Making sense of the latest Kerry Lavrov deal

Ok, first the necessary caveats:

1) Kerry and Lavrov already had a deal on Syria, also made in Geneva, but then the USA reneged.
2) The EU also had a deal on the Ukraine with Yanukovich, who was overthrown literally the next day.
3) The USA, NATO and the EU have lied, cheated, mis-represented, twisted and simply betrayed pretty much every promise which they made to Russia ever since Russia freed itself from the yoke of Communism in 1991.
4) The USA probably has as much control over the Ukrainian crazies a la Right Sector as it does over al-Qaeda, tenuous at best.
5) Putin does have a lot of "street cred" in the eastern Ukraine, but it is far from being infinite.
6) The USA does have full control over the Ukrainian oligarchs, but they, in turn, are clearly in a struggle with the nationalist crazies who probably have more firepower and crowd muscle than these oligarchs.

To these caveats, I also want to add a few basic reminders because from the comments I have seen on my previous initial post, a lot of you are over-reacting to this latest developments.  So, just for context, please keep in mind that

1) The Kiev regime has proven that it does not have the means to crush the rebellion in the East.
2) For reasons I have already mentioned many times, NATO and the US do not have a military option in the Ukraine.
3)  Western sanctions are not significantly hurting Russia and they are very significantly help Putin's personal popularity and reforms program.
4) Time is not on the side of the regime in Kiev as the West cannot rescue the Ukraine; Russia can, but will not do so as long as the regime in power remains both illegitimate and crazy.
5) Popular militia can which materialize overnight can also disappear overnight.
6) Until now Kiev has rejected any negotiations with the East.
7) Kiev hold tens or even hundreds of anti-Fascist activists in its jails.
8) The population which would suffer from open warfare is in the East.

Ok, now that we have set the context, let us look at what happened today:

1) Kiev has agreed to negotiate with the East.
2) All illegal armed groups will have to disarm (that was already agreed between Yanukovich and the EU).
3) OSCE monitors will be dispatched to the East to monitor the situation.
4) Kiev has committed to legal reforms for greater autonomy.
5) The Crimea has not even been discussed.
6) The EU has accepted Putin's proposal to discuss gas deliveries.
7) Nobody will face prosecution except for major crimes.

Now, in my opinion, very little has in fact been agreed to, and all that has been agreed to is vague, ambiguous and lacks any verifiable landmarks to achieve within a clear timetable.

So I very much disagree with those who see that as a sell-out by Russia or, even more so, who call a truly top-notch diplomat with fantastic diplomatic skills all sorts of bad names.

Furthermore, and that is the only big news, the USA, the EU and Kiev have agreed to negotiate with Russia, something they had categorically refused to do in the past (except for the EU agreement with Yanukovich which lasted less than a day and which the US never committed to).  As for Crimea, it is simply not part of any negotiations and will just remain a great opportunity for western politicians to spew some more hot air when they feel the need to.

The illegal formations and their weapons?  I suppose that if things go well they will very gradually vacate some buildings which are only needed for symbolic reasons, as for their weapons, they will hide them (and use extra time to get more!).  None of the activists will be detained, at least not legally and, frankly, I see no other option at this point for the Kiev authorities then to release the anti-Nazi activists they are holding.  So far, the Russian speakers, far from vacating any building, have seized one more.

The sanctions?  Those in place will stay, the West will make lots of empty threats about more sanctions if these evil Russkies don't behave, Putin will assume not only that no sanctions will be lifted, but also that many more will be introduced (that serves his economic reform agenda).

Crimea?  It will see a huge economic boom starting this summer with a wave of "patriotic tourism" and *massive* investments from the Russian business community which will now get a chance to bid and invest in all the neglected infrastructure the Ukies left after them and all the numerous millionaire mansions the Ukrainian oligarchs have built.  Crimea will become the "jewel of the Black Sea" and the economic powerhouse of southern Russia.  Military contracts, huge ones, will begin pouring in (the Russian Navy already ordered 5 ships today).

The Ukraine?  It will get poorer, more unstable, totally dependent on western emergency aid which will barely let the regime stay in power unless the revolutionaries come to their senses or tell Uncle Sam to buzz off.  Either way, as long as the rump-Ukraine remains anti-Russia (nevermind a Nazi Banderastan) it will remain a bankrupt failed state.

Russia?  It will continue exactly on the same course and adapt its policies depending on the exact ratio of sanity/delusion it will detect in its "western partners".

So today agreement is really neither good, nor bad, in fact - it's no big deal at all.  Either it will be as short-lived as the agreement between the EU and Yanukovich, or it will be slowly implemented with lots of zig-zags on the way.  Regardless of which option proves true, it will not affect the deep dynamics which have been set in motion which have now acquired a momentum so powerful that probably nobody can stop it.

The attempt to put down the eastern Ukraine appears to have petered out and the chance to turn the Donbass into a "East Banderastan" lead by a clique of neo-Nazi freaks are as small as ever.  In other words, chances are the at least the current phase of the Ukrainian civil war is over.

All in all, that is pretty good news, I think.

The Saker

UNSC Resolution 2118 - a half-full glass?

I have carefully parsed UNSC Res 2118 and while I did not find any great surprises in its contents, I would qualify it as a half-full glass, meaning that while this resolution does not fix any of the issues which I had identified in the Kerry-Lavrov agreements (see here, here, here and here), it at least does not exacerbate them either and that, in itself, is definitely a plus.  

Why?

Because my main concern was the the US would "creatively reinterpret" (i.e. grossly distort) the meaning of the Kerry-Lavrov Agreement.  Since this has not happened in this Resolution, this now makes is harder or even less likely that the US could do so.  And if it did, it would do so at a higher political costs, with its hypocrisy even more obvious to all.

One big risk of the Kerry Lavrov Agreement remains.

Here is what Kerry said in his explanation of vote:

The Council had endorsed the Geneva Communiqué, and it had adopted a legally binding resolution that spelled out in detail what Syria must do to comply with it. It could not accept or reject the inspectors, but must give unfettered access at all sites. “We are here because actions have consequences,” he said.

Russia's position was expressed by Lavrov:

Noting that Damascus had shown its readiness for cooperation by joining the Chemical Weapons Convention, he said that was a precondition for success. It also had provided a list of its chemical weapons arsenal. Damascus would continue to cooperate with international inspectors. The responsibility for implementing the resolution did not lay only with Syria. 

Interestingly, the semi-official official preamble of the UN Department of Public Information wrote this:

Syria should comply with all aspects of the OPCW decision, notably by accepting personnel designated by OPCW or the United Nations and providing them with immediate and unfettered access to — and the right to inspect — any and all chemical weapons sites.

Now what did the Resolution 2118 itself actually say?

Alas, it said this:

Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations, including by complying with their relevant recommendations, by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by providing for and ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel, by providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect, in discharging their functions, any and all sites, and by allowing immediate and unfettered access to individuals that the OPCW has grounds to believe to be of importance for the purpose of its mandate, and decides that all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully in this regard;

I hate to be the one making it rain on your parade, but this is not good at all.  The Americans got it right: this Resolution does not, repeat not, limit access to only chemical sites.  Not only does it require immediate access to any and all sites, it also demands immediate and unfettered access to individuals (and we know how the UN special tribunal investigating the Hariri murder in Lebanon abused that right, especially towards Syrian nationals).

So we should not kid ourselves, all the US needs to do is find the Syria in material breach of Resolution 2118 and, voila, we will almost be back to square one.  I say 'almost', because the trap set by the Russians for the USA has also worked: by voting 'yes' on UNSC Res 2118 the USA has thereby also committed itself to go back to the UNSC should it find Syria in non-compliance with UNSC Res 2118.  What the US cannot do is simply decide to attack.  The political price for that have now skyrocketed with the US signing on to this Resolution, and that is, of course, very good news - kudos to the Russian diplomats here.

Clearly, as long as Putin is alive and in the Kremlin, the US will not get a UNSC Resolution to attack Syria.  I think that nobody, short of pathological Russia-haters, will deny that.  The Americans understand that too.  So they also understand that if they find Syria in material breach of UNSC Res 2118 they will have to go to the UNSC where the best they can hope for is a Russian and Chinese agreement to Chapter VII measures which fall short of the use of military force, and even that is most unlikely as Lavrov has clearly said that any accusation would have to be proven 100% (a level of proof which is practically impossible to meet anyway).  So short of Assad throwing a chemical hand grenade from his balcony on CNN live - the UNSC will not endorse an attack on Syria.

Still, the Americans are so used to threaten and bully that it has really become a second nature to them.  And the dumber and more ignorant a US politician is, the more bullying and threatening he usually does precisely to conceal is boneheaded ignorance and cluelessness.  They all seem to be totally unaware of the fact that under international law the threat of attack is already considered as an aggressive and illegal action.

The other headache for the US will be that it has now committed to bring the insurgents to the negotiating table, something which the insurgents have so far categorically rejected.  Even better, did you notice that the American insistence that Assad first leave even before negotiations begin have now vanished from both the Kerry-Lavrov Agreement and UNSC Res 2118?  Another small, but very substantial victory for the Kremlin.

The best thing which the Kerry-Lavrov Agreement and UNSC Res 2118 provide is, of course, a quasi-total elimination for any momentum for a US attack on Syria, and that is truly a fantastic success for Lavrov and his diplomats.  Even a "material breach" argument will not be "sexy" enough for Obama to justify a US attack on Syria.  The only way to achieve that is, what else, yet another false flag attack, either on Israel or even on the USA.  So that will be the main danger from now on: a US/Israeli false flag attack with a lot of innocent civilians killed, enough to outrage the US public opinion into yet another murderous frenzy.  Short of that, it appears that the danger of a direct US military intervention in the short and mid term have receded, at least for the time being.

The glass is definitely half full.  Let's hope we can fill it further up now.

The Saker