Western media discussed today the crisis in Ukraine in relation to the cease-fire at the Ukrainian East.The American news publication “Foreign Policy” magazine reported on cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine in the article entitled “How the Cease-Fire With Russia Might Save Ukraine”. The article calls Russia's president Vladimir Putin to be “a key component of the deal” since he is “the only one to stop the flow of Russian weapons across the border with Ukraine”. As for the international support, the author claims that “for now, Secretary of State John Kerry’s backing of the deal takes weapons off the table. It also means the momentum to send arms to Ukraine building over the last two weeks has crashed.” Still, “lawmakers in both parties who favoured more military aid to Ukraine expressed scepticism of Russia’s commitment to the deal”, reports the article.British national daily newspaper “The Guardian” reflected on the same topic with the article entitled “This is a make-or-break moment for Ukraine”. The immediate task is to create a lasting ceasefire and to end the terrible bloodshed, the article says. But the next part of the Minsk plan, which Putin refers to as “political settlement” is even more difficult task, according to the author. According to the article, it would be a disaster to allow the self-proclaimed "People's Republic" to remain in their current condition, creating the "frozen conflict" around the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. Discussing how much Putin is able to influence the rebels, the author points out that “they ignored Putin's request not to hold a referendum on independence in 2014” In addition, “Putin’s public position has never been identical to that of the separatists – he has consistently said he supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but wants constitutional reforms that will guarantee the rights of Russians living in the south and east of the country. That is what the Minsk agreement provides for – and the west must put pressure on Kiev to deliver quickly on that promise,” the article reads. One shall not allow Putin to pretend that he can not control the rebels, as he is definitely able to stop the supply of weapon to them. But he is unlikely to do so, the article says, in case Putin is afraid that Ukraine, relying on the West, may prepare to re-launch the military offensive against Russia.The British media “The Economist” discussed “Putin’s war on the West”, claiming that “As Ukraine suffers, it is time to recognise the gravity of the Russian threat—and to counter it”. Trying to illustrate the situation through the lens of Kremlin's interest, the article claims that “the EU and NATO are Mr Putin’s ultimate targets. To him, Western institutions and values are more threatening than armies. He wants to halt their spread, corrode them from within and, at least on the West’s fragile periphery, supplant them with his own model of governance. In that model, nation-states trump alliances, states are dominated by elites, and those elites can be bought. Here, too, he has enjoyed some success. From France to Greece to Hungary he is cultivating parties on Europe’s far right and left: anyone who might lobby for Russian interests in the EU, or even help to prise the union apart”. Seeking for an answer for the eternal question 'What is to be done?', the author offers the West “to eschew Putin's methods and rely on an asset that he, in turn, cannot match: a way of life that people covet. If that seems wishy-washy beside Putin's tanks, remember that the crisis began with Ukrainians’ desire to tilt towards the EU—and Mr Putin’s determination to stop them”. Also, “those former Soviet countries that have joined Western institutions must be buttressed and reassured. If the case for sending arms to the Donbas is doubtful, that for basing NATO troops in the Baltics is overwhelming, however loudly Mr Putin squeals”, the article reads.The US based media “The Time” discussed immense problems that both Russia and Ukraine will still need to overcome after the cease-fire in the article “The 5 Reasons Russia Has It Bad (But Ukraine Has It Worse)”. The author reflects on “tense, all-night negotiations on Wednesday” saying that “didn’t stop the violence, and many doubt a ceasefire can hold” The 5 reasons showing that “even if Russia has it bad, Ukraine has it worse”, are: abysmal economics, shrinking territory, pummeled currencies, massive displacement and endemic corruption.
Western media discussed today the crisis in Ukraine in relation to the ceasefire in Ukraine's east.
The American news publication “Foreign Policy” magazine reported on the ceasefire between pro-Russian forces and Ukraine in an article entitled “How the Cease-Fire With Russia Might Save Ukraine”. The article describes Russia's president Vladimir Putin as “a key component of the deal,” since he is “the only one who can stop the flow of Russian weapons across the border with Ukraine.”
As for international support, the author claims that “for now, Secretary of State John Kerry’s backing of the deal takes weapons off the table. It also means the momentum to send arms to Ukraine, that had been building over the last two weeks, has crashed.”
Still, “lawmakers in both parties who favoured more military aid to Ukraine expressed scepticism at Russia’s commitment to the deal,” the article reads.
British national daily newspaper “The Guardian” reflected on the same topic with an article titled “This is a make-or-break moment for Ukraine”. The immediate task is to create a lasting ceasefire and to end the terrible bloodshed, the article says. But the next part of the Minsk plan, which Putin refers to as “the political settlement” is an even more difficult task, according to the author. According to the article, it would be a disaster to allow the self-proclaimed "People's Republics" to remain in their current condition, creating a "frozen conflict" around the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. Discussing how much Putin is able to influence the rebels, the author points out that “they ignored Putin's request not to hold a referendum on independence in 2014.” In addition, “Putin’s public position has never been identical to that of the separatists – he has consistently said he supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but wants constitutional reforms that will guarantee the rights of Russians living in the south and east of the country. That is what the Minsk agreement provides for – and the west must put pressure on Kiev to deliver quickly on that promise,” the article reads. One should not allow Putin to pretend that he cannot control the rebels, as he is definitely able to stop the supply of weapons to them. But he is unlikely to do so, the article says, in case Putin is afraid that Ukraine, relying on the West, may prepare to re-launch a military offensive against the pro-Russian forces.
The British magazine “The Economist” discussed “Putin’s war on the West”, claiming that “As Ukraine suffers, it is time to recognise the gravity of the Russian threat—and to counter it.” Trying to illustrate the situation through the lense of the Kremlin's interests, the article claims that “the EU and NATO are Mr Putin’s ultimate targets. To him, Western institutions and values are more threatening than armies. He wants to halt their spread, corrode them from within and, at least on the West’s fragile periphery, supplant them with his own model of governance. In that model, nation-states trump alliances, states are dominated by elites, and those elites can be bought. Here, too, he has enjoyed some success. From France to Greece to Hungary he is cultivating parties on Europe’s far right and left: anyone who might lobby for Russian interests in the EU, or even help to prise the union apart.” Seeking an answer to the eternal question 'What is to be done?', the author proposes that the West “eschew Putin's methods and rely on an asset that he, in turn, cannot match: a way of life that people covet. If that seems wishy-washy beside Putin's tanks, remember that the crisis began with Ukrainians’ desire to tilt towards the EU—and Mr Putin’s determination to stop them.” Also, “those former Soviet countries that have joined Western institutions must be buttressed and reassured. If the case for sending arms to the Donbas is doubtful, that for basing NATO troops in the Baltics is overwhelming, however loudly Mr Putin squeals,” the article reads.
The US-based magazine “Time” discussed the immense problems that both Russia and Ukraine will still need to overcome after the cease-fire in an article “The 5 Reasons Russia Has It Bad (But Ukraine Has It Worse)”. The author reflects on “tense, all-night negotiations on Wednesday” saying that “didn’t stop the violence, and many doubt a ceasefire can hold.” The 5 reasons showing that “even if Russia has it bad, Ukraine has it worse”, are: abysmal economies, shrinking territory, pummeled currencies, mass displacement and endemic corruption.
