​‘Washington irritated, can’t accept Ukraine peace deal reached without US’

Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He served as foreign affairs advisor to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) for 12 years.

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin.( Reuters / Kevin Lamarque )

Americans cannot admit their defeat in Ukraine, so while the German-French alliance pushes for reconciliation, the UK-US team thrusts confrontation, Daniel McAdams, executive director at Ron Paul Institute, told RT.

RT:Jen Psaki
has once again accused Russia of stirring up trouble in Ukraine.
What is the US dissatisfied with now?

Daniel McAdams: Well it’s funny, Jen Psaki
starting to sound like the ‘Baghdad Bob’ of the US government.
She is somehow blaming the Russians for all the shelling that
took place in east Ukraine, when anyone with a brain knows that
it was the government in Kiev that was shelling these places.

So I think what is irritating Psaki and most importantly her
bosses in the US government is that the Germans and the Russians
took the initiative. They went to Moscow, the went to Kiev. They
negotiated an agreement, and they did it without US
participation. Der Built newspaper reported on Jen Psaki
apparently complaining at the Munich Security Council to the
American delegation, making fun of the Germans’ efforts in trying
to find peace.

So it is clear that the US can’t simply back down. They can’t
turn their back on this operation they’ve launched. They can’t
admit that they have done something that has not resulted in what
was promised.

RT: In recent days Debaltsevo in eastern
Ukraine has seen peace and a withdrawal of heavy weaponry taking
place. Why is the US ignoring the success of the ceasefire and
continuing to pressure Russia?

DM: Well, this is when you have an agreement
that can be interpreted in many different ways. The whole
situation in Debaltsevo, the reason why it was not discussed in
the context of the February 12 agreement is that Poroshenko did
not want to discuss it and refused to admit that there was indeed
a cauldron there where some 5,000 or more of his soldiers were
trapped. They were left out there, to be killed or trying to
escape on their own. The reason why the fighting continued there
is directly the result of Poroshenko’s behavior in discussions
with the Germans and the French.

RT: Angela Merkel said that new sanctions on
Russia have not resolved anything. Is there now a clash of
opinions between the US and the EU?

DM: Well I think there is a bigger rift than
that. I think it’s the Anglo-American [team] on one side versus
the Germano-French on the other. The British defense secretary
said recently that he believes that Russia is more dangerous for
Europe than ISIS. He said that Russia is poised to attack the
Baltics at any moment. And even the most Russophobic Baltic
leaders, the defense secretaries of both Latvia and Estonia said
“hold on a little, you’re pushing this a little bit too far.”

So there is a split. There is the UK and the US on one side who
can’t back down from this disaster they’ve created, and there is
the French and the Germans, who see it as a possibility of a
serious problem in their back yard, trying to find some
diplomatic solution to the problem.

RT: Rating agency Moody’s
has lowered Russia’s sovereign credit rating to junk status.
Could the recent statements coming out of the US be connected to
that move?

DM: I think there is no question that all of these rating
agencies are very political and very politicized. They are
subject to a political pressure. I would not put too much stake
in what Moody’s does. We saw the behavior of Moody’s and other
organizations like that in 2008 in the US financial crisis. So, I
think this is a political move for sure.

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

Leave a comment