‘Question of whether West really wants de-escalation of Ukraine crisis’

Eric Draitser
Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com. He is a regular contributor to RT, Counterpunch, New Eastern Outlook, Press TV, and many other news outlets. Visit StopImperialism.com for all his work.
‘Question of whether West really wants de-escalation of Ukraine crisis’
While the Geneva framework agreement seems to be an attempt to de-escalate tensions over Ukraine, it’s a question to what degree the US and the West are really genuine in this agreement, geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser told RT.

RT:The US and the EU are still mulling more sanctions against Moscow. At this stage what sort of impact could that have?

Eric Draitser: That’s an important point to begin with. What we are seeing from the framework agreement that was issued from Geneva, there seems to be an attempt from the Russian side and at least to some degree from the US side to deescalate the tensions and to deescalate the situation generally. However, on the other hand you do see a ratcheting up of these tensions with regard to the sanctions, but not exclusively the sanctions.

We should also remember that we have heard very bellicose statements from NATO General Secretary Rasmussen regarding the deployment of additional fighter jets and additional NATO forces into the Baltic region and into Eastern Europe more generally. We have heard very bellicose statements coming from John Kerry regarding this trumpet charges and anti-Semitism going on in Donetsk, we have heard very significant negative political and diplomatic statements coming from the West that makes a lot of people, myself included, question to what degree the US and the West is really genuine in this agreement coming out from Geneva and to what extent they really want to see tensions de-escalated.

RT:President Obama says he doubts Russia will live up to its obligations in Ukraine. Surely such a comment could only undermine a political solution. What’s your take on it?

ED: Absolutely right. It’s interesting because it comes in response to Russian President Putin, who said some relatively flattering - in many ways perhaps unwarranted - statements regarding Obama and Obama’s intentions. Again, what we are looking at is that the US has been employing schizophrenic strategy in regards to Ukraine.

On the one hand, they are posturing as if they want to be dealmakers, as if they want to broker some kind of a peace. On the other hand, not only did they continue to support the illegal government in Kiev and continue to make very inflammatory comments regarding Russia and their purported role in what’s happening in Eastern Ukraine. At the same time we are also seeing that the US really quite unsure about what their policy is going to be.

The visit from the CIA Director Brennan which was made very clear to the media through back channels was not just an advisory role as the Western media has portrayed it, but he has given the insurances quite obviously to the so-called government in Kiev that the US would back them in their so-called antiterrorist operation in the East. So much of the conflict that we’ve seen happening in Donetsk and in the other regions in the East is direct byproduct of the dual US so-called diplomacy, or what I would call, diplomacy and subversion.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.