Ukrainian guardsman killed in protests against vote on rebel autonomy

By The Guardian

Demonstrators have brawled and lobbed grenades outside Ukraine’s parliament, killing one officer from the interior ministry’s National Guard and injuring up to 100.

The violence was in protest against a parliamentary vote to grant concessions to territories held by Russian-backed rebels.

Russia jails Ukraine director Sentsov on terror charges

By BBC News

A court in Russia has jailed Ukrainian film-maker Oleg Sentsov for 20 years for plotting terrorist acts in Crimea.

Georgia ex-leader Saakashvili gives up citizenship for Ukraine

By BBC News

Georgian ex-President Mikheil Saakashvili says he is giving up Georgian citizenship as he becomes governor of Ukraine's Odessa region.

 

Mr Saakashvili told the BBC a Georgian passport meant "guaranteed imprisonment" there as the authorities pursued criminal charges against him.

 

Ukraine troops withdrawing from key town of Debaltseve

By The Guardian

Ukrainian troops are retreating from the hotspot of Debaltseve after intense fighting in what marks an important strategic victory for pro-Russia forces.

“All units are being withdrawn. The order was given at six this morning by army command,” said Yevgeny Shevchenko, aide to the commander of the Donbass Battalion, on the road between Debaltseve and Artemivsk. He said 6,000 soldiers had been in the city.

Ukraine’s president, Petro Poroshenko, said more than 80% of his troops in the town had left.

The size of Debaltseve – it was home to about 25,000 people before the war emptied its streets – belies its strategic importance to rebels as the site of a rail junction connecting their strongholds of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Dozens of vehicles – tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, troop transport trucks, ambulances and vans – were streaming down the highway leading from Debaltseve to the main Ukrainian lines near Artemivsk on Wednesday.

“Debaltseve is no longer ours,” said a fighter named Ilya, who said he had just come from there.

Kiev’s forces appeared to be laying down suppressing fire towards the town to help their comrades retreat. Outside Artemivsk, outgoing artillery was heard and a multiple rocket launcher seen firing off a volley towards Debaltseve.

If Russia and the rebels continue to breach the ceasefire or otherwise overplay their hand, they are likely to face a much tougher US response

The Ukrainian forces were taking heavy casualties escaping the city, which has been virtually surrounded by rebel forces for at least a week.

Makeshift ambulances were delivering wounded men to the hospital. The medical chief for the region, said at least 90 wounded had been taken out.

One medic said he had taken 20 dead to the morgue, most of whom had been killed making their way out of the town. Some had been killed on top of troop carriers as they drove, he said.

Rebels have been heavily shelling any vehicles on a 10-mile stretch of the “road of life” connecting Debaltseve and Artemivsk. Shevchenko, the commander’s aide, said Ukrainian tanks had taken high ground near a smaller road leading to Artemivsk through Mironovka to cover the escape. But that road was also under fire, he said.

“We got out through the fields,” said a soldier with the call sign Sailor. Most of the city is captured and government forces were “breaking out little by little”, he said.

Another soldier, named Yury, said he had been in a convoy bringing out about a dozen wounded. They had been under heavy mortar and machine gun fire and had fallen into rebel ambushes twice along the way, he said.

Soldiers from the 108th brigade of the national guard said they had been picking up men escaping from Debaltseve by foot. When asked about the intensity of the enemy fire along the escape route, they pointed to a rear wheel of their armoured fighting vehicle, which had been shredded by a mortar round, they said.

“Guys are running out on foot through the fields because [rebels] are shelling vehicles. They give us the coordinates and we pick them up,” a soldier with the vehicle, named Alexander Ivanov, said. He said the unit had picked up hundreds of men from Debaltseve on Wednesday.

Several dozen men from the 108th, who had been stationed on the outskirts of Debaltseve, arrived in Artemivsk and, on command, fired their Kalashnikov assault rifles into the air until their magazines were empty. It was a salute, one soldier said, “for a successful return”.

Trucks full of men were also heading towards the front. One soldier said they were going to reinforce their positions on the main frontline.

The defeat was a black eye for Poroshenko’s government, which has long struck a defiant pose in the face of pro-Russia aggression in the east. Some in the army were angry over his repeated denials that Debaltseve was surrounded, despite evidence on the ground that almost no supplies or ambulances had been able to get through since 8 February.

Poroshenko tried to argue that the retreat had “put to shame Russia, which on Tuesday was still demanding Ukrainian soldiers put down their weapons”. But Semyon Semyonchenko, a prominent MP and commander of the Donbass battalion, blamed the Kiev leadership for the defeat and said in a post on Facebook that he would call for the resignation of Viktor Muzhenko, the army commander, at the next session of the security and defence committee.

“What hindered us in Debaltseve? We had enough men and material,” Semyonchenko wrote. “The problem was with the leadership and coordination of actions … What’s going on now is the result of incompetent management of our troops, even though they’re trying to cover this up with a propaganda storm.”

David Cameron said on Wednesday that Europe could not turn a blind eye to Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, warning Vladimir Putin that he could face sanctions that would have financial and economic consequences for his country for many years to come.

The British prime minister said there was a temptation for every European country to leave the responsibility for dealing with what is happening in Ukraine to someone else. “That would be a terrible mistake, so Britain has been leading the argument that Russia’s behaviour has been completely unacceptable, and consequences have to follow in terms of sanctions,” he said.

Ukraine crisis: Leaders agree peace roadmap

By BBC News

The leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France announced that a ceasefire would begin on 15 February. The deal also includes weapon withdrawals and prisoner exchanges, but key issues remain to be settled. 

The pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine have signed the agreement. Thousands of people have died in almost a year of fighting in the region.

The BBC's Richard Galpin in Minsk says the deal is very similar to aceasefire agreed last September, which unravelled very quickly.

The latest agreement includes:

• Ceasefire to begin at 00:01 local time on 15 February
• Heavy weapons to be withdrawn, beginning on 16 February and completed in two weeks
• All prisoners to be released; amnesty for those involved in fighting
• Withdrawal of all foreign troops and weapons from Ukrainian territory. Disarmament of all illegal groups
• Ukraine to allow resumption of normal life in rebel areas, by lifting restrictions
• Constitutional reform to enable decentralisation for rebel regions by the end of 2015
• Ukraine to control border with Russia if conditions met by the end of 2015

Key unresolved issues include the status of Debaltseve, a government-held town surrounded by rebels, where fighting is still going on. Further talks will also be held on self-rule in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk separatist regions.'Glimmer of hope'

French President Francois Hollande said he and German Chancellor Angela Merkel would ask their European Union partners to support the deal at a summit in Brussels on Thursday.

Ms Merkel said there was now a "glimmer of hope" but big hurdles remained, while Mr Hollande said "the coming hours will be decisive".

Don't Arm Ukraine

By John J. Mearsheimer, from New York Times

The Ukraine crisis is almost a year old and Russia is winning. The separatists in eastern Ukraine are gaining ground and Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, shows no signs of backing down in the face of Western economic sanctions.

Unsurprisingly, a growing chorus of voices in the United States is calling for arming Ukraine. A recent report from three leading American think tanks endorses sending Kiev advanced weaponry, and the White House’s nominee for secretary of defense, Ashton B. Carter, said last week to the Senate armed services committee, “I very much incline in that direction.”

They are wrong. Going down that road would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is especially dangerous because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest.

There is no question that Ukraine’s military is badly outgunned by the separatists, who have Russian troops and weapons on their side. Because the balance of power decisively favors Moscow, Washington would have to send large amounts of equipment for Ukraine’s army to have a fighting chance.

But the conflict will not end there. Russia would counter-escalate, taking away any temporary benefit Kiev might get from American arms. The authors of the think tank study concede this, noting that “even with enormous support from the West, the Ukrainian Army will not be able to defeat a determined attack by the Russian military.” In short, the United States cannot win an arms race with Russia over Ukraine and thereby ensure Russia’s defeat on the battlefield.

Proponents of arming Ukraine have a second line of argument. The key to success, they maintain, is not to defeat Russia militarily, but to raise the costs of fighting to the point where Mr. Putin will cave. The pain will supposedly compel Moscow to withdraw its troops from Ukraine and allow it to join the European Union and NATO and become an ally of the West.

This coercive strategy is also unlikely to work, no matter how much punishment the West inflicts. What advocates of arming Ukraine fail to understand is that Russian leaders believe their country’s core strategic interests are at stake in Ukraine; they are unlikely to give ground, even if it means absorbing huge costs.

Great powers react harshly when distant rivals project military power into their neighborhood, much less attempt to make a country on their border an ally. This is why the United States has the Monroe Doctrine, and today no American leader would ever tolerate Canada or Mexico joining a military alliance headed by another great power.

Russia is no exception in this regard. Thus Mr. Putin has not budged in the face of sanctions and is unlikely to make meaningful concessions if the costs of the fighting in Ukraine increase.

Upping the ante in Ukraine also risks unwanted escalation. Not only would the fighting in eastern Ukraine be sure to intensify, but it could also spread to other areas. The consequences for Ukraine, which already faces profound economic and social problems, would be disastrous.

The possibility that Mr. Putin might end up making nuclear threats may seem remote, but if the goal of arming Ukraine is to drive up the costs of Russian interference and eventually put Moscow in an acute situation, it cannot be ruled out. If Western pressure succeeded and Mr. Putin felt desperate, he would have a powerful incentive to try to rescue the situation by rattling the nuclear saber.

Our understanding of the mechanisms of escalation in crises and war is limited at best, although we know the risks are considerable. Pushing a nuclear-armed Russia into a corner would be playing with fire.

Advocates of arming Ukraine recognize the escalation problem, which is why they stress giving Kiev “defensive,” not “offensive,” weapons. Unfortunately, there is no useful distinction between these categories: All weapons can be used for attacking and defending. The West can be sure, though, that Moscow will not see those American weapons as “defensive,” given that Washington is determined to reverse the status quo in eastern Ukraine.

The only way to solve the Ukraine crisis is diplomatically, not militarily. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, seems to recognize that fact, as she has said Germany will not ship arms to Kiev. Her problem, however, is that she does not know how to bring the crisis to an end.

She and other European leaders still labor under the delusion that Ukraine can be pulled out of Russia’s orbit and incorporated into the West, and that Russian leaders must accept that outcome. They will not.

To save Ukraine and eventually restore a working relationship with Moscow, the West should seek to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. It should look like Austria during the Cold War. Toward that end, the West should explicitly take European Union and NATO expansion off the table, and emphasize that its goal is a nonaligned Ukraine that does not threaten Russia. The United States and its allies should also work with Mr. Putin to rescue Ukraine’s economy, a goal that is clearly in everyone’s interest.

It is essential that Russia help end the fighting in eastern Ukraine and that Kiev regain control over that region. Still, the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk should be given substantial autonomy, and protection for Russian language rights should be a top priority.

Crimea, a casualty of the West’s attempt to march NATO and the European Union up to Russia’s doorstep, is surely lost for good. It is time to end that imprudent policy before more damage is done — to Ukraine and to relations between Russia and the West.

* John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, is the author of “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.”

Ukraine crisis: Leaders in new diplomatic push for peace

By BBC

French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have arrived in the capital Kiev to present a new peace initiative. US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is also in Kiev, said the US wanted a diplomatic solution, but would not close its eyes to Russian aggression.

Fighting between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels has killed more than 5,000 people since last April. Ukraine and the West have accused Russia of arming rebels in eastern Ukraine and sending regular troops across the border. Russia denies direct involvement but says some Russian volunteers are fighting alongside the rebels.

Speaking at a joint news conference with Mr Kerry, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said: "We need to get peace. But we will never consider anything that undermines territorial integrity... of Ukraine."

Mr Kerry accused Russia of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, saying that Russia had been acting with "impunity", crossing the Ukrainian border "at will with weapons [and] personnel".

"We are choosing a peaceful solution through diplomacy - but you cannot have a one-sided peace," Mr Kerry said.

He added that Mr Obama was still "reviewing all options", including the possibility of providing "defensive weapons" to Ukraine, due to the dangerous escalation in violence. The US is currently only providing "non-lethal" assistance.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said any decision by the US to supply weapons to Ukraine would "inflict colossal damage to Russian-American relations". Several senior Western officials have also expressed concern at the prospect of US arms being sent to Ukraine.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier likened the option to "throwing more weapons on the bonfire", while Nato commander Philip Breedlove said governments must take into account that the move "could trigger a more strident reaction from Russia".

Analysis: Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent

Should the West arm Ukraine? Might such a move - by giving Ukraine more effective defences - reduce the risk of a major escalation?

Or might it simply add fuel to the fire, encouraging Moscow to mount a major offensive westwards to punch through to the territory it already holds in the Crimea?

The consensus view up to now has been not to supply weapons, but to give non-lethal support like radars, medical gear, body-armour and so on. Only Poland has explicitly stated that it might arm Ukraine if asked. Now the balance of the debate is shifting in the US too, but still there is no clear will to provide weapons to the Kiev government. There is a growing sense of urgency and concern within Nato and if diplomacy fails, arming Kiev may become a serious option.

Mr Hollande and Mrs Merkel arrived in Kiev on Thursday afternoon, in what appeared to be a speedily arranged visit. They met Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who thanked them for their visit at "a very urgent time". Mr Hollande had said that he and Mrs Merkel would present a new peace proposal based on the "territorial integrity" of Ukraine, which could be "acceptable to all". However, he warned that diplomacy "cannot go on indefinitely".

Mr Hollande and Mrs Merkel will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Friday. A spokesman for the Kremlin said Mr Putin would discuss "the fastest possible end to the civil war in south-eastern Ukraine". Correspondents say it is not clear how the latest attempt will differ from previous, aborted peace efforts - but there is speculation that Mr Hollande and Mrs Merkel hope to discourage the US from supplying Ukraine with weapons.

The talks in Kiev come as Nato unveils details of a plan to bolster its military presence in Eastern Europe in response to the Ukraine crisis. A new rapid reaction "spearhead" force of up to 5,000 troops is expected to be announced, with its lead units able to deploy at two days' notice. Meanwhile, officials said on Thursday that the European Union is adding 19 people, including five Russians, to its sanctions list over the Ukraine crisis.

Nine "entities" will also be targeted by the sanctions, which were reportedly agreed at an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers last week. Fighting has intensified in eastern Ukraine in recent weeks amid a rebel offensive. The fiercest fighting has been near the town of Debaltseve, where rebels are trying to surround Ukrainian troops. The town is a crucial rail hub linking the rebel-held cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Some 1.2 million Ukrainians have fled their homes since last April, when the rebels seized a big swathe of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions following Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Defense nominee Carter ‘inclined’ to provide U.S. arms to Ukraine

By Washington Post

Ashton B. Carter, President Obama’s choice to become his fourth secretary of defense, said Wednesday that he was “very much inclined” to provide arms to Ukraine to fend off Russian-backed rebels, something the White House so far has resisted.

“We need to support the Ukrainians in defending themselves,” Carter said at his Senate confirmation hearing.

In response to a pointed question from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carter said he would first need to consult with U.S. military leaders and Ukrainian officials before making a specific recommendation about what kind of weapons Washington should send to Kiev. But he left no doubt that he supported the idea.

“I am inclined in the direction of providing them with arms, including . . .lethal arms,” he said.

The Obama administration has provided night-vision goggles, body armor and other supplies to the Ukrainian government but has drawn the line at funneling weapons out of fear that they would merely escalate the conflict with the rebels and provoke countermeasures from the Russian government.

Several U.S. military and civilian leaders have been pressing the White House to reconsider in recent weeks as the rebels have continued to make gains and Russian President Vladi­mir Putin has shown no sign of halting Moscow’s aggressive intervention in Ukraine.

Carter’s unvarnished support for arming Ukraine could help hasten a change in U.S. policy, something that a bipartisan group of lawmakers have said they would welcome.

Facing no significant opposition on Capitol Hill, Carter, a 60-year-old physicist and former No. 2 official at the Pentagon, is expected to win easy approval from the Senate to become the next secretary of defense. But lawmakers used Wednesday’s hearing to air a broad critique of the Obama administration’s foreign policies and to press Carter on whether he would favor any changes.

When Carter offered a carefully worded defense of the White House’s strategy for fighting the Islamic State, for example, McCain was dismissive. “Doesn’t sound like a strategy to me,” he said.

Even some Democratic lawmakers questioned the Obama administration’s overall approach to defeat Islamic State while containing Iranian ambitions in the region.

“Is that a coherent strategy?” asked Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the senior Democrat on the committee. Carter said it was.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) urged Carter to “not succumb to any pressure” from the White House to move quickly to empty the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Although Obama has pledged for years to close the prison, many in Congress have questioned his renewed effort to release longtime inmates, saying some of them could still pose a threat.

“I understand my responsibilities,” replied Carter, who as defense secretary would have to give final approval to any prisoner transfers. “As in everything else I do, I’ll play it absolutely straight.”

On Afghanistan, Carter said he backed Obama’s pledge to withdraw all U.S. troops from the war zone by the end of next year. But in a nod to criticism from some lawmakers that the timetable is too hasty, he said he’d be flexible.

“The president has a plan. I support that plan. At the same time, it’s a plan. And if I’m confirmed, and I ascertain as the years go by that we need to change that plan, I will recommend those changes to the president,” Carter said.

In his opening remarks, Carter said he believed defense spending is a mess and replete with waste — an assessment rarely shared by officials at the Pentagon.

“I cannot suggest support and stability for the defense budget without at the same time frankly noting that not every defense dollar is spent as well as it should be,” Carter said. “The taxpayer cannot comprehend it, let alone support the defense budget, when they read . . . of cost overruns, lack of accounting and accountability, needless overhead, and the like. This must stop.”

“Every company, state and city in the country has had to lean itself out in recent years, and it should be no different for the Pentagon,” he added.

The tone of Carter’s comments on the defense budget contrasts with the doom-laden warnings given last week before the same Senate committee by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They said the armed forces have suffered enough under a few years of relative austerity imposed by Congress and the White House and that the military would struggle to maintain its effectiveness if automatic spending caps are not lifted next year.

Carter pledged that he would be a straight shooter with Obama and would always give him “my most candid strategic advice,” a message intended to reassure lawmakers who have criticized the White House for ignoring the counsel of senior civilians and uniformed leaders at the Pentagon.

He also indicated that he would have little patience for micromanaging or improper political interference from above or below, another concern expressed by two former defense secretaries who served under Obama — Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta.

“The law also prescribes the chain of command, and if I am confirmed as secretary of defense I will be a stickler for the chain of command,” Carter said.