Month: February 2015

Ukrainian government forces are mining civilian infrastructure in Debaltsevo

Posted by

0

Posted on Fort Russ

<iframe width=”480″ height=”270″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/V9Re1P_7EAI&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

February 8, 2015
News Front
Eduard Basurin, Deputy Commander of DPR Ministry of Defense

Translated by Kristina Rus
During the last day DPR forces continued defensive operations along the entire line of contact.
The most intense fighting was on the outskirts of Debaltsevo, where the enemy is making dire attempts to expand the encirclement, and return the localities, abandoned earlier.
Over the last 24 hours as a result of fighting along the entire frontline, DPR lost:
1 BMP, 1 SAU, 3 mortars, 11 killed, 29 wounded.
According to the information, received today while questioning two Ukrainian POW’s from the 25th brigade, captured on the outskirts of Chernukhino, Ukrainian command had ordered to mine railroad infrastructure in Debaltsevo. The goal is not to allow an opportunity of restoring railroad connection between Donetsk and Lugansk Republics after Ukrainian troops retreat from the encirclement towards Artemovsk. Locomotives, freight trains, junctions at the Debaltsevo-Sortirovochnaya station, Locomotive depoes, traffic control centers are mined, as well as the administrative zone of the Debaltsevo terminal. 
Besides, according to the POW’s, on Friday city pumping stations and electrical substations have already been mined in Debaltsevo.
Therefore, Kiev has already prepared for the destruction of the city after pulling out its troops. 
During the fighting today DPR had completely captured Kalinovka and Redkodub, abandoned by Ukrainian forces.
Military operations to repulse counterattacks continued in Chernukhino,
On the morning of February 8, DPR had captured a strategically important height 2 kilometers North-West of village Lozovoy, which had increased the opportunity of DPR to intercept supplies and reserves of Debaltsevo army group.
Two counterattacks by UAF attempted in order to return control of this height have been repulsed with heavy losses in mapower and equipment.
On Donetsk front, Ukrainian security forces continued attacks from Smerch and Grad, as well as large caliber artillery:
4 strikes on Donetsk residential neighborhoods
21 strikes on Donetsk suburbs
7 strikes on Donetsk airport
As well as strikes on Peski, Veseloye and Spartak
Mariupol front:
UAF fired heavily on militia positions from MRLS
21 Ukrainian armed vehicles arrived at the Eastern outskirts of Mariupol
Concentration of additional troops at this location is a sign of an upcoming attack on the defensive lines in  Novo-Azovsk.
Losses of Ukrainian security forces for the last day:
11 tanks (8 destroyed, 3 captured), 9 artillery installations, 6 BMP and BTR, (3 destroyed, 2 captured), 11 vehicles, 45 people killed
Total since the start of military operations over the last  22 days the enemy has lost:
3 airplanes, 1 helicopter, 168 tanks, 133 BMP, BTR, MTLB, 124 field artillery guns, 94 vehicles, 2,056 people killed
After strikes on populated areas of the Republic there are casualties among civillians.
Over the last day:
2 people killed, 9 wounded
Killed: one in Donetsk, one in Makeevka
Wounded: 8 people in Donetsk, one in Makeevka
Donetsk:
Petrovsky district – 2 people
Leninsky – 2
Kuibyshevsky – one
Kievsky -1 person.
The strike on Kievsky was on a store in the 7th quarter, but the suspicion is that a bus stop was targeted.
There were 9 fires recorded as a result of artillery strikes. Twice emergency services were fired on, when rushing to put out a fire, one in Donetsk, one in Makeevka.
Kristina Rus: There is a talk of a mysterious info blackout on frontline updates from militia. This update is from DPR Defense Ministry official, but there is suspicion that NAF is up to something and doesn’t want too many details to get out there for now…

 http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/ukrainian-forces-are-mining-civillian.html

Robert Parry: How the New York Times falsifies the Ukraine narrative

Posted by

0

Posted on Helen Caldicott Foundation, January 28, 2015

Robert Parry is one of the speakers at the Symposium: The Dynamics of Possible Nuclear Extinction on February 28 to March 1 in New York City. Here he writes about the New York Times’ false narrative of the Ukraine crisis.
————————————————————
In late February, a conference is scheduled in New York City to discuss the risk of nuclear war if computers reach the level of artificial intelligence and take decisions out of human hands. But there is already the old-fashioned danger of nuclear war, started by human miscalculation, fed by hubris and propaganda.

That possible scenario is playing out in Ukraine, where the European Union and the United States provoked a political crisis on Russia’s border in November 2013, then backed a coup d’etat in February 2014 and have presented a one-sided account of the ensuing civil war, blaming everything on Russia.

Possibly the worst purveyor of this Cold War-style propaganda has been the New York Times, which has given its readers a steady diet of biased reporting and analysis, including now accusing the Russians for a resurgence in the fighting.

One way the Times has falsified the Ukraine narrative is by dating the origins of the crisis to several months after the crisis actually began. So, the lead story in Saturday’s editions ignored the actual chronology of events and started the clock with the appearance of Russian troops in Crimea in spring 2014.

The Times article by Rick Lyman and Andrew E. Kramer said: “A shaky cease-fire has all but vanished, with rebel leaders vowing fresh attacks. Civilians are being hit by deadly mortars at bus stops. Tanks are rumbling down snowy roads in rebel-held areas with soldiers in unmarked green uniforms sitting on their turrets, waving at bystanders — a disquieting echo of the ‘little green men’ whose appearance in Crimea opened this stubborn conflict in the spring.”

In other words, the story doesn’t start in fall 2013 with the extraordinary U.S. intervention in Ukrainian political affairs – spearheaded by American neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain – nor with the U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22, 2014, which ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych and put one of Nuland’s chosen leaders, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in as Prime Minister.

No, because if that history were included, Times readers might actually have a chance for a balanced understanding of this unnecessary tragedy. For propaganda purposes, it is better to start the cameras rolling only after the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from the failed state of Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

Except the Times won’t reference the lopsided referendum or the popular will of the Crimean people. It’s better to pretend that Russian troops – the “little green men” – just invaded Crimea and conquered the place against the people’s will. The Russian troops were already in Crimea as part of an agreement with Ukraine for maintaining the Russian naval base at Sevastopol.

Which leads you to the next paragraph of the Times story: “The renewed fighting has dashed any hopes of reinvigorating a cease-fire signed in September [2014] and honored more in name than in fact since then. It has also put to rest the notion that Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, would be so staggered by the twin blows of Western sanctions and a collapse in oil prices that he would forsake the separatists in order to foster better relations with the West.”

That last point gets us to the danger of human miscalculation driven by hubris. The key error committed by the EU and compounded by the U.S. was to assume that a brazen bid to get Ukraine to repudiate its longtime relationship with Russia and to bring Ukraine into the NATO alliance would not prompt a determined Russian reaction.

Russia sees the prospect of NATO military forces and their nuclear weapons on its borders as a grave strategic threat, especially with Kiev in the hands of rabid right-wing politicians, including neo-Nazis, who regard Russia as a historic enemy. Confronted with such a danger – especially with thousands of ethnic Russians inside Ukraine being slaughtered – it was a near certainty that Russia’s leaders would not succumb meekly to Western sanctions and demands.

Yet, as long as the United States remains in thrall to the propagandistic narrative that the New York Times and other U.S. mainstream media outlets have spun, President Barack Obama will almost surely continue to ratchet up the tensions. To do otherwise would open Obama to accusations of “weakness.”

During his State of the Union address, Obama mostly presented himself as a peacemaker, but his one major deviation was when he crowed about the suffering that U.S.-organized sanctions had inflicted on Russia, whose economy, he boasted, was “in tatters.”

So, with the West swaggering and Russia facing what it considers a grave strategic threat, it’s not hard to imagine how the crisis in Ukraine could escalate into a violent clash between NATO and Russian forces with the possibility of further miscalculation bringing nuclear weapons into play.

The Actual Narrative

There’s no sign that the New York Times has any regrets about becoming a crude propaganda organ, but just in case someone is listening inside “the newspaper of record,” let’s reprise the actual narrative of the Ukraine crisis. It began not last spring, as the Times would have you believe, but rather in fall 2013 when President Yanukovych was evaluating the cost of an EU association agreement if it required an economic break with Russia.

This part of the narrative was well explained by Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, even though it has generally taken a harshly anti-Russian line. But, in a retrospective piece published a year after the crisis began, Der Spiegel acknowledged that EU and German leaders were guilty of miscalculations that contributed to the civil war in Ukraine, particularly by under-appreciating the enormous financial costs to Ukraine if it broke its historic ties to Russia.

In November 2013, Yanukovych learned from experts at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine that the total cost to the country’s economy from severing its business connections to Russia would be around $160 billion, 50 times the $3 billion figure that the EU had estimated, Der Spiegel reported.

The figure stunned Yanukovych, who pleaded for financial help that the EU couldn’t provide, the magazine said. Western loans would have to come from the International Monetary Fund, which was demanding painful “reforms” of Ukraine’s economy, structural changes that would make the hard lives of average Ukrainians even harder, including raising the price of natural gas by 40 percent and devaluing Ukraine’s currency, the hryvnia, by 25 percent.

With Putin offering a more generous aid package of $15 billion, Yanukovych backed out of the EU agreement but told the EU’s Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Nov. 28, 2013, that he was willing to continue negotiating. German Chancellor Angela Merkel responded with “a sentence dripping with disapproval and cool sarcasm aimed directly at the Ukrainian president. ‘I feel like I’m at a wedding where the groom has suddenly issued new, last minute stipulations,” according to Der Spiegel’s chronology of the crisis.

After the collapse of the EU deal, U.S. neocons went to work on one more “regime change” – this time in Ukraine – using the popular disappointment in western Ukraine over the failed EU agreement as a way to topple Yanukovych, the constitutionally elected president whose political base was in eastern Ukraine.

Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, a prominent neocon holdover who advised Vice President Dick Cheney, passed out cookies to anti-Yanukovych demonstrators at the Maidan Square in Kiev and reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations.”

Sen. McCain, who seems to want war pretty much everywhere, joined Ukrainian rightists onstage at the Maidan urging on the protests, and Gershman’s U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy deployed its Ukrainian political/media operatives in support of the disruptions. As early as September 2013, the NED president had identified Ukraine as “the biggest prize” and an important step toward toppling Putin in Russia. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit.”]

By early February 2014, Nuland was telling U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt “fuck the EU” and discussing how to “glue this thing” as she handpicked who the new leaders of Ukraine would be; “Yats is the guy,” she said about Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

As violent disorders at the Maidan grew worse – with well-organized neo-Nazi militias hurling firebombs at police – the State Department and U.S. news media blamed Yanukovych. On Feb. 20, when mysterious snipers – apparently firing from positions controlled by the neo-Nazi Right Sektor – shot to death police officers and protesters, the situation spun out of control – and the American press again blamed Yanukovych.

Though Yanukovych signed a Feb. 21 agreement with three European countries accepting reduced powers and early elections, that was not enough for the coup-makers. On Feb. 22, a putsch, spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias, forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives.

Remarkably, however, when the Times pretended to review this history in a January 2015 article, the Times ignored the extraordinary evidence of a U.S.-backed coup – including the scores of NED political projects, McCain’s cheerleading and Nuland’s plotting. The Times simply informed its readers that there was no coup. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine.”]

But the Times’ propaganda on Ukraine is not just wretched journalism, it is also a dangerous ingredient in what could become a nuclear confrontation, if Americans come to believe a false narrative and thus go along with more provocative actions by their political leaders who, in turn, might feel compelled to act tough because otherwise they’d be attacked as “soft.”

In other words, even without computers seizing control of man’s nuclear weapons, man himself might blunder into a nuclear Armageddon, driven not by artificial intelligence but a lack of the human kind.

http://www.helencaldicott.com/nyt-lost-ukraine-propaganda/

NATO boosts Rapid Reaction Strike Force for war with Russia

Posted by

0

“…biggest reinforcement of collective defense since the Cold War”

Posted on rickrozoff.wordpress.com

Stars and Stripes
February 5, 2015

NATO to boost rapid–reaction force in response to growing threats
By Slobodan Lekic

NATO defense ministers decided Thursday to significantly boost the size of the alliance’s rapid-reaction force to deal with growing threats such as the war in Ukraine and Islamic radicalism along its southern flank.

“In Ukraine, violence is getting worse and the crisis is deepening. Russia continues to disregard international rules and to support the separatists,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said. “In North Africa and the Middle East, violent extremism is spreading, (fueling) terrorism in our own countries.”

Outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned that those divergent concerns could cause a split in the alliance.

“I worry about the potential for division between our northern and southern allies,” he said. He added that this was a time for unity and that the alliance would have to address all challenges at the same time.

Stoltenberg said the alliance’s 28 ministers had agreed to increase the NATO Reaction Force  to about 30,000 troops — more than double its originally planned strength of 13,000.

He said ministers had also agreed on the composition of a brigade-strength Spearhead Force, whose lead elements would be ready to move into trouble spots within 48 hours of being activated. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Britain had offered to provide the main elements of that force.

“This is a strong signal of NATO solidarity. And it shows that European allies are fully playing their part, taking the lead in protecting Europe,” Stoltenberg said at the end of the one-day meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The allies decided to immediately establish six multinational command and control centers in eastern Europe. These will be located in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. The centers will be comprised of up to 50 staff officers, half of them from the home nation, officials said.

“If a crisis arises, they will ensure that national and NATO forces from across the Alliance are able to act as one from the start. They will make rapid deployment easier,” Stoltenberg said.

“This is the biggest reinforcement of collective defense since the Cold War,” he declared.

The NATO meeting came amid a flurry of diplomatic activity on Ukraine.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Kiev on Thursday. In a surprise peace initiative, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande were set to meet with Poroshenko on Thursday and with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Friday.

“We know there are now new initiatives undertaken by Hollande and Merkel, and we support those initiatives and we hope they will lead to concrete results,” Stoltenberg said.

The defense ministers’ meeting on Thursday was the first since NATO heads of state convened in September and decided to bolster the alliance’s defenses in eastern Europe in response to Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula.

The nearly yearlong crisis has re-energized the Cold War alliance, which had been searching for a raison d’etre since the scaling back of the war in Afghanistan. At the end of last year, NATO announced it was ending combat operations in Afghanistan. But the alliance still maintains thousands of advisers and other troops in the country to help the Afghan army and police, who face threats from the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

In the meantime, NATO has established a more robust presence in Poland and the Baltic states, which lie on Russia’s periphery. The United States has taken a lead role in the rotational presence and training in those states.

Hagel said that in its initial phase, the 66-year-old alliance focused on defending its members from Soviet aggression; after 1990, it adapted to the collapse of communism and the end of the East-West divide by conducting out-of-area operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. “Now, in its third phase, the alliance must be prepared to address all these challenges at once,” Hagel said.

Stoltenberg is scheduled to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the annual Munich Security Conference, which opens Friday. Although NATO suspended all practical cooperation with Russia last year, the alliance has kept channels open for political contacts.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/nato-boosts-rapid-reaction-strike-force-for-war-with-Russia/

See also https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/nato-defense-chiefs-endorse-spearhead-force-aimed-east/
NATO Defense Chiefs Endorse Spearhead Force – Aimed East

NATO to hold 25,000-troop war games in Norway

Posted by

0

Apparently, NATO didn’t get the memo from the Ukrainian Chief of Staff. That’s their cover story, at least. They know that Russian troops haven’t invaded Ukraine.

All this “preparedness” is based on a fraud — a very, very dangerous fraud. In addition to the safety danger to the world, millions of taxpayer dollars are also being spend on these military “games” and more weaponry, while citizens in most countries are dealing with essential service cutbacks, cost increases, wage cuts, and job losses.

Posted on rickrozoff.wordpress.com
BarentsObserver
February 5, 2015

Norway will host high visibility NATO exercise
By Thomas Nilsen

“Last year was not a good year for European security,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said last week when presenting the alliance’s annual report.

“A black year,” was words the Former Norwegian Prime Minister used pointing to Russian troops actively involved in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.

On Wednesday, Stoltenberg met defense ministers from NATO’s 28 member states, including Norway’s Ine Eriksen Søreide.

“Allied military cooperation must now be safeguarded and further strengthened through exercises and training. This is a main priority for NATO in the time to come. Last year, I offered that Norway could host the large NATO exercise in 2018. I’m very pleased that NATO now accepts the invitation. It contributes to strengthen preparedness and response capacity within the alliance,” says Ine Eriksen Søreide in a press-release from Brussels Wednesday evening.

She points to the fact that Norway also before has hosted NATO exercises. It is not said where in Norway the estimated 25.000 soldiers will go, but such large scale, multi-weaponry operations are normally carried out in Nordland and Troms.

The Defense Minister says allied training in the north will strengthen the defense of our neighboring areas.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/nato-to-hold-25000-troop-war-games-in-Norway/

Britain to spearhead NATO “Very High Readiness Force” aimed at Russia

Posted by

0

“…the alliance’s political leaders and military planners now see Russia’s seizure of the Crimea and military forays into eastern Ukraine as much more than just a temporary crisis between Moscow and the West.”

Posted on rickrozoff.wordpress.com
BBC News
February 5, 2015

UK to lead ‘high readiness’ Nato force, Michael Fallon says

The UK will play a lead role in a “high readiness” Nato force that will be established in Eastern Europe, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has announced.

Britain will send up to 1,000 troops and four RAF Typhoon jets for “air policing” in the region, he said.

The multinational force is the biggest reinforcement of Nato’s collective defence since the end of the Cold War.

BBC correspondent Jonathan Marcus said the move aimed to deter a perceived Russian threat to the Baltic states.

It comes as French and German leaders headed to the Ukrainian capital Kiev to try to negotiate an end to escalating fighting in the east of the country.

Mr Fallon said Nato’s credibility in the face of the security challenges depended on “everyone playing their part” to implement decisions taken to bolster its forces at a summit of member states in Wales last year.

“Strong words must be backed up with firm action,” he said.

Nato defence ministers have gathered in Brussels to discuss the details of the “Very High Readiness Joint Task Force” (VJTF), which will form Nato’s first response in the face of aggression.

It is expected to be made up of about 5,000 troops from Nato countries, with its lead units able to deploy at two days’ notice.

The UK will be the force’s lead nation in 2017 and then on rotation thereafter, Mr Fallon said.

He said the UK would contribute manpower to two regional headquarters in Poland and Romania, and to force integration units in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.

The UK will also send four RAF Typhoon jets to support the Nato’s Baltic air policing mission in 2015, he confirmed.

The Typhoons will operate alongside Norwegian aircraft between May and August 2015, with the aim of securing Nato’s airspace over Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, which do not have their own air defence fighters.

They will operate at Nato’s request from Amari Airbase in Estonia, he said.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus said the move was aimed to reassure Nato countries in eastern Europe and deter what is perceived as a potential Russian threat to the Baltic republics or other Nato members.

He said it was also a signal that the alliance’s political leaders and military planners now see Russia’s seizure of the Crimea and military forays into eastern Ukraine as much more than just a temporary crisis between Moscow and the West.

Fighting in eastern Ukraine began last April, when separatists seized government buildings after Russia annexed Ukraine’s southern Crimea peninsula.

More than 5,000 people have been killed in the conflict.

Nato secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg has said that Russia continues to violate international law as fighting continues in Ukraine.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/britain-to-spearhead-nato-very-high-readiness-force-aimed-at-russia/

Germany to deploy “unprecedented” 1,700 troops for NATO war games in Poland

Posted by

0

Posted on rickrozoff.wordpress.com
Polish Radio
February 5, 2015

Germany to send troops to Poland for NATO exercise

Germany is to send as many as 1,700 troops who are expected to take part in NATO exercises in Poland later this year.

The German initiative is part of a wider-ranging strategy to boost military cooperation between Poland and Germany in light of the crisis in Ukraine.

The move to send as many troops is unprecedented, writes Wednesday’s Rzeczpospolita daily, as Berlin changes its military policy and approach towards Russia in the wake of its engagement in eastern Ukraine.

Details of the Germany army’s manoeuvres in Poland are still under preparation, although it is clear that troops will take part in NATO’s “Sober Strike” exercise at the Drawsko Pomorskie military training area in June.

Rzeczpospolita reports that a joint Polish-German unit is to be set up along the lines of an existing Franco-German brigade. NATO’s Szczecin headquarters – Multinational Corps Northeast – is also to be bolstered by more Polish, German and Danish troops.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/germany-to-deploy-1700-troops-for-nato-war-games-in-Poland/

U.S. envoy: “These will be the first seven NATO flags In Eastern Europe”

Posted by

0

Posted on rickrozoff.wordpress.com
Reuters
February 5, 2015

NATO to strengthen its presence in eastern Europe

(Excerpt)

20150203_150203-mod_rdax_775x440

NATO defence ministers will on Thursday strengthen the alliance’s presence in eastern Europe by setting up a network of…command centres that could rapidly reinforce the region…

Ministers will also decide on the make-up of a new rapid reaction force and agree to expand a corps-level headquarters in western Poland as part of a plan to bolster NATO’s eastern flank…

The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Douglas Lute, said NATO flags would fly over the Polish headquarters and the six command centres in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the three Baltic states, where the alliance has had little presence until now.

“These will be the first seven NATO flags in eastern Europe,” he told a news conference.

=====================================================================

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
February 3, 2015

Defence Ministers to take key decisions on the Readiness Action Plan

At their meeting on Thursday (5 February 2015), NATO Defence Ministers will review progress and take follow-up decisions on what Allied leaders agreed at last September’s Wales Summit. The ministers will particularly focus on the implementation of NATO’s Readiness Action Plan, NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu said in a briefing to the media.

====================================================================

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
February 4, 2015

NATO Defence Ministers to discuss the implementation of the Readiness Action Plan and Georgia

NATO Defence Ministers are expected to take important decisions on the implementation of the Readiness Action Plan agreed at the NATO Wales Summit last year, at their one-day meeting on Thursday (5 February 2015). Ministers will decide on the size and composition of the new Spearhead Force, which will enable the Alliance to respond to security challenges to the east posed by Russia and risks emanating from the southern neibourhood, the Middle East and North Africa. This will be the first opportunity since the Wales Summit for NATO Defence Ministers to look at the progress made and look forward to the 2016 Warsaw Summit.

NATO Defence Ministers will also meet in the NATO-Georgia Commission format, together with the Georgian Defence Minister Mindia Janeldidze. They will discuss the implementation of the Substantial NATO-Georgia Package endorsed at the Wales Summit. The package includes measures aimed at strengthening Georgia’s defence capabilities and helping Georgia advance its preparations for NATO membership. Ministers will also review the ongoing work to establish a Joint Training and Evaluation Centre in Georgia, which will help the country in further modernizing its security forces. NATO and Georgia have a long standing partnership. Georgia has provided a strong contribution to different NATO operations.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/u-s-envoy-these-will-be-the-first-seven-nato-flags-in-eastern-europe/

In Spain, U.S. Marines train for African interventions

Posted by

0

From https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/spain-u-s-marines-train-for-african-interventions/

U.S. Marine Corps
February 2, 2015

Moment’s notice; Crisis Response Marines complete readiness rehearsal from Spain
By Sgt. Paul Peterson, Marine Forces Europe and Africa

MORON AIR BASE, Spain:- A platoon of Marines with Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response – Africa completed an unscripted alert drill to test the unit’s ability to rapidly respond to regional crises, Jan. 29.

“At any given time we have an alert force ready to [respond] to crises in Africa,” said Capt. Daniel Lakhani, the platoon’s company commander.

…

SPMAGTF-CR-AF received an alert for a simulated medical evacuation mission at nearby Rota Air Base, Spain, early in the afternoon and gathered its on-call alert force to respond. The Marines assembled at a prearranged staging area, completed planning for their mission, and boarded two MV-22 Ospreys on Morón Air Base. The total time for conducting the rehearsal had to meet the requirement for the Marines to depart Spain within six hours of the order to begin their mission.

…

The two Ospreys, laden with Marines, departed the air field less than four hours after receiving the initial warning. Less than 30 minutes after landing at Rota Air Base, the Marines had successfully secured the area, pushed several hundred yards to their objective, and extracted the simulated casualty. The process was designed to test the command and alert force’s ability to come together, adapt, and react to the wide range of missions SPMAGTF-CR-AF was created to handle.

On any given day, the unit could participate in multinational training operations…or evacuate an embassy by direction of U.S. Africa Command.

“This mission is different from other missions or deployments the Marines have been on, whether it’s Iraq or Afghanistan, where they were conducting combat operations for a sustained period of time,” noted Lakhani…

CIA carried out terrorist bombing in Syria’s capital; why are they claiming it now?

Posted by

1

By Richard Becker
Liberation News, February 4, 2015

The news that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency carried out a meticulously planned terrorist car bombing in Damascus, Syria, in February 2008 appeared on the front page of the Jan. 31, 2015, Washington Post. It was an outrageous action in the capital of a sovereign state. By all definitions, a state-sponsored car bombing in the capital city of another nation is defined as terrorism.

It doesn’t take much imagination to picture what the U.S. response would be if the scenario were reversed and such an attack took place in Washington, D.C. At the very least, bombs and missiles would fall like rain on Syria.

That the CIA would carry out such an act is hardly a surprise. In its near-seven decades’ existence, the CIA has been responsible for the murder of millions and the destruction of scores of progressive movements and governments in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe.

Virtually every progressive leader in the countries liberated from colonialism or neo-colonialism in the post-World War II era has been targeted for assassination by the CIA at one time or another. From Vietnam to Haiti to Afghanistan and beyond, U.S. clients who had outlived their usefulness in the eyes of Washington were set up for elimination.

CIA engineered or assisted coups in Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Iraq, Indonesia, Greece, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and more, and brought to power regimes that used extreme brutality in the interests of U.S. corporations and local elites.

Organized in 1947, the agency’s first coup was in newly independent Syria just two years later. Its bloody trail confirms that the CIA is the deadliest terrorist organization in the world, bar none.

What was unusual about the 2008 assassination of a top Hezbollah commander, Imad Mughniyah, was the public revelation that the CIA, in partnership with Israel’s Mossad secret service, had carried it out.

While the CIA formally declined comment on the story, the sources for the article were past and present CIA officials, something unthinkable unless approved from inside the agency.

Standard CIA practice has long been to refuse to comment on its coups and murders—and for good reason. Regardless of whether they are “signed off on” by the president or any other U.S. official, all are blatant violations of international and U.S. domestic laws. Agency officials seek to maintain a “window of deniability” to protect themselves from possible future legal consequences.

Why, then, did the agency break with its usual practice of treating such an operation as classified and instead boast through the mass media of the assassination?

Targeting Hezbollah to derail Iran negotiations

The Post report followed two weeks after an Israeli air attack that killed six members of Hezbollah, including Jihad Mughniyah, son of Imad Mughniyah, and a high-ranking Iranian officer inside Syria. Both Hezbollah and Iran have been supporting the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria against the armed opposition, led by al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Hezbollah responded to the Jan. 18 air assault by destroying an Israeli tank in the Shebaa Farms region, the last part of Lebanon still under Israeli occupation. Hezbollah played a key role in the Lebanese resistance that drove Israel out of much of Lebanese territory it occupied in 1982-2000. In 2006, it fought the powerful, U.S.-backed Israeli army to a standstill in a month-long war.

Two Israeli soldiers were killed and seven wounded in Shebaa Farms. Israeli shelling killed a Spanish soldier who was part of the UN “peacekeeping” force in southern Lebanon. The Hezbollah leadership made it clear that their response was a limited one.

The Jan. 18 attack in Syria was a clear provocation, intended to draw a Hezbollah reaction. So, too, was the Post article. The aim of both was to push Hezbollah – as an ally of Iran — toward stronger retaliation.

The publication of the Post story should be understood as a form of taunting Hezbollah by elements in the U.S. establishment who are seeking a pretext for subverting the Iran nuclear negotiations.

Talal Atrissi, a Lebanese political commentator reportedly close to Hezbollah, said of the leaked CIA report on the 2008 assassination: “The leak is meant to undermine the talks, and that benefits Israel because it opposes these negotiations.”

A Lebanese professor at the American University in Beirut, Imad Salamey, pointed to the psychological warfare aspect of the Post report: “Your [Hezbollah’s] leadership has been targeted by the United States, so what do you do?”

The negotiations with Iran are at a critical stage, with late March set as the deadline to reach an agreement. There is a major division in U.S. ruling-class political circles over the negotiations.

While the Obama administration and its allies are seeking an agreement that they believe would weaken Iran, an opposing faction wants to scuttle the negotiations and impose even harsher sanctions.

Iran has stated that additional sanctions would mean an end to the negotiating process. Such an outcome could well lead to a new U.S. or U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, something that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as well as many in Washington clearly desire.

On Jan. 21, in a highly unusual breach of bourgeois protocol, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner invited the rabidly anti-Iranian Netanyahu to lecture a Joint Session of Congress on Mar. 3 on the so-called “danger” from Iran and in support of imposing even tighter sanctions on that country. Boehner’s invitation was made without consultation with the administration.

Protests calling for “No New War Against Iran,” “End the Colonial Occupation of Palestine, “ and “End All U.S. Aid to Israel” are being planned to coincide with Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress on Mar. 3.

Source:

CIA carried out terrorist bombing in Syria’s capital — Why are they claiming it now?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-carried-out-terrorist-bombing-in-syrias-capital-why-are-they-claiming-it-now/5429775

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s speech in Munich

Posted by

0

Posted on Fort Russ, February 7, 2015

February 7, 2015
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation
Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus

Remarks and replies to media questions by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, during the discussion at the 51st Munich Conference on Security Policy, Munich, February 7 2015

Ladies and gentlemen,

Mr. Wolfgang Ischinger included in the agenda the topic of “the collapse of world development”. It is impossible not to agree that the events unfolded not by the optimistic scenario. But you cannot accept arguments of some of our colleagues that a sudden, rapid collapse of the world order, which existed for decades, had occurred.

On the contrary, the events of the past year have confirmed the validity of our warnings regarding deep, systemic problems in the organization of European security and international relations in general. I would like to remind about the speech by President Putin spoken here eight years ago.

The design of stability, based on the UN Charter and the Helsinki principles was long ago undermined by the actions of the US and its allies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, by NATO expansion to the East, the creation of new lines of separation. The project of building a “common European home” failed because our partners in the West were guided not by the interests of building an open architecture of security with mutual respect for interests, but illusions and beliefs of the winners in the “cold war”.

Solemnly adopted in the framework of the OSCE and the Council of the Russia-NATO obligation not to provide own security at the expense of security of others, remained on paper, but in practice was ignored.

The issue of missile defense is a stark evidence of the powerful destructive impact of unilateral steps in the field of military building, contrary to the legitimate interests of other states. Our proposals for joint work on missile defense issue were rejected. Instead we were advised to join the creation of the US global missile defense system, strictly according to the designs of Washington, which, as we’ve outlined and explained factually, carries real risks for the Russian nuclear deterrence.

Any action that undermines strategic stability, inevitably entails response measures. Thereby a long-term damage is inflicted to the entire system of international treaties in the field of arms control, the viability of which directly depends on factors of missile defense.

We don’t even understand, what could be the reason for the American obsession of creating a global missile defense system? The desire for unquestionable military superiority? The faith in the possibility to technologically solve the problems that are essentially political? Anyway, the missile threats have not decreased, but in the Euro-Atlantic area emerged a strong irritant, which will take a long time to get rid of. But we are ready for it. Another destabilizing factor was the refusal of the United States and other NATO members to ratify the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which buried this agreement.

Each difficult situation, created by themselves, our American colleagues are trying to blame on Russia. Take the revived in recent conversations The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Specialists are well aware of the actions of the United States, contrary to the spirit and letter of this document. For example, in the framework of the creation of a global missile defense, Washington began a large-scale program of creating missile-targets with characteristics similar to or close to the forbidden ground-based ballistic missiles. Under a contractual definition of ground-based medium-range cruise missiles fall the widely used by the U.S. shock drones. Expressly prohibited by the treaty are the anti-missile interceptors, which will soon be deployed in Romania and Poland, as they can be used to launch medium-range cruise missiles.

Refusing to acknowledge these facts, the American colleagues claim they have some “reasonable” claims towards Russia in relation to INF, but carefully avoid specifics.

Taking into account these and many other factors, to try to narrow this crisis to the events of the past year, in our opinion, is to fall into a dangerous self-deception.

It is the culmination of the course of our Western colleagues over the last quarter-century to capture by any means their dominance in world affairs, to capture the geopolitical space in Europe. The CIS countries, our closest neighbors, connected with us by centuries of economic, humanitarian, historical, cultural, and even family ties, are demanded to make a choice – either with the West or against the West. Is a logic of zero sum game, which everyone wanted to leave in the past.

The strategic partnership between Russia and the European Union could not stand the test of strength, because the EU chose a confrontational path of development of the mechanisms for mutually beneficial interaction. How can one not remember the missed opportunity to implement nominated by the Chancellor A. Merkel in June 2010 in Meseberg initiative to establish a Committee of the Russia-EU Foreign and Security Policy at the level of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Russia supported this idea, but the EU rejected it. But such a mechanism of permanent dialogue (if it was created) would allow to more quickly and effectively solve problems and to remove mutual concerns in advance.

As for the Ukraine, unfortunately, at each stage of the development of the crisis our American colleagues, and under their influence – the European Union, took steps leading to escalation. This happened when the EU refused to discuss with Russia the consequences of activating the economic bloc of the association agreement with Ukraine, and then directly supported the coup, and before that – the anti-government riots. This happened when our Western partners have repeatedly issued indulgences to Kiev authorities, who instead of fulfilling the promises of starting a national dialogue, began a large-scale military operation, declaring their own citizens “terrorists” for disagreeing with the unconstitutional change of government and a rampage of ultra-nationalists.

It is very difficult to explain why, in the minds of many of our colleagues, the universal principles of settlement of internal conflicts do not apply to Ukraine, involving, primarily, the inclusive political dialogue between the protagonists. Why in cases such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Mali, South Sudan, our partners urge the government to negotiate with the opposition, the insurgents, in some cases even with extremists, and in relation to the Ukrainian crisis act differently, actually supporting the military operation in Kiev, up to attempts to justify the use of cluster munitions.

Unfortunately, our Western colleagues are apt to close their eyes to everything that is said and done by the Kiev authorities, including inciting xenophobic sentiments. Let me quote: “Ukrainian social-nationalism considers the Ukrainian nation a blood-racial community”. And further: “The question of total Ukranization in the future social-nationalist state will be resolved within three to six months with strict and prudent state policy.” The author is a deputy of the Ukrainian Verkhovnaya Rada, Andrey Biletsky, the commander of the regiment “Azov”, which actively participates in the fighting in Donbass. For ethnically pure Ukraine, the annihilation of Russians and Jews was repeatedly publicly called by the other figures, who broke into politics and power in Ukraine, including Yarosh,  Tiagnybok, and leaders of the Radical Party of Lyashko, represented in Verkhovna Rada. These statements did not cause any reaction in Western capitals. I do not think that today’s Europe can afford to ignore the danger of the spread of the neo-Nazi virus.

The Ukrainian crisis cannot be resolved by military force. This was confirmed last summer, when the situation on the battlefield forced to sign the Minsk agreements. It is confirmed now, when another attempt to win a military victory is drowning. But despite this, in some Western countries increasingly there are calls to strengthen support for the course of the Kiev authorities for militarization of society and the state, to “pump” Ukraine with deadly weapons and pull it into NATO. The growing opposition in Europe to such plans gives hope, as it may only exacerbate the tragedy of the Ukrainian people.

Russia will continue to seek to establish peace. We consistently advocate for the cessation of hostilities, the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the beginning of direct negotiations of Kiev with Donetsk and Lugansk about specific ways to restore the common economic, social and political space within the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This was the subject of numerous initiatives of Vladimir Putin within the “Normandy” format, which allowed to start the Minsk process, our subsequent efforts for its development, including yesterday’s talks in the Kremlin by leaders of Russia, Germany and France. As you know, these negotiations will continue. We believe that there is every opportunity to achieve results and to agree on recommendations that will allow the parties to really untangle this conflict web.

It is important that everyone realizes the real extent of risks. It’s time to get rid of the habit to consider each issue separately, not seeing “the forest behind the trees”. It is time to assess the situation comprehensively. The world today is on a steep fault associated with changing of historical periods. “Birth pains” of the new world order are manifested through the increase of conflicts in international relations. If instead of strategic global vision, prevail the tactical decisions made by politicians with an eye on the coming elections at home, there is a danger of a loss of control over the levers of global governance.

Let me remind you that at the initial stage of the Syrian conflict, many in the West urged not to exaggerate the threat of extremism and terrorism, claiming that it will somehow dissolve on its own, and that the main thing – is to bring about regime change in Damascus. We see what happened. The vast territory in the Middle East, Africa, the Afghanistan-Pakistan area became uncontrollable by legitimate authorities. Extremism overflows to other regions, including Europe, aggravating risks of proliferation of WMDs. The situation in the Middle East settlement, in other areas of regional conflicts is gaining an explosive nature. An adequate strategy for containment of these challenges is still not developed.

I would hope that today’s and tomorrow’s discussions here in Munich will bring us closer to estimating the level of the efforts to find collective answers to common threats. The conversation, if you count on significant results, can only be equal, without ultimatums and threats.

We remain convinced that the whole complex of problems would be much easier to solve if the major players have agreed on strategic orientations of their relationship. Recently, the permanent Secretary of the French Academy, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, said that “the real Europe may not exist without Russia”. We would like to understand if our partners share this view, or do they plan to continue the course of deepening the division of the European space and setting its fragments against each another? If they want to create a security architecture with Russia, without Russia or against Russia? Of course, our American partners should answer this question.

We have long proposed to start building a common economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, a space based on the principles of equal and indivisible security, which would include the members of integrated unions, and other countries which are not part of those unions. Of particular relevance is the establishment of robust mechanisms for interaction between the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and the EU. We welcome the emerging support of this idea of responsible European leaders.

In the year of the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki act and the 25th anniversary of the Paris Charter, Russia would like to infuse these documents with real life, to prevent replacing of the principles, enshrined there, to ensure the stability and prosperity throughout the entire Euro-Atlantic space on the basis of genuine equality, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests. We wish success to the “group of the wise”, formed in the framework of the OSCE, which must reach a consensus in their recommendations.

Marking the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we should be aware of responsibility that rests on all of us.

Thank you for your attention.

Q&A

Question: I understand all the above-mentioned problems in relation to the United States and missile defense. Besides the fact that according to the INF, Russia equals drones to cruise missiles, I would like to note that the US President B. Obama had significantly reduced European missile defense. If there are problems in relation to the United States, why should Ukraine pay for it? Referring to the annexation of Crimea and attempts to divide Ukraine. What did the poor Ukrainians do that you punish them for the sins of the Americans?

Lavrov: I understand that you have, of course, a twisted perception. Don’t confuse apples and oranges. Now they say “we will resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and the whole system of security and stability will start working on its own.” On the contrary. The crisis needs to be resolved, it is the first priority, but we cannot ignore the fact that all the agreements concluded by the end of the “cold war” are not followed.

We have no desire to seek revenge, especially at someone else’s expense. We want to have normal relations with the United States. It was not us, who destroyed the deployed mechanisms which have been established in recent years and which provided daily contact and mutual clearing of concerns. It was not us who pulled out of the Missile Defense Treaty. It was not us who refused to ratify the adapted CFE Treaty. Now we need to collect bit by bit what we still have left and somehow based on the reconfirmation of the Helsinki principles to negotiate a new security system, which would be comfortable for everyone, including Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova – all whom our American colleagues had put before a choice: to go towards the West and to reduce cooperation with Russia. It is a fact.

I am aware that American ambassadors around the world receive such instructions. I see here A. Vershbow, who recently gave an interview, calling NATO “the most peaceful bloc in the world” and “the hope of the European stability and security.” And who bombed Yugoslavia, Libya, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions? The achievements brought by unilateral actions we are seeing now in the Middle East. We want NATO to not be just an exemplary organization, which it is presented as, but a participant in equal dialogue for stability. What’s wrong with that? Everyone wants us to recognize a subordinate role of all others in relation to the United States and NATO. I don’t think it is in the interests of world peace and stability.

With regard to the events in Ukraine, the U.S. President Barack Obama recently said openly that the United States was the broker in the process of transition (transit) of power in Ukraine. Modest formulation, but we know very well how it happened, who openly discussed on the phone the composition of personalities that should be represented in the new Ukrainian government, and much more. We know what happens now, who routinely monitored events on Maidan. There were no our military specialists and experts.

We want very much for the Ukrainian nation to regain its unity, but it must be done on the basis of real national dialogue. When the central government decided to celebrate as national holidays the birthdays of Stephan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, the date of formation of the “Ukrainian Insurgent Army”, the question arises – how can these holidays be celebrated in the East of Ukraine? There is no way. And the West does not want to celebrate May 9th [Victory over Hitler in the Great Patriotic War -tr.]. Without mentioning other specific features of the Ukrainian society, just this requires some political arrangements.

They are probably embarrassed to say it here, but now Ukraine is undergoing mobilization, which is running into serious difficulties. Representatives of the Hungarian, Romanian minorities feel “positive” discrimination, because they are called up in much larger proportions than ethnic Ukrainians. Why not talk about it? Or that in Ukraine reside not only Ukrainians and Russians, but there are other nationalities which by fate ended up in this country and want to live in it. Why not provide them with equal rights and take into account their interests? During the elections to the Verkhovnaya Rada the Hungarian minority asked to organize constituencies in such a way that at least one ethnic Hungarian would make it to the Rada. The constituencies were “sliced” so that none of the Hungarians made it. All this suggests that there is something to discuss. There are real problems that don’t allow the Ukrainian state to get out of this severe crisis, but they are ignored in the West. I have talked to many, including those sitting here, when they introduced a law on lustration. One-on-one I was told that this is a terrible law, which urgently needs to be cancelled. I asked why this is not talked about publicly, and heard that there is an understanding that it is necessary to support the Ukrainian government, and not to criticize it. What else is there to say?

I hope that yesterday’s efforts made by the presidents of France, Russia and the Chancellor of Germany, will produce a result that will be supported by the parties of the conflict and will actually calm down the situation, starting the much-needed national dialogue on ways to solve all the problems – social, economic and political.

Question: Going Back to the results of yesterday’s talks in Moscow and the day before yesterday in Kiev, the good news is that the Minsk agreement is still on the agenda, but the bad news is that not all the signatories of these agreements agree to comply with them. Meaning the representatives from DPR and LPR are leading an offensive, artillery fire, etc. The Russian Federation also signed the Minsk agreement. Now there are attempts to revise the line of contact. There is no pressure on the militia, although Russia recognized that it can exert such pressure. Do you actually plan to implement the Minsk agreement? What guarantees of the implementation of all 12 points of the Minsk agreements and pressure on DPR and LPR can you give, as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation?

Lavrov: As soon as the main participants of the Minsk process – the Ukrainian authorities and representatives of the proclaimed republics of DPR and LPR – will reach an agreement on all practical aspects of implementation of each of Minsk points, I am convinced that Russia will be among those who will provide such guarantees – whether in the OSCE, or in the UN Security Council. I am convinced that Germany, France and other countries will also be able to provide such guarantees. But you can guarantee only what has been done and achieved. You have to agree directly. We should not pretend that these people will obey [Russia] unequivocally. They live on their own land and are fighting for it. When people say that they would not be able to provide superiority on the battlefield, I will say that theirs is a just cause. And Ukrainian soldiers don’t understand why they are thrown to battle. I repeat, direct negotiations are needed.

Once the US Administration was criticized for the fact that it actively maintained contacts with the Taliban via Doha (Qatar). In response to criticism the administration asked, why criticize: “Yes, they are enemies, but one does not negotiate with friends. Negotiations are held with the enemies”. If the Ukrainian authorities consider their citizens – enemies, they will have to negotiate in any case. Our Ukrainian colleagues should not hope that the blind support, they receive from the outside, will solve all the problems. Such support without any critical analysis of the events is spinning some heads. Just as in 2008, it spun the head of Mikhail Saakashvili. Everyone knows what came of it.

[Editor: Additional questions and answers translated below]

Kristina Rus: 

 When Lavrov says, Russia supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine, it doesn’t mean that it wants Ukraine to remain in it’s current boundaries. What it means, is that it is not up to Russia, but up to the citizens of Ukraine to decide, whether to remain united or not. He also brings up the differences in the mentality and culture of Eastern and the Western Ukraine, which need to be addressed. “To be addressed,” does not mean “to be resolved”, especially when they are irreconcilable

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/lavrovs-munich-speech-full-transcript.html

Editor: What follows are additional questions and answers not translated on Fort Russ from the text on

http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/5E26BDE162FEC0E643257DE5004B5FE0

This is a rough translation via Google — I hope to update with a better translation soon.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We have an extensive network existed bilateral arrangements between Russia and NATO in the NATO-Russia Council, where the military daily contact with each other, had a special meeting of experts from capitals, there were many joint projects to combat terrorism, collective project to develop explosives a detector «STANDEX».

Additional area points of, and was a project on training for Afghanistan’s security services, equipment this service helicopters. There was also a project «Common airspace initiative» (joint initiative on the safety of air space). Now all this is “frozen”, although under these arrangements was quite possible to agree on how to avoid dangerous military activities.

With specific regard to the theme of activity of the Air Force, we have the relevant statistics, which shows that the activity on the NATO side has increased immeasurably more than on the side of Russia. In my opinion, at the end of Jan. our Permanent Representative to NATO Alexander Grushko met with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the subject and gave him «fact-sheet» outlining ongoing contact statistics. We are open to reconstruct the mechanisms of interaction, but for the time being, they are all frozen. There was only the Permanent Representatives Council (the Council of Ambassadors) meetings which are held infrequently. Everything else is closed.

Now even the following problems arise. Apparently, our NATO colleagues want to reduce the physical presence of Russian diplomats in Russia’s permanent mission to NATO. To us restricted access to headquarters, where there is our premises. Perhaps this will promote additional the appearance of “dark spots” in our relationship and will not help to clarify each other’s intentions.

Question: You said that you want to define the general principles of European security. I am afraid that the principles of the EU are based on self-determination and does not correspond to the Russian principles. Do you believe in the sphere of influence, as he said Dzh.Kennon about 60 years ago, many of Russia’s neighbors must choose between being enemies and satellites. In view of the incompatibility of our values what the general rules are possible? Five years ago, Medvedev proposed the concept of a new European security architecture. It did not work, because Russia has a strong influence on its neighbors. Do you see a way out of this situation? Is it possible a compromise between Russian and European approaches to building security in Europe?

Lavrov: Perhaps you did not listen very closely. It was not that the necessary to develop new principles. I said that it is necessary retraining the principles contained in the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, in the documents of the NRC, but this time to confirm with honesty/integrity. And most importantly – give them a binding form.

Mentioned by you, European Security Treaty also did not offer anything new. He only offered in a legally binding form enshrine the principle of the indivisibility of security, which is proclaimed in the OSCE and the NRC. Our NATO colleagues said that the legal guarantees of security have to remain the prerogative of NATO in order to it everyone strove to keep this visual line grew and deepened. Why give up that security was equal? It was proclaimed, and this obligation is have undertaken presidents and prime ministers of the Euro-Atlantic area, the OSCE. It turns out that NATO wants to make safety unequal. Wrote Dzh.Oruell [George Orwell, 1984] that someone was “more equal than others.”

You quoted Dzh.Kennon [George Kennan? Footnote 1 belw]. I can quote another of his statement that the “cold war” was a colossal mistake which the made the West.

No need to invent anything new. You just have to sit down and honestly and then faithfully fulfill what agreed a couple of decades ago.

Question: I agree with you that in the last 25 years, not everything was perfect. We had a lot of disagreements with Russia. We almost signed a partnership agreement aimed at modernizing Russia’s economy – and this is just one example. I believe that we have created such a scheme in Europe, which ensures the territorial integrity and sovereignty of States. Both of these principles have been violated, and we must recognize that Russia is a party to the conflict in Ukraine. We can overcome this crisis only if we properly analyze the political situation in the country. Your description of the situation in Ukraine is unacceptable.

There was an agreement with Viktor Yanukovych, approved by the parliamentary majority. Elections were held, in which 80% voted for the European course. Nationalists, communists and fascists received 2-3% of the vote. That’s what the real situation from which to draw on. In the twenty-first century there should not be grounds for a violation of the principles of sovereignty and territorial values enshrined in Helsinki. The principle of sovereignty is that every nation, including Ukraine, has the right to decide which country to enter into trade agreements. If the next state is trying to control this choice, it is a return to the old policy, and violation of the principle of sovereignty, which currently takes place in Ukraine.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I am sure that your performance will be a good story on television.

There are international rules that, in fact, sometimes treated differently, different actions receive the opposite interpretation. In Crimea, something happened that is provided by the UN Charter – self-determination. In this document, there are several principles and the right of nations to self-determination stands on a key point. Read the Charter! Territorial integrity, sovereignty is obliged to respect. The UN General Assembly adopted a declaration in which they clarified the ratio of basic principles of international law. There it was confirmed that the sovereignty and territorial integrity inviolable and the countries that pretend to respect their sovereignty, have to respect the right of living in these countries and nations do not allow the prevention of self-determination by the use of brute force.

According to you, in Kiev, there was just something for the entire implementation of the agreement, which was signed by President Viktor Yanukovych, as there are elections were held. Firstly, the day after the signing of the agreement, regardless of the location of Viktor Yanukovych (he was in the Ukraine), were attacked his residence, the building of the presidential administration, government buildings, in addition to how many buildings and people burned at “Maidan” in the previous period. But in such a way trampled an agreement that witnessed the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland (by the way, in the hall there Sikorski, who probably can tell your story), in its first paragraph implied the creation of a national unity government. These are the key words. The goal of national unity can not depend on the fate of a single Viktor Yanukovych. If he is gone, now what – you can seize power by force of arms, and do not care about national unity? But you do not agree with this and rightly so, because it is not permissible. So, it happened instead of a national unity government, which by September had to prepare a new constitution, on which must have been a general election. Here are the sequence of actions. But the starting point -National unity. That’s where you need to build a constitution with the views of the entire country.

Instead, when the said agreement has already been consigned to oblivion, Yatsenyuk went to the “Maidan” and announced the creation of a “government of winners.” Then the regions of Ukraine, who have rebelled and began to protest, to organize events, to say that do not accept the results of the coup – they simply began to suppress. First began to arrest the leaders who opposed the coup, and then began to use force. Who attacked whom? Did Donetsk and Lugansk go to storm Kiev? Not at all. In the South-East was sent military groupings by means of which began to try to establish the rule force.

Occurs in Ukraine have seen in the Crimea. In the very early stages of the crisis there was an attempt by “Right Sector” to break through and seize administrative buildings. Thank God, there is an isthmus, and people’s guards stood up and did not let them. In Crimea, held a referendum on independence, and later on joining Russia. In Kosovo, there was no referendum, although US President Barack Obama recently stated that Kosovo – is an exemplary case because there people voted in a referendum. The referendum was not there, as well as many other “referendum”. The unification of Germany took place without a referendum, and we were the active supporters of this.

When World War II ended, if you remember, the Soviet Union opposed the division of Germany. Speaking about the methods that are used instead of direct dialogue, the trouble is that the current President of Ukraine has lost its monopoly on the use of force. The Ukraine created private battalions paid better than the regular army. These battalions under different names (including “Azov” that I quoted) from the regular army deserted the people.

Among those who lead them, there are frankly ultranationalists. We are with you, Mr. E. Brok have long communicate. You even came to Moscow. So my answer to you is very simple. If you want to say angry speeches that will reinforce your position in politics in the European Parliament is one thing, but if you want to talk, let’s sit down and in honesty all Helsinki principles, see why in some cases you do not think that they are violated, and in others – think that it was so.

By the way, recently based in Nuremberg Ukrainian credit rating agency «GFK Ukraine» conducted a survey in the Crimea. According to the results of more than 90% said that they supported the annexation of Crimea to Russia, were against 2%, and 3% said they still do not really understand (what is happening). This statistic is people. Here’s a colleague said that the main principle of the EU – is self-respect. Once you have talked about the country, and in this case there was determination of the people, while it was based on centuries history. We can discuss all this, if you really want to understand our position, and we were guided by. About this many times told Russian President Vladimir Putin. You can, of course, to laugh. If just someone from this to have fun. Laughter is also said to prolong life!

 

Footnote 1

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-blueprint-for-global-domination-from-containment-to-pre-emptive-war-the-1948-truman-doctrine/5400067
America’s Blueprint for Global Domination: From “Containment” to “Pre-emptive War”. The 1948 Truman Doctrine; ANNEX: Archive of (Declassified) Top Secret Policy Planning Document drafted by George F. Kennan