of running the operation out of the State Department, rather than the Obama administration. For instance, once the operation was under way (which was run by the State Department, beginning years ago), the administration would have to follow step and legitimize the entire program.
    I don’t know if there’s a positive outcome in the cards. I don’t know if Washington counted on the separatists to succeed militarily, or if their success is a surprise. I think that the U.S. hedged their bets, and they will win whichever side wins.


    Posted by Matt | Feb 7, 2015, 05:36
  6. i dont know how certain are the acusations of betrayal and cowardy, but kremlin is still giving humanitarian help to ukraine’s in need.
    i believe, that most of all, there is a high sens of hatred and revenge against the kremlin, by not follow the line of “some” militias.
    dont know if moskow oligarcs are as evil as “el muril” devicts them, also toppling putin and his staff as weak, it is thanx to them that militias are gaining the avantage on the war.
    dont be so pesimistic “el muril” be pacient and thankfull to kremlin, even if they didnt invade when u wanted it.
    russia had the invitation of yanukovich to invade, russia denied it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by gab | Feb 7, 2015, 06:22
    • I agree with you GAB.

      The way I see it: Putin and his team have using the best possible tactics, which can be put as, “Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves.”

      This applies to the entire Empire of Chaos and the Junta in Kiev.

      Superficial analysis (and I think “el muril” falls into this category) can say that Moscow should have gone in sooner and sentimentalists can wail about the lives so far lost, but if the Russian military had gone in “all guns blazing”, by now millions would be dead, if not billions … because the neo-con lunatics in Washington were banking (sic) on Putin being as crazy as they are, or as naïve as Qadafi was, but they got it completely wrong.

      I have written an article for RI (which may or may not get published) in which I argue that the great strength of Russia has always been the concentration on DEFENCE, rather than the OFFENSIVE imperialism of the West, especially since Washington became the centre of Empire.

      So even though the Empire seemingly defeated Russia a few decades ago, that did not really happen and throughout it all Russia has developed superb and invincible defensive military technology.

      Hopefully the psychopaths in Washington can be constrained to not force Russia to use its defences.


      Posted by gerryhiles | Feb 7, 2015, 12:09
      • What is RI, Gerry?

        Like you and GAB, I also find the article confusing. Is it a critique of John Kerry or Vladimir Putin?


        Posted by Robin Morritt | Feb 7, 2015, 20:41
  7. I have been fussed since the beginning that NAF didn’t have more and better anti-tank weapons. This would solve the problem. If the US supplies them to Kiev, the NAF will have them in a couple of weeks.


    Posted by Cass | Feb 7, 2015, 09:35
  8. Don’t be upset by the latest defeatest scribbling from “the student” (student of what?). It is standard for states to extemporise. Things are likely to continue somewhat along past lines: Banderastan will continue to exhibit political, economic and military idiocy while political magic continues in Novorossiya; Banderastan will use a division against a brigade and lose; Novorossiya will use a battalian to destroy a brigade; Banderastan will implement martial law and the economy will implode; more Banderastan draft-dodgers will realise that Moscow loves them more than Brussels; if they had brains (and they don’t 🙂 ) the leaders of Banderastan would realize that since an army marches on its stomach and theirs has no stomach for the war, marching is problematic.

    Vlad, ’tis said has been shuffling his ICBMs around lately, which from Kerry’s perspective is MaRVellous, but we cannot assume that madmen will interpret the message correctly, meanwhile death by a thousand cuts (mostly self-inflicted) continues and the Great Satan weakens, so maybe Vlad has got it right.

    Time will tell.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Jalaluddin | Feb 7, 2015, 11:13
  9. We all know these ‘new’ weapons will be used on civilians and because Human Rights Watch and the UN are in the pockets of the US nothing is done about it. Washington cannot control the Nazi battalions as such and most of the Ukrainian army do not want to fight or kill their fellow countrymen, women and children. So even if corrupt US does give weapons, as soon as even just one NAF battalion gets hold of some they can use them against their aggressors.

    The US regime should have criminal war charges against them in an ideal world.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Michelle | Feb 7, 2015, 11:41
  10. if the people of Donbass had gotten their act together sooner then Russia would have annexed it as well as Crimea , but you waited too long . You should have came out and declared your desire to be annexed when Crimea did.


    Posted by jay tea | Feb 7, 2015, 14:50
  11. There are more dark forces involved in this conflict than it seems. Donbas has won the war and sits now on an enviable position to negotiate their freedom. The meeting in Moscow is to anticipate the non-enviable Washington’s humiliating defeat. Unless they remove the rebels from Donbas, the West has nothing for coercing them. Russia can only influence, not reverse things. If Washington provides UA with weapons, the war will spill to the whole Europe by domino effect. There will be cataclysmic changes to the anatomy of Europe, and most of its countries may never recover. US would end up being the emperor without any empire left…Washington is losing in Syria; in Iraq again; has untied its grip on Iran and Cuba – all lost wars! Their Mid East allies are eating humble pie. Not really good. The current administration is toying with impeachment, They re in far greater danger of collapse than anyone else!

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by David Webb | Feb 8, 2015, 01:50
    • Most of the Donbass resistance feels strong loyalty to Russia and can indeed be coerced by threats to Russia. They are not just some Russians in a part of Russia, as Strelkov characterized them in his interview with Gen. Kazantsev. Their roots in the Donbass, its history, its heroes, are obvious and strong. It makes me comfortable with the idea of federalization; they have their own identity and it might develop better with the space and light of autonomy. At the same time, Russia is their motherland and they will take care not to pursue their own goals at the cost of weakening Russia.


      Posted by Cass | Feb 10, 2015, 03:57


  1. Pingback: Donbass News & Analysis Feb 1-6 | Quemado Institute - Feb 7, 2015

  2. Pingback: US Threatening to Arm Nazi Allies to Force Putin into an Agreement | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay - Feb 7, 2015

  3. Pingback: Kerry’s Proposal | | keesened's Blog - Feb 7, 2015

  4. Pingback: Novorossiya News & Opinion Feb 4-9 | Quemado Institute - Feb 9, 2015

Latest map of hostilities (25/01)

Our Partners:

Archived Briefings

A Record of Our Times

Feb 2015
Follow on

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 22,231 other subscribers.

Latest Briefings

Blog Stats

  • 1,731,286 hits
%d bloggers like this: