Mediaboss Marketing

International partners know that it is useless to even try to put pressure on Ukraine on issues that do not meet the interests of the state, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has said.

According to Ukrinform, he stated this in an interview with RBC-Ukraine.

"The possibility of 'insistently asking for' something or putting pressure on Ukraine regarding something that does not meet its interests - such an option is not on the table, it has been removed from the agenda. Our partners know that you shouldn't even try to do that," Kuleba said.

He noted that Ukraine is now an active subject and an active participant in international politics.

"Sometimes we even literally impose our vision, our position. Russia is also in this situation now, because it is not able to break Ukraine without such an escalation, as other means do not work. It is the inability to deprive Ukraine of support from partners that forces Russia to raise the stakes," Kuleba said.

When asked what Ukraine's proactive position in the story with security guarantees is, Kuleba recalled that U.S. Department of State official Karen Donfried was in Kyiv before traveling to Moscow and receiving these documents there, and the United States was the first to discuss the content of those documents with Ukraine.

As an example of such a position, he noted that giving Russia any role in relations between Ukraine and NATO is a priori impossible.

op

Visit link:
Partners know it is useless to put pressure on Ukraine - Kuleba - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

KYIV, Ukraine Nations have chosen their leaders from among many fields, including the military and academia, but Ukraines government might be the first to draw heavily from television and film comedy.

Before turning to politics, President Volodymyr Zelensky was a television actor and comic, and he has placed allies with similar histories in key positions throughout the government, including top advisers, legislators, administrators and even an intelligence chief.

At a time when Russia has built up forces on Ukraines border and fear of an invasion is running high, Mr. Zelensky has surrounded himself with people drawn from his comedy studio, Kvartal 95. Few have any experience in diplomacy or warfare.

There is that risk of people not having the gravitas, and not having experience, Orysia Lutsevych, the director of the Ukraine studies program at Chatham House in London, said in an interview. I wouldnt want to be in the room when there are just a couple of guys who know how to produce videos. This is not a peaceful time. This is a time of war.

Mr. Zelensky was elected as an outsider to Ukraines dysfunctional, often corrupt politics two years ago, and, trying to bypass its bitter feuds and opaque motives, he ushered in a government as unorthodox as he was. He appointed fellow comedy industry veterans, relying on personal loyalty rather than expertise or building coalitions in Ukraines fractious democracy, political analysts say.

Bihus, a Ukrainian investigative news site, has counted three dozen people with ties to Mr. Zelenskys comedy studio and his family who are now in government, including in national security positions at the defense intelligence agency, which is tasked with monitoring the Russian buildup.

Mr. Zelensky has repeatedly rejected accusations of frivolity, and allies say his comedy background and wry humor are actually political assets.

Ukraine has been at war against Russia-backed separatists since 2014, long before Mr. Zelensky took office.

Today, Russia has amassed troops to the north, east and south. The United States has disclosed intelligence showing that Russias military has a war plan envisioning an invasion with as many as 175,000 troops that Ukraines military, despite U.S.-provided equipment and training, would have little ability to stop.

American officials have said it is unclear whether President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has decided to invade.

Russia has demanded that NATO pledge to refrain from any eastward expansion, that Ukraine cease deployments of NATO weaponry and that Kyiv bend to Russian terms for a settlement in the war in eastern Ukraine.

The buildup places Mr. Zelenskys government in a crucible of diplomacy and military posturing, which has included U.S. and European military flights near Russias borders in the Black Sea and a video call between President Biden and Mr. Putin.

Military analysts have described a range of scenarios for conflict, including a limited use of force by Russia. But a full invasion would become the largest military action in Europe since World War II, harden the continents East-West divide and kill an untold number of soldiers on both sides, as well as civilians in Ukraine.

It is hardly a lighthearted moment, and yet comedy was integral to Mr. Zelenskys political ascent and persona, and his supporters defend its relevance in crisis.

On television, he played a schoolteacher whose tirade against corruption is filmed by his students, winds up online and goes viral, propelling him to the presidency.

In a campaign of life mimicking art, Mr. Zelensky named his political party after his television show, Servant of the People. Actors, filmmakers and media executives led the party and followed him into power.

The chief of the presidential administration, Andriy Yermak, was a media lawyer and movie producer. The head of the domestic intelligence agency, Ivan Bakanov, had been the director of the Kvartal 95 studio. A chief presidential adviser, Serhiy Shefir, was a screenwriter and producer whose major credits included a hit romantic comedy film, Eight First Dates, and a television series, The In-laws.

Roman Hryshchuk headlined a comedy show called Mama Busted Up before winning a seat in Parliament with Mr. Zelenskys party. Like the other comedians in power, he is unapologetic.

Humor is a sign of intellect, he said in an interview. A sense of humor is a gift.

In Ukraines international relations, its really an advantage, he added. In diplomacy, humor is always an instrument. You can set the right tone with a joke.

But the view that only comedians run the government is a stereotype promoted by opposition parties, Mr. Hryshchuk said, noting that many non-comedians also serve. To avoid playing into this criticism of Mr. Zelensky, he said he has not told a joke in public for two years and in the interview, he sternly declined to do so.

It would be used against us, he said.

Mr. Zelensky has joked, sometimes at tense moments. In what was perceived as a threatening gesture in July, Mr. Putin wrote an essay describing Russia and Ukraine as essentially one nation, a text suggesting a justification for uniting the countries.

It described fraternal bonds. Mr. Zelensky replied, like Cain and Abel.

He also quipped of Mr. Putins roughly 5,000-word treatise delving into medieval history that the Russian president seemed to have a lot of time on his hands.

They think differently, Tymofiy Mylovanov, a former economics minister, said of comedy studio veterans. They think in terms of dramaturgy. They think, Who is the villain, who is the hero, what is the roller coaster of emotions?

Behind closed doors, Mr. Zelensky and his associates are typically serious in meetings, former aides and ministers said in interviews.

The comedy veterans joke, but no more than others in the room. They are just of a better quality than when I try to make a joke, said Mr. Mylovanov, whose specialty in economics is the theory of contracts.

Ominous warnings. Russia called the strike a destabilizing act that violated the cease-fire agreement, raising fears of a new intervention in Ukraine that could draw the United States and Europe into a new phase of the conflict.

The Kremlins position. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has increasingly portrayed NATOs eastward expansion as an existential threat to his country, said that Moscows military buildupwas a response to Ukraines deepening partnership with the alliance.

Serhiy Prytula, a comedian and host of the television show Ukraines Got Talent, said the problem was not comedy, per se, but Mr. Zelenskys reliance on loyalists.

We all worked somewhere, said Mr. Prytula, who has announced plans to found his own comedian-led political party to compete with Mr. Zelensky. The question is: Are you, as a politician, willing to surround yourself with people who are not just loyal but have expertise?

Beyond the general sense that Mr. Zelenskys aides are out of their depth, critics have pointed to what they call worrying blunders in national security.

Mr. Yermak, the former media lawyer, ordered an ill-considered delay in a sensitive intelligence operation in 2020 that might have captured dozens of Russian mercenaries, according to Bellingcat, an open source investigation group. The delay scuttled the operation.

And critics point to a decision this year to earmark money raised through government borrowing not for military spending but for Mr. Zelenskys signature domestic policy project, a road-building initiative called Big Construction overseen by Kirill Tymoshenko, a former director of a video production company, Good Media.

Volodymyr Ariev, a member of the opposition European Solidarity party, joked that this allocation would now serve to make the ride to Kyiv more comfortable for Russian tanks.

As Ukraine braces for possible war with Russia, worry has mounted that the inexperience of Mr. Zelenskys circle could have dire consequences, and not only for their own country. An amateurish misstep could become a pretext for war, which would significantly worsen the friction between Russia and the United States.

Dmytro Razumkov, who was ousted in October as the speaker of Parliament and replaced by a former comedian, Ruslan Stefanchuk said Mr. Zelenskys appointment of show business figures betrayed a campaign promise to balance his government with technical experts. Mr. Stefanchuk is also a lawyer.

We said, In those areas where we dont have expertise, people who do understand should step in, said Mr. Razumkov, who was an early supporter of Mr. Zelensky but has pivoted to criticizing him for bringing in hapless ministers and aides.

Appointments to senior posts are now based on loyalty to the president and his entourage, Mr. Razumkov said. Its a comfortable way to work for the president but not for the country at a time of military threat.

We came for a comedy, Mr. Razumkov said of Ukrainian politics under Mr. Zelensky, and wound up watching a horror movie. Its not funny at all.

Maria Varenikova contributed reporting from Kyiv.

Continue reading here:
As Russian Threat Looms, Ukraines Government Is No Laughing Matter - The New York Times

The Ukraine crisis should be a wake-up call for European nations to boost defense spending and finally take seriously Frances calls for European strategic autonomy. And yes, Americans should cheer them on.

Presently, Europe is heavily dependent on decisions made in Washington regarding whether or how to counter the Russian threat, largely because they lack the collective military heft to deal with Russia on their own. Washington, however, has good reason to dither; few have any appetite for a war with Russia, or for dying for Kyiv.

Europeans may feel the same way, but it should be up to them, and not President BidenJoe BidenFauci says CDC cut isolation time so people return to work faster Overnight Health Care CDC cuts isolation time for the asymptomatic Energy & Environment 2021's weather disasters cost 0B MORE and Congress. They have more at stake either way: They are more at risk in case of war, just as they are more likely to suffer the consequences of a policy of appeasing Moscow.

Why is Europe so dependent? It boils down to lacking the military wherewithal to take on Russia without significant U.S. assistance. Europes militaries are excellent but small. As a RAND study I co-authored argued about Western Europes most capable force, Frances, it could manage a full division, but France would have to send it into battle with nothing to spare in terms of replacement men, vehicles, ammunition and parts. The same is largely true of its air and naval forces: They are top tier, to be sure, but scarce. There would be nothing in reserve to absorb any sort of attrition or sustain the fight for very long.

The situation with Europes other top militaries the British, the Germans, the Italians and the Spanish is worse. Its all a question of spending, with most NATO countries spending well below the notional 2 percent goal, and a question of coordinating what they do spend. The whole of a bunch of small militaries can be worth much less than the sum of the parts. NATO exists in part to fix that and ensure that collectively the Alliance makes the most of what it has. But here the point is operating outside NATO, or at least without the Americans: What if Washington prefers to sit it out?

No sane person would argue for a war with Russia, but deterring such a war requires being able to respond proportionately to each threat, and also to avoid the worst-case scenario, wherein for lack of an appropriate conventional arm Europe has to decide between capitulation or nuclear weapons. Europe in fact needs to be able to do two things to avoid that horrible dilemma. One is mastering the kind of sub-threshold indirect and hybrid warfare at which the Russians currently have an edge. The other is being able to measure out conventional capabilities. Europe needs both, for both would give it options. It has neither.

Americans should welcome a European awakening. First, unless we really are up for dying for Kyiv, Kyivs fate, and Europes, should not be up to us. Second, a strong Europe would make it easier for all of us to deter Russia. We would not have to commit as much of our own force, and Moscow would know it has to contend with more than one major power.

Michael Shurkin is a former RAND senior political scientist who now is the president and founder of Shurbros Global Strategies as well as director of Global Programs at 14 North Strategies.

Here is the original post:
Europe needs to step up to deter Russia in Ukraine | TheHill - The Hill

The number one thing we can do is real time actionable intelligence that says, The Russians are coming over the berm, said Evelyn Farkas, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia in the Obama administration. We tell them, and they use that to target the Russians.

She said that weve been nervous about that in the past.

One potential problem with providing actionable intelligence, American officials acknowledge, is that it could lead Ukraine to strike first the sort of scenario Western officials believe that Mr. Putin has been trying to sell to the Russian public.

This summer, Mr. Putin argued in an article that Russians and Ukrainians were one people and said that the formation of a Ukrainian state hostile to Moscow was comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us.

He has continuously painted the Ukrainian government as the aggressor, backed by the West. But if Russian tanks are moving over the border, and Ukraine targets them, it will be hard for Mr. Putin to make that argument. Russian disinformation campaigns have attacked the Ukrainian government and accused President Volodymyr Zelensky of creating a humanitarian crisis in the countrys east, where Ukrainian government forces have been battling Russian-led separatists for years, Western officials said.

Last Friday, Mr. Putin codified what he has long been saying to American and European officials in meetings, demanding that the United States and its allies halt all military activity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia in a Cold War-like security arrangement. That the demand came when Russian troops were at Ukraines border explicitly linked the deployment to a possible invasion, American officials said.

American and NATO officials privately dismissed the main demands of the Russian proposal, which came in the form of a draft treaty suggesting that NATO should offer written guarantees that it would not expand farther east toward Russia and halt all military activities in the former Soviet republics.

Ominous warnings. Russia called the strike a destabilizing act that violated the cease-fire agreement, raising fears of a new intervention in Ukraine that could draw the United States and Europe into a new phase of the conflict.

The Kremlins position. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has increasingly portrayed NATOs eastward expansion as an existential threat to his country, said that Moscows military buildupwas a response to Ukraines deepening partnership with the alliance.

But the United States also set up talks with Moscow, for January, during which officials said they would tackle the range of complaints detailed by Russia. On Wednesday, Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov. Ukraine has sought NATO membership for years a move that would enrage Russia but despite the delay, the United States has balked at taking Ukraines accession off the table.

Read the rest here:
U.S. Considers Warning Ukraine of a Russian Invasion in Real-Time - The New York Times

Canada's long-standing, stalwart support of Ukraine will be under new and intense pressure early in the new year, say experts and a former top military commander, as the West braces for possible military action by Russia, perhaps as soon as late January.

There could be as many asfive possible scenarios on how the current crisis in Eastern Europe might play out,and they're almost all bad.

The assembly of over 100,000 Russian troops on Ukraine's eastern border and the possibility of a full-blown invasion has riveted the attention of western leaders and policy-makers.

It is just one of the potential scenarios, although U.S.intelligence officials say Russian President Vladimir Putin has not made up his mind to use overwhelming military force and the Kremlin denies it is planning an invasion.

Canada, which originally sponsored Ukraine's bid to join NATO, and is among the country's biggest cheerleaders and defenders, will find it faces uncomfortable choices in the new year,both internationally and domestically.

The U.S. and NATO have already said that they will not send troops to defend the country in the event of an invasion. That is cause for anxiety in the politically-active, occasionally strident, Canadian-Ukrainian diaspora population in this country.

The Liberal government will have to fall in line with other NATO allies, no matter how painful it becomes domestically.

Stefanie von Hlatky, associate professor of political studies at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., said the challenge for the government will be to "play up what it is already doing in Ukraine."

One of the things Canadais doing is helping to improve the combat skills of Ukrainian soldiers through an international training mission. It isan endeavour the Trudeau government has already signalled its willingness to renew, when the mandate expires in March of the coming year.

Defence Minister Anita Anand's mandate letter contained a reference to "extending" both Operation Unifier in Ukraine and Operation Reassurance, the overall Canadian military contribution to NATO's campaign of deterrence against Russia.

The Canadian military trainers in Ukraine, roughly 200 in all,would "quite possibly" have to be withdrawn in the event of major hostilities, said the country's top military commander.

"It is a capacity-building mission that we have there, it is not a combat mission," said Gen. Wayne Eyre, Canada's chief of the defence staff, in a recent interview with CBC News.

"We have trainers who are focused on training, not fighting and so,as with any deteriorating situation,we would have to take a look at that situation and what we do with that force on the ground."

The possibility of having to make thatdecision underlines the delicate balancing act facing not only Canada, but NATO as a whole. In the face of a military crisis, there will be the need to show resolution without antagonizing Russia,or getting drawn into one of Moscow's disinformation campaigns.

"No one has a crystal ball," said Dominique Arel, a University of Ottawa professor and the school's chair of Ukrainian Studies, who added that he found the notion of full-blown invasion to be "wildly unlikely" because of the enormous cost Russia would pay in terms of blood and treasure.

An invasion, he said, would be a complete change in policy for Moscow and the Ukrainian Army is better trained, more experienced and more effectively armed than the last time Russian forces fought them for control of Crimea and the eastern Donbass region in 2014.

"There's an actual army there and they're gonna fight," said Arel, referring to Ukrainian forces, which are now equipped with U.S.-made Javelin anti-tank rockets and Turkish missile-carrying drones. "Even if they are initially defeated, that's going to be at a serious cost to the Russian Army. Why would the Russian government do that?"

Similarly, Matthew Schmidt, an associate professor and national security expert at the University of New Haven, Connecticut, said he's doubtful we'll see the absolute worst case scenario.

"I think the scenario of a massive invasion of Ukraine is unlikely," he said. "If Putin has to take Kyiv, he's lost the war because the international response will be so devastating that he doesn't gain much benefit."

The U.S has threatened devastating economic sanctions, including the possibility of cutting Russia off from SWIFT, the messaging network used by 11,000 banks in hundreds of countries around the globe to make cross-border payments. That has been referred to as "the nuclear option," a crippling economic blow that would deliver major financial pain.

Western and Ukrainian intelligence officials have suggested, that if there is going to be conflict, expect to see it in the window from mid-January to early February when the ground is frozen and solid enough to take the weight of tanks.

There are two other scenarios that involve a limited invasion:one that sees Russia establish a land bridge to Crimea by taking the Ukrainian city of Mariupol and possibly driving further west as far as the port city of Odessa; the other notion would see some form of overt reinforcement of Russian-backed proxy forces in the breakaway oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk,known collectively as the Donbass region.

Schmidt said both of those scenarios would likely provoke western allies.

"He may well engage in some kind of limited invasion in the east, but even there it's risky for him because of the kind of sanctions the West would bring down, particularly the risk of cutting them out of the SWIFT banking network, which woulddevastate the Russian economy," Schmidt said.

A fourth option;to use special forces and subversion to wear down Ukraine and its allies,is something that is more Moscow's speed, said Arel.

"Will Russia find other ways of ratcheting up the military pressure, while pretending it's not doing it? Possibly. Because that's been the playbook," said Arel, referring to the campaign of disinformation and confusion the Kremlin used following the annexation of Crimea.

The fifth option would be to do nothing and allow the giant military force to sit on Ukraine's border and wear down the government in Kyiv, as well as NATO, with a perpetual state of crisis.

Canada's former military representative at NATO, retired vice-admiral Bob Davidson, said he believes Putin senses weakness among the allies following the disastrous, chaotic end to the two-decade western alliance mission in Afghanistan.

For authoritarian leaders, there was an unmistakable message.

"We didn't lose the war because the Taliban won. We lost because we basically gave up on it," said Davidson. "So, that's what I think Putin and some of the others in the world are looking at: What is the real staying power of NATO when it comes to some of these issues that may turn out to be generational?"

Schmidt agreed with the assessment, saying Putin is an astute opportunist.

"Putin is often seen as some kind of grand strategist, my view is he isn't," Schmidt said. "What he is, is that he's a good reader of current events and he takes advantage of targets of opportunity."

The loss of Afghanistan and the way it has reflected on NATO and the United States"has given him an opportunity to push and do two things he's wanted to do:things that have been part of his foreign policy for a long time,which is to weaken and break apart NATO, and secondly, to weaken and break apart the European Union."

On Dec. 17, Russia published draft security demands that included: NATO denying membership to Ukraine and other former Soviet countries; a roll back of the alliance's military deployments in Central and Eastern Europe anda halt to western military drills near Russia, among other things.

The demand for a written guarantee that Ukraine won't be offered membership has already been rejected by the West and the other ultimatums are almost certainly headed in the same direction.

The attempt to link the ending of the Ukraine crisis with the wider Russian policy of stopping NATO's eastward expansion is illuminating, Davidson said.

The reality, he said, is that Ukraine is at least fifteen years away from the kind of institutional reform that would allow it to be a full-fledged NATO member and Russia knows that.

So, why now?

Putin is struggling with "a weakening economy" and the drive towards clean energy, which will have a furtherenormous impact on the Russian economy, because of its reliance on fossil fuels, limiting its ability to wage war, said Davidson.

The U.S. has said it is seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but achieving one will be difficult without the willingsupport of President Volodymyr Zelensky's government.

There have been two peace accords, brokered with the help of the U.S., France and Germany, known as the Minsk agreements. The deals have been a recipe for political stalemate.

Arel said it's clear Russia is tired of the situation.

"Russia is seeking ways to ratchet up the pressure so this political impasse will crack," Arel said. "It's hard to see how it will work."

The accords propose giving the two breakaway regions so-called special status within Ukraine;something the government in Kyiv appears loath to grant.

"The word autonomy is not used in the accord, but that's what it amounts to, but that's not happening," said Arel. "Ukraine is unable, unwilling to move forward because it's seen as total capitulation."

There is good reason for the Ukrainians to be suspicious. Crimea, which was annexed by Russia, had an autonomous status before 2014.

Ironically, Arel said, France, Germany and the United States are all onboard with the notion of giving special status to the Donbass.

But with Russia's recent military buildup neither the allies, nor Canada, can openly pressure the government in Kyiv to be flexible because it would be seen as caving in to Moscow.

It would put Canada in an uncomfortable position if the U.S. pressed Ukraine to make concessions; or if NATO showed signs of walking back its commitment to eventually allow Ukraine to join.

"Were NATO to do that, that would be the end of NATO," Arel said.

In a further ironic twist, he noted how in 2008, when Ukraine was first proposed by Canada for NATO membership, the resolution was deliberately vague on the timetable and meant as a concession to ease Russian fears.

"It means Ukraine could join in 50 years, not five," Arel said.

Excerpt from:
Tough choices ahead for Canada as Ukraine and Russia teeter on brink of war - CBC News