Leaving aside for the moment the question of Flip-Flopping, the first requirement of the joint statement was actually:John wrote:
In a nationally televised program on Thursday, Russia's president Vladimir Putin described southern and eastern Ukraine as Novorossiya, or New Russia, that had been part of the Russian Empire since the 18th century, until the 1920s when the Soviet leadership decided "For God knows why," to give it to Ukraine. Putin said that he "hopes he won't have to send troops into Ukraine," but pointed out that the Duma (parliament) had given him the power to order an invasion of Crimea, if he chooses to do so. These statements were similar to the prelude to the Russian annexation of Crimean, which was justified by a historical narrative, and a statement by Putin that "we have no intention of annexing Crimea."
So it was a surprise a few hours later when Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov announced that an agreement had been reached between Russia, Ukraine and the West to deescalate the situation. In particular, the agreement called for protesters to leave illegally seized buildings. As we reported yesterday, Russia's ambassador to the Soviet Union said that any such call would be "betraying" the people of eastern Ukraine.
The first steps that would have to be: "All illegal armed groups must be disarmed; all illegally seized buildings must be returned to legitimate owners; all illegally occupied streets, squares and other public places in Ukrainian cities and towns must be vacated." This would apply to eastern Ukraine cities, but it would also apply to anti-Russian "Maidan" protesters in Kiev, who are still blockading streets and occupying some buildings in the capital city. There could be some disagreements as to who has to go first.
All sides must refrain from any violence, intimidation or provocative actions.
One should note that all the requirements in the Joint Statement are solely on the government in Kiev. And some of them are contradictory.
By definition a sovereign state has a monopoly on legal violence within it's territory. However, the interim government of Ukraine signed a statement renouncing violence within Ukraine, without qualification as to legal violence or illegal violence.
The agreement places the responsibility for disarming "illegal armed groups" solely on only one party, the government in Kiev which claims to be the sole sovereign authority in the Country of Ukraine. Kiev is also the only party to the agreement who claims to have armed forces and police forces in the country of Ukraine.
Western media, has been congratulating the Obama administration on how they tricked the Russian's into revealing they were behind the militias in eastern Ukraine. According to these talking points when the militias in Ukraine abandon the buildings and turn in their arms, or just disappear, that will prove they were controlled by Moscow.
But what if they refuse to leave the buildings and lay down their arms ? Does that prove Russia was not behind them and that Kiev was losing a civil war at the time the Geneva conference was held ?
What if Russia simply says they have no control over them, they are just Ukrainians fearful of the illegal Kiev government using military violence to persecute them and they are refusing to lay down their arms or welcome invaders from Kiev until they believe their rights are protected ?
What if Russia, correctly points out, that Kiev is the only party to the agreement that claims to have troops in Ukraine, and who claims to have sovereignty over all of Ukraine, and it is the sole responsibility of Kiev to disarm illegal groups under the terms of the Geneva agreement ? Will the West demand Russia invade Ukraine to disarm the illegal groups by force ?
Will Kiev again send troops to eastern Ukraine in an attempt to battle Ukrainian militias in eastern Ukraine and destroy public buildings in the name of "liberating them" ?
Will Ukraine instead first grant the regions autonomy so the militias can hand the buildings over to the new autonomous local authorities. The agreed joint statement is mute on the point of which comes first.
What would a Kiev dispatched military force do when again trapped by civilian demonstrators ? Use force against civilians in front of OSCE monitors, including Russian monitors, with still and video camera footage being taken of every blow with a rifle butt, every bayonet thrust, every bullet to scare or wound a civilian ?
Will Kiev use military force to attack protestors ( armed or not ) inside public buildings while OSCE monitors watch and record for all the civilians in east Ukraine to see ?
The Ukrainian militias in eastern Ukraine have already pointed out they were NOT in Geneva and did NOT agree to lay down their arms, NOR did they agree to abandon public governance buildings NOR did they agree to abandon local public security buildings. Will Kiev take the risk of starting, and losing, a civil war ?
Kiev will look weak if it does not attempt to take back the buildings in eastern Ukraine by force.
Kiev will look like a failed government if it again attempts, but fails again, to take back the buildings in eastern Ukraine.
Kiev will appear a brutal invader from western Ukraine to the citizens of eastern Ukraine if it does take back the buildings by force.
Russia will be able to claim, correctly, that Kiev broke it's promise not to use violence, if Kiev uses violence to subdue civilians and/or militias in eastern Ukraine.
The west and Ukraine were desperate to sign anything to stop the invasion. Next time maybe they should think like a power hungry psychopath before signing something they had not taken time to think through.