Uncategorized

Poroshenko surrenders Ukraine to the IMF

Posted by

0

Posted on Fort Russ

[Original headline at source: “Poroshenko acquires a big loan for Ukraine from IMF, conditioned on consigning lands, resources and procurements of public services to US mega-corporations”]

Ukraine, Lagarde (IMF) announce: Loans to 40 billion euro in exchange for reforms (on the Greek model)
Interpretive reporting by Luciano Lago
Published February 12, 2015 in ControInformazione.info
February 12, 2015
Translated from Italian by Tom Winter
If you are a puppet of the US empire and you consign your sovereignty to Washington, you get an abundance of money, financing, arms, and multinational corporations looking for business and ready to plunder the resources of your country. If instead you put yourself on a collision course with these powers, as in the case of Greece, your financial faucets get shut off, and you risk default.
This is the lesson from two parallel vignettes, that of Ukraine on one side, where a U.S. puppet government took office, via coup d’etat, and on the other, that of Greece, where, thanks to free elections, a popular government took office hostile to big banks and the EU.
In the first case, also thanks to ministers in the government with U.S. passports (See “Ukraine launches a government with foreign ministers”), and to the total subordination of the state to directives from Washington, in opposing Russia, everything gets allowed, to save the country from the economic collapse that a clique of pro-America oligarchs have brought it to.
For Ukraine, aside from the other big loans at the disposition of the IMF, there will be other financing, “multi-lateral and bi-lateral” loans for the country in the USA-EU orbit, a country whose economy will enjoy, all told, a sustaining loan of 40 billion dollars over four years. Christine Lagarde, administrator of the IMF, announced it with pride, revealing the terms of an “agreement in principle” with Kiev for a package of 17.5 billion dollars from the IMF, without guarantee, but committing the government in Kiev to “ambitious” economic reforms. (“Ambitious reforms” already actuated in other countries: cuts to health care, worker layoffs, reduced pension payouts, reduced funding for education, destruction of welfare, and the like — As in Greece.
Other financial institutions will join with the IMF, such as the Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as the European Central Bank itself (the one that denied any help to Greece), Lagarde reported. Bottom line is a “finance package” of 40 billion over the course of four years.
In this plan the Ukrainian government will conduct negotiations will various lenders, putting all the potential resources of the country on the table: the vast farmlands, mining, petroleum prospecting concessions to American multinationals, public services to contract, public health and hospitals to privatize, and labor reforms (of the type “Jobs Act”) to harrow the country, and so on and on.
In keeping with this plan, Hunter Biden, youngest son of Joe Biden, vice-president of the United States of America, has been put on the board of directors of Ukraine’s most important gas company, Burisma Holdings. (See Biden’s son enters the country’s main gas company)
US President Obama, vice-president Biden, 
with Hunter Biden, new board member of Burisma Holdings.
This is the price paid by a country that has consigned itself “voluntarily” to the protection of the USA, subverting the preceding accords with Russia and other Eurasian counties.
This story can easily show how intimately connected political scenarios are with the financial levers that are available to the dominant powers that set the rules in this world.
Should anyone disingenuously suppose that finance and international politics are two different arenas, today you totally have to change your mind.
Original:
http://www.controinformazione.info/poroshenko-ottiene-dal-fmi-un-mega-finanziamento-per-lucraina-a-condizione-di-consegnare-terre-risorse-ed-appalti-dei-servizi-pubblici-alle-grandi-corporations-usa/#more-9243
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/poroshenko-surrenders-ukraine-to-imf.html

“The US should keep out of the Ukraine conflict”– EU Parliament President Martin Schulz in heated talk show roundtable

Posted by

0

Participants on Günther Jauch talk show, February 8, 2015:

Martin Schulz — EU Parliament President
Gabriele Krone-Schmaltz — ARD (Ukrainian TV) Moscow correspondent
John Kornblum — former U.S. ambassador to Germany
Harald Kujat — formerly NATO/Bundeswehr General

Posted on Fort Russ
 2/11/2015

Germans are fed up with the US ‘”over-protectiveness” and are not willing to fight for Poroshenko

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Ukrainian special services ought to immediately put out an arrest warrant on the European Parliament deputy Martin Schulz. This “Colorado beetle” and “quilted jacket” [both are derogatory terms used to describe the Ukrainian proponents of good relations with Russia] dared, on the state ARD TV channel, to call what’s happening in Ukraine a civil war, while the current Kiev government really hates that term. You are liable to get arrested for that, like the journalist Kotsaba.

Schultz made that statement on Gunther Jauch’s talk show, which is the equivalent of Savik Schuster’s show in Ukraine.

The next show aired on February 8. The topic: “Fateful Days for Europe—Whom is Putin Listening to?” Needless to say, the topic was Ukraine.

The discussion as to whom Putin listens to included the European Parliament President Martin Schulz, the ARD Moscow correspondent Gabriele Krone-Schmaltz, the former US ambassador to Germany John Kornblum, and the former NATO [actually, Bundeswehr] general Harald Kujat.

The discussion was heated and shows that being under the “over-protectiveness” of the US Big Brother has long gotten under the Germans’ skin, and any reference to that fact caused applause among the studio audience.

It would be difficult to call Schultz a Russophile and a Ukrainophobe. Nevertheless even he could not force himself to lie in front of the cameras and call the conflict on the Donbass one between the Forces of Light against Colorado beetle terrorists.

The Donbass conflict is a civil war. It must be resolved by diplomatic means, and not through the use of the Ukrainian army. “If Minsk-1 had failed, maybe Minsk-2 will fail too, but even then we need to continue the negotiations even if it means Minsk-70,” is how Schultz sees the problem’s resolution.

One left with an impression of tension in the German-US relations. Judging by how Angela Merkel spent the entire 2014 agreeing with Obama, the anti-US sentiment in Germany had grown, to the point that Kornblum was reduced to complaining to his German audience that “these days I’m seeing a tendency to blame everything on the US.”

His statement that “it’s Russia that’s waging war”, Krone-Schmaltz met with a rather sharp reply. “I want to emphasize, I am underscoring that if Russia were included during the preparations for the association agreement with Ukraine (and this is normal diplomatic work), none of this would be happening. I also believe that if the Eastern regions of Ukraine, where there is fighting right now, were given some autonomy, none of this would be happening. One can’t judge everything by today’s events and blame Moscow as soon as something goes wrong. One needs to engage in a little self-criticism.” Judging by the studio applause, she hit the nail on the head.

“Mr. Kornblum, what do you think about what McCain said to Merkel, namely that she ‘doesn’t care that people in eastern Ukraine are being killed like cattle’? Such rhetoric in Germany, to put it mildly, is considered unfriendly,” said Jauch to Kornblum. “Well, McCain is known for his sharp tongue. There are heated discussions, people are getting hot-headed. If you knew how many times I was told that America is responsible for that war. But we are not dealing with a ‘civil war’ but with a Russian aggression,” continued Kornblum.

General Kujat could not remain indifferent to that statement. “There is no military solution. Let me clarify: the West does not have a military solution. If we do something idiotic and intervene, we will not win but lose, and there will be a huge catastrophe. The situation looks different for Russia. Russia could adopt a military solution and we need to keep that in mind. But if Russia had really wanted it, that war, that conflict in Eastern Ukraine, would have been over in 48 hours. We keep hearing from various sources that regular Russian forces are participating in the fighting. Ukraine’s president also repeated that claim. However, I have no trustworthy information that would confirm that. Even the Ukrainian GenStaff Chief recently said: we are not fighting against regular Russian forces. If there were regular Russian forces there, the conflict would be over in 48 hours. What we are hearing is propaganda.”

To Schulz’s words that “Putin obviously has influence over the separatists,” Krone-Schmaltz reacted as follows: “it would be an oversimplification that Moscow controls the separatists, and Kiev controls its forces. It’s obvious there are forces that nobody controls. Kiev likewise does not control several of its military formations. For example, there was an ceasefire agreement after the Boeing MH17 catastrophe, in order to collect the victims. And who violated that ceasefire? Not the separatists but the Ukrainian army, whoever might be representing it! It’s been like this until today. I remind you that the Right Sector still insists it has a right to carry weapons. Therefore the EU ought to exert pressure also on Kiev so that the situation does not spin out of control.”

Schulz also pointed out that there are too many Americans involved. “This conflict is occurring on the border with the EU, therefore the US ought to pull back. I think it would be best if the Europeans were to solve this problem themselves,” he said to thunderous applause. Continue reading →

Ukraine may criminalize anti-war speech: 5 years in prison for “denying Russian aggression”

Posted by

0

From RT, February 12, 2015

anti-war-protest-ukraine

 A woman from the Volyn Region of Ukraine is holding a banner saying “Mothers of Volyn against war” at an anti-conflict rally in front of the parliament in Kiev.
(RIA Novosti / Evgeny Kotenko)

A bill submitted by an MP from President Poroshenko’s party in the Ukrainian parliament seeks to criminalize public speech that reject the government’s narrative on the civil war, which it describes as a Russian military invasion.

The controversial bill amends the Ukrainian criminal code to make “public denial or justification of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine in 2014-2015” a felony.

The ‘crime’ would carry a penalty ranging from a heavy fine and up to a five-year jail term for repeat offences or convicts who held public office.

If the bill is signed into law, it would be the latest move to attack civil freedoms by Ukraine’s post-coup government defending its security policies from criticism.

Last week a Ukrainian court ordered the two-month detention of a journalist from western Ukraine who called for a boycott of the ongoing military draft. Ruslan Kotsaba stated that he would rather spend two to five years in prison for refusing to serve in the military than shoot at Ukrainians in what he described as a ‘fratricidal war’. Prosecutors charged him with high treason, a crime carrying a 15-year term in Ukraine.

READ MORE: Ukrainian reporter ‘charged with high treason’ after calls to dodge draft

The prosecution of Kotsaba was sharply criticized by Amnesty International, which labeled him a ‘prisoner of conscience’ and demanded his immediate release.

“Ruslan Kotsaba’s position may be viewed differently. But by arresting him for making his position public, the Ukrainian authorities violate the basic human right for freedom of expression, which the Ukrainians had been defending at the Maidan,” Tatyana Mazur, head of Amnesty’s Ukrainian branch, said in a statement.

In a separate incident, Anton Gerashchenko an aide to the Ukrainian interior minister threatened opponents of the military draft that any person taking part in last week’s anti-war rally in Mariupol would be detained, identified and fingerprinted.

http://rt.com/news/231555-ukraine-bill-agression-denial/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-may-criminalize-anti-war-speech-five-years-for-denying-russian-aggression/5430929

Minsk-2 Preliminary Analysis

Posted by

0

Posted on Fort Russ
2/12/2015

Minsk-2: Withdrawal of Forces and Autonomy for the Donbass.
By Russkiy Malchik

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Information is still scarce. We have seen the main principles which were clear. But it’s obvious that they spent 16 hours discussing not the basic principles but the details. It is the details that are the core of the peace plan.

Unfortunately neither Poroshenko nor other leaders signed the joint declaration, and the “Collection of Measures” were signed only by the members of the contact group, namely LPR/DPR, Kuchma in Kiev’s name, OSCE, and Zurabov. That list likewise contains 13 points with fairly general formulations, which will require further clarification. But there are also specifics that have been published and by which we can assess how the negotiations went and what kind of compromise was reached.

The first has to do with the withdrawal of heavy weapons under OSCE control. The conditions are rather odd: it specifies a distance of 50km (for cannon) or 140km (for rocket artillery), from the actual line of the front as of midnight, February 15, and for the militia from the September 19 line [the line of demarcation from Minsk-1].

This means that both sides should leave their positions, creating a huge belt (100-300km) without weapons, de facto up to the borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Which leads to the following question: who will control it? This is the key question. So far there are no clear answers. But considering that the issue of peacekeepers was frequently brought up, this is who they have in mind. It is not for nothing that the Donbass representatives said that they will accept only Russian and Belarusian peacekeepers. Kiev, on the other hand, does not want peacekeepers, but if it does agree it will want NATO troops. So there is a big question mark here.

The second interesting provision is this. In the paragraph 11 which concerns Ukraine’s constitutional reform, which is to be implemented by the end of 2015, there is a provision which includes the main provisions of the law on the “Special Status of Lugansk and Donetsk Region”, which read as follows:

–Immunity from punishment, prosecution, or discrimination for individuals which participated in the events that took place in various parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions (this amounts to legalizing all combatants).

–The right to language self-determination.

–The participation of local self-government in the nominating process for the office of prosecutor general and the courts in the regions (LPR and DPR de-facto control over the legal and law enforcement systems).

–The central government shall enter into agreements with the local self-government concerning economic, social, and cultural development of the regions (Kiev will enter into agreements with Donetsk and Lugansk concerning all crucial aspects of the joint economy).

–The government supports the socio-economic development of the separate regions (Kiev will partially finance the reconstruction of Lugansk and Donetsk, and guarantees the fulfillment of social obligations).

–The central government shall facilitate cross-border cooperation between the several districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions with regions of the Russian Federation (Kiev will not oppose the cooperation between Lugansk, Donetsk, and Russia).

–The establishment of people’s militia in accordance with local government decisions in order to maintain public order in the several regions (the militia becomes a law enforcement organization, all power institutions remain under the control of the current leadership).

–The authority of the local authorities and officials from special elections that were designated by the Verkhovna Rada in accordance with this law, cannot be invalidated before their terms run out (this guarantees the rights of the current DPR and LPR government until they are re-elected as part of the process of forming local self-government through new elections).

As a result, Donbass receives widespread autonomy within the framework of nominally unitary Ukraine. This is the compromise which satisfied Putin after the 16-hour Minsk marathon. Moreover, France and Germany guarantee the re-establishment of the Donbass banking system, and will reach an agreement with Russia concerning the rules concerning the free trade zone between EU, Russia, and Ukraine, while taking into consideration the special status of Donbass.

The third detail pertains to border control. Here the language is extremely clear. The border between Ukraine and Russia will be re-established only after Ukraine carries out constitutional reforms, which implies autonomy (self-government, people’s militia, cross-border cooperation with Russia). In other words, once Kiev gives Donbass control over its own territory, then the border shall be re-established…but will remain under militia control.

To sum up this quick analysis based on still-incomplete information one can say the following: in purely diplomatic sense, Russia scored a success, forcing Kiev and the West to accept a painful and temporary, but real compromise. It is based on freezing the military conflict and the autonomy of the Donbass while nominally preserving Ukraine’s borders. In practice we are talking about reformatting Ukraine from a unitary into a federal state, regardless of Poroshenko’s denials. If the Galicia banderites realize this, they’ll start screaming about “Poroshenko’s treason.”

Of course, the implementation of the agreement is another question. The fact that neither Poroshenko nor European leaders signed it does not make it easier. On the other hand, Hollande’s and Merkel’s wishes are more than real, so it will fall to them to compel Kiev to implement the “Collection of Measures.” The only other option is a complete defeat for Ukrainian forces. To which Putin merrily alluded when he mentioned Debaltsevo—either you come out with your hands up, or you’ll continue to get killed.

The Minsk peace plan from February 12 does not solve the problem (and it could not solve it), but creates the possibility to delay the war until the end of 2015. With one condition: that Kiev and Washington accept the federalization of Ukraine. If not, the war will come to Kiev.

J.Hawk’s Comment:  The biggest factor here is whether the Ukrainian military is up to the task of continuing the fighting. If it is, if Poroshenko believes its forces have been sufficiently restored, the fighting will resume. However, the Ukrainian military took a heavy beating in the last months’ fighting and it will find it difficult to replace the lost equipment. Mobilization is unpopular, and there is little chance that NATO will rearm Ukraine. Last but not least, there is also the IMF and its stringent conditions on government spending that come as part of its bailout packages. Yaresko had already announced that Ukraine’s budget will have to undergo significant changes in order to accommodate the IMF. It’s difficult to see what else in that budget could be cut aside from the defense spending. Hollande and Merkel are not stupid, they’ve seen enough of Poroshenko to know what he is capable of, so therefore they will most likely act through the IMF to reduce Ukraine’s ability to wage war.

So overall this is a better agreement than Minsk-1, though not as good one as might have been reached should the Ukrainian military first suffered a catastrophic defeat. The fact that Novorossia will continue to enjoy unimpeded contact with the Russian Federation is also a major plus–Minsk-1 agreement called for the border control to be returned to Ukraine. 

But in the meantime Novorossia continues to exist and to enjoy a high degree of autonomy, though it is not likely that its authority will spread all the way to the borders of the Lugansk and Donetsk regions, even though Minsk-2 does not appear to contain any language concerning demarcation lines.   The above, of course, assumes that there will be a ceasefire at midnight of February 15, and there might not be one. Minsk-2 says nothing about Debaltsevo, which means the Ukrainian side will continue its attempts to break into or out of the encirclement. If the ceasefire goes into effect as of the 15th with the Ukrainian forces still trapped in Debaltsevo, they will have no choice but to surrender their weapons and depart. Poroshenko cannot allow that to happen, so the fighting could well continue. One can always perpetrate a “false flag” attack or two as an excuse for breaking the ceasefire…

 

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/minsk-2-preliminary-analysis.html

What is the Debaltsevo cauldron hiding?

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ


February 8, 2015
Newsli.ru

What’s inside in the Debaltsevo cauldron? Why did the leaders of Europe rush to Russia?

Admittedly, when “the mousetrap” began to shut, everyone began to shout about the need… the need of what? Oh, about the need to follow the Minsk agreements..

The “Debaltsevo cauldron” was intended as a “Debaltsevo springboard” to start a victorious attack on DPR and LPR. In this regard, huge quantities of weapons, ammunition and food was brought to this area. This was confirmed by the militia after the capture of Uglegorsk. They got arsenals overflowing with weapons and warehouses with American food.

To foolishly lose such volume of weapons and “illegal American aid” for tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, and then to beg for the “ultimate weapon to defeat Putin” – this is the height of idiocy and helplessness of senior command.

Likely for this reason, to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of sponsors, the Ukrainian offensive started today on all fronts at once, and with a simultaneous request for a truce…

It is a madhouse, and not a government and a General staff! They are so unpredictable, that honestly, it’s laughable! And yet, there are theories that in the arsenals of Debaltsevo one will find phosphorous and cluster shells and bombs, banned by international conventions, but used by the Ukrainian armed forces during the shelling of cities and towns. This could be evidence of war crimes…

 

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-is-debaltsevo-cauldron-hiding.html

Does Poroshenko know the truth about Debaltsevo?

Posted by

0

Posted on Fort Russ
 2/11/2015
Ukraine’s Minister of Defense: The Debaltsevo Pocket is “Made Up.”

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

There is no encirclement at Debaltsevo, said Ukraine’s Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak at a briefing in Kiev on February 11.

Poltorak denied the militia claims that the “encirclement had been completed around Debaltsevo.”

“There is no encirclement. It’s made up by those who want it to exist. The units which are located at Debaltsevo and the vicinity is receiving ammunition. There is contact with them, communications, and coordination. We are working according to plan. Right now we are working on reinforcing the grouping,” said Poltorak.

The Minister also said there is no threat to Mariupol, where Ukrainian forces went on offensive on February 10. “Mariupol is in good hands, the defense is strong, and there are also appropriate reserves. The armed forces jointly with the Azov regiment took a few measures to expand the territory under our control in accordance with the Minsk Protocol,” said Poltorak.

J.Hawk’s Comment: One has to wonder whether this piffle is just for public consumption, or whether Poroshenko believes in it too. Semenchenko may well be right that the senior commanders are sending up false reports of successes to avoid making Poroshenko angry. Consequently, Poroshenko may not even know what his own army is doing right now. And how would he know, given the low quality of senior officers and officials on whom he is relying for information?

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/does-poroshenko-know-truth-about.html

 

Ukraine’s new Prosecutor General continuing the pattern of nepotism

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

2/11/2015
“What, again”? Godfather-President Appoints Godfather theProsecutor General.
By ua_katarsis

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Everyone remembers how the former President Yanukovych appointed Pshonka, to whose children he was the godfather, as the Prosecutor General. The new President Poroshenko decided not to deviate from the tradition and likewise appointed someone to whose children he is the godfather.

“The Verkhovna Rada voted to appoint Viktor Shokin the new Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Shokin was supported by 318 deputies, and needed 226 to be confirmed. Prior to that the Rada had voted to dismiss Vitaliy Yarema from that post. Shokin’s candidacy was presented by Poroshenko, who said he knows Shokin for over 15 years and knows him as a professional with good reputation.”

Shokin for his part opted not to ignore the ancient Ukrainian tradition of nepotism. “The Deputy Prosecutor for the Odessa region became Tatyana Gornostayeva, the daughter of the newly appointed Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.”

Shokin’s other relatives are likewise employed by the Prosecutor’s General office. “They include Shokin’s son-in-law and father-in-law, who likewise were appointed to senior leadership posts at that institution. The husband of Shokin’s daughter, Aleksey Gornostayev, became the Deputy Prosecutor General for the Kiev region of Odessa. The father of Aleksey Gornostayev now works as the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Dnepropetrovsk Region. Prior to that he occupied various posts, and he has headed the Prosecutor’s General office in Dnepropetrovsk.

Faces may have changed, but the methods of exploiting the people remain the same.

J.Hawk’s Comment: Aside from the sheer nepotism and the “godfather angle” of this shockin’, excuse me, Shokin appointments (which Shokin, incidentally, denies) one thing they have in common is that they pertain to cities and regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk) where Kolomoysky’s influence is quite strong. Shokin is known to have put together a number of cases against Poroshenko’s rivals in earlier years, including against Kolomoysky himself. The combination of Yarosh’s new Right Sector/Volunteer Battalion HQ being located in Dnepropetrovsk, and of Poroshenko’s loyalist to Dnepropetrovsk indicates either a brewing conflict between Poroshenko and Kolomoysky (this assumes that Yarosh remains in Kolomoysky’s pay), or a conflict between Poroshenko and Yarosh over how Kolomoysky’s empire is carved up.

 

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/all-in-family-ukraines-new-prosecutor.html

Obama refuses to rule out arming Kiev following talks with Merkel

Posted by

0

The volume increases on the war talk. What will happen in Minsk? Who will pressure Obama to take lethal weapons off his options list, and to admit there has been no Russian invasion of Ukraine?

The White House phone number for making comments is 1-202-456-1111.

From World Socialist Web Site
by Patrick Martin and Barry Grey, February 10, 2015

At a joint White House press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday, President Barack Obama made clear he was considering authorizing the dispatch of advanced weapons to the US- and NATO-backed regime in Kiev, to be used against pro-Russian separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.

Obama indicated that he would wait to see the results of talks set for Wednesday in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, between Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, French President François Hollande and Merkel before making a decision on sending US arms to Kiev. The talks are aimed at brokering a new cease-fire agreement between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists following the collapse of an agreement reached last September.

At the press conference following talks with Merkel, Obama said:

“If, in fact, diplomacy fails, what I’ve asked my team to do is to look at all options. What other means can we put in place to change Mr. Putin’s calculus? And the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options being examined.”

Obama then added, “I want to emphasize that a decision has not yet been made.”

The US president left open the sending of weapons such as antitank missiles and armored vehicles to the Kiev regime, which has lost territory in the east of the country to rebel forces in recent weeks, despite warnings from prominent officials and some newspapers internationally that doing so could dramatically escalate the conflict and trigger a military conflict between NATO and Russia, with the possibility of a nuclear Third World War.

Merkel and the leaders of Britain and France have made clear in recent days that they oppose a US move to directly arm Kiev. Instead, they call for tougher economic sanctions combined with increased NATO military forces in the Baltic states and Eastern Europe to compel Moscow to accept the transformation of Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, into a staging ground for US and European imperialist moves to reduce Russia to a semicolonial status.

In her remarks, Merkel indicated her opposition to the dispatch of American weapons to Ukraine, saying, “I don’t see a military solution to this conflict.” But she stressed that Europe and the US were united in backing the Ukrainian regime, which came to power last February in a US- and German-backed coup led by fascist militias, and forcing Russia to end its support for pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk, Luhansk and other Russian-speaking regions.

“On certain issues we may not always agree,” she said, suggesting that Germany would continue to back the US-led offensive against Russia even if Washington decided to arm the Kiev government.

Obama, for his part, seemed to echo Merkel, saying there “may be some areas where there are tactical differences” while the US and Europe remained united in basic strategy and goals.

US military and civilian officials, including some within the Obama administration, are pushing for a decision to begin sending heavy arms to Kiev. At the Munich Security Conference last Saturday, US Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s military commander, said sending weapons to help Ukrainian forces crush the separatists should not be ruled out.

At a Senate confirmation hearing last week, Obama’s choice to become the next defense secretary, Ashton Carter, said he would be inclined to back Ukraine with American arms.

Ukrainian President Poroshenko triggered the latest crisis in eastern Ukraine by ordering an offensive by Ukrainian military forces, including some battalions of neofascist “volunteers.” It is inconceivable that he would have done so without Washington’s approval.

The Russian-backed forces routed the invaders around the Donetsk airport and have pressed a counterattack, taking control of an additional 500 square kilometers of territory and threatening the town of Debaltseve, which sits on the main road between Luhansk and Donetsk. As many as 3,000 Ukrainian troops are trapped in the town and could be forced to surrender.

Washington, NATO, the European Union and the media have portrayed the fighting in eastern Ukraine as a Russian invasion, although the vast majority of combatants are drawn from the Donbass region, where most people are Russian speakers and the government in Kiev is widely hated.

Obama repeated the claims of “Russian aggression” at the onset of his joint press conference with Merkel, saying that “Russian forces continue to operate” in Ukraine, “training separatists and helping to coordinate attacks.”

Last week’s sudden trip by Hollande and Merkel to Kiev and Moscow, setting the stage for Wednesday’s summit in Minsk, appeared to be driven by concern that a US decision to provide billions in weapons to Ukraine was imminent and could escalate the crisis enormously.

A top official of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe told journalists at the Munich conference that he feared weapons deliveries would turn the crisis into an “existential conflict for Russia against NATO.”

Similar concerns were expressed in the American media, albeit by a small minority in the US national security establishment. The New York Times published an op-ed Monday by Professor John Mearsheimer under the headline “Don’t Arm Ukraine,” which asked rhetorically whether the United States would accept Canada or Mexico joining a hostile military alliance.

Even the rabid anti-Russian publicist Anne Applebaum, a Washington Post columnist, expressed concern about “a new World War” emerging from the Ukraine crisis, although she offered the lesser evil of “a new Cold War” in which NATO would “build a Berlin Wall around Donetsk in the form of a demilitarized zone and treat the rest of Ukraine like West Germany.”

 

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/10/merk-f10.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-refuses-to-rule-out-arming-kiev-following-talks-with-merkel/5430577