Crimea

Evidence about the connection between the Ukrainian coup and Crimea’s breakaway

Posted by

0

By Eric Zuesse
Posted on Fort Russ, February 16, 2015

Little attention is generally paid to the connection between the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, and Crimea’s breakaway from Ukraine. The testimony that will here be cited helps fill this in. An attorney in the federal prosecutor’s office at the time of the coup refers to the longtime national socialist, Andriy Paribiy, as having been the key person behind the coup. In the new regime, Paribiy became appointed to become the chief of national security, and the top person overseeing the war against “ATO” ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ to exterminate the residents in the formerly Ukrainian area, Donbass, the area which had voted 90% for the overthrown President Viktor Yanukovych, and which consequently rejected this new regime, which Washington violently imposed to replace him.  

Below is a Crimean TV interview with Natalya Poklonskaya, who was a senior criminal prosecutor in Kiev at the time of the February 2014 Maidan demonstrations and overthrow of President Yanukovych, and who resigned her post during the coup and drove back to her childhood home in Crimea, because she objected to what she called “nazis” who, she said, had done the overthrow; she objected to the way that Yanukovych was replaced, and to the unconstitutional and violent nature of it, which she didn’t view as being a democratic action, at all, but instead a “nazi” one.
This interview was telecast shortly after the February 2014 overthrow, but before the March 16th referendum in Crimea on whether to reject the new Government and to rejoin Russia (of which Crimea had been a part during 1783-1954).
Poklonskaya was interviewed in this call-in live TV show so as to inform her fellow Crimeans what she had seen happen during the overthrow, and why she couldn’t, in good conscience, remain as a Ukrainian official in Kiev, and swear loyalty to the new Ukrainian Government there. She had heard the chants of the Maidan protesters and smelled their piles of burning tires, and seen their marches in Kiev with nazi symbols and salutes, and she didn’t want to become any part of that. So, she quit and was now unemployed back home in Crimea at the time of this interview.
The key moments in this interview are shown below, with English subscripts. (Here is the full interview, for anyone who wants to see that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaXA9xPGhKo.)
“He” refers to 

Andriy Paribiy was the co-founder (along with Oleh Tyahnybok) of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, which the CIA had persuaded to change its name to “Freedom” or “Svoboda” in order not to offend Westerners with its origin as a native Ukrainian version of Hitler’s National Socialist Party of Germany. Polonskaya said:
“He was standing on Maidan and delivering orders.” The interviewer asked:
She then asked, rhetorically:
And she answered, also as a question (since she’s a good trial-lawyer):
She was asked her view of the new Ukrainian Government’s declaration that this referendum in Crimea would be illegal:
The referendum took place entirely peacefully, because Russian troops from Crimea’s naval base in Sevastopol Crimea prevented an invasion from Kiev. The results were 96% for reunion with Russia. A 2013 Gallup poll of Crimeans, and also a 2014 Gallup poll of Crimeans after the referndum, both showed overwhelming support for Russia and opposition to the United States; and the 2014 poll also showed that almost all Crimeans thought that the referendum-results had been free and fair and accurately reflected the views of Crimenans. However, the United States Government, and its allies, claim that the overthrow of Yanukovych was legal and that the reunification of Crimea with Russia was not, and also that the ethnic cleansing against the residents in the Donbass region of the former Ukraine is legal and that the military assistance that Russia is providing to enable those residents to defend themselves from being exterminated is not. The United States Government, and its Ukrainian Government, call that extermination-program Ukraine’s “Anti Terrorist Operation,” and the United States is sending Ukraine weapons to carry it out.
 
When the Crimean people voted to rejoin Russia when they did, they saved themselves from the fate that soon thereafter befell the residents in Donbass. 

—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/evidence-about-connection-between.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/

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

Ukraine shuts down railway and bus traffic to Crimea (VIDEO)

Posted by

0

Ukraine shuts down railway traffic to Crimea (VIDEO) | Русская весна

From Russiya Vesna, December 31, 2014

Railway traffic to Crimea from both Ukraine and Russia was stopped on Saturday.

„Since December 28 all the trains from Ukraine and Russia will be cancelled. This also concerns freight traffic“, say Ukrainian railway officials. Kiev underlined this was a temporary measure. There are though no obvious reasons for such traffic cut but no explanations followed.

What’s behind this? How can one come to Crimea after trains ban?

On the video below you can see people walking with baggage and children. They have no other options: both trains and buses are banned by Ukrainian government decision.

First you come to Novoalekseyevka railway station – now it’s railway destination point, here you can get a taxi but the prices have been jacked up so it’s almost unaffordable for the vast majority. It is 25 km to Ukrainian border control check point – Chongar.

At the checkpoint there are long lines of people waiting to fill in the necessary passing documents. Checkpoint is not adapted for waiting: there are no rooms, people wait just outside in the rain and piercing winter sea wind. There are no waiting rooms, tables, drinking water and WC.

Then people walk through midground about 5 km to get to Russian border control point. More lines, more waiting, more rough weather.

Do you still think Ukraine is united and integral?

<iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/fW8SXyEh06k” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

http://rusvesna.su/english/1419995314

Saker: End of 2014 report and a look at what 2015 might bring

Posted by

0

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/12/2014-end-of-year-report-and-look-into.html

Introduction:
By any measure 2014 has been a truly historic year which saw huge, I would say, even tectonic developments. This year ends in very high instability, and the future looks hard to guess. I don’t think that anybody can confidently predict what might happen next year. So what I propose to do today is something far more modest. I want to look into some of the key events of 2014 and think of them as vectors with a specific direction and magnitude. I want to look in which direction a number of key actors (countries) “moved” this year and with what degree of intensity. Then I want to see whether it is likely that they will change course or determination. Then adding up all the “vectors” of these key actors (countries) I want to make a calculation and see what resulting vector we will obtain for the next year. Considering the large number of “unknown unknowns” (to quote Rumsfeld) this exercise will not result in any kind of real prediction, but my hope is that it will prove a useful analytical reference.

The main event and the main actors
A comprehensive analysis of 2014 should include most major countries on the planet, but this would be too complicated and, ultimately, useless. I think that it is indisputable that the main event of 2014 has been the war in the Ukraine. This crisis not only overshadowed the still ongoing Anglo-Zionist attack on Syria, but it pitted the world’s only two nuclear superpowers (Russia and the USA) directly against each other. And while some faraway countries did have a minor impact on the Ukrainian crisis, especially the BRICS, I don’t think that a detailed discussion of South African or Brazilian politics would contribute much. There is a short list of key actors whose role warrants a full analysis. They are:

  1. The USA
  2. The Ukrainian Junta
  3. The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)
  4. Russia
  5. The EU
  6. NATO
  7. China

I submit that these seven actors account for 99.99% of the events in the Ukraine and that an analysis of the stance of each one of them is crucial.  So let’s take them one by one:

1 – The USA

Of all the actors in this crisis, the USA is by far the most consistent and coherent one.  Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland were very clear about US objectives in the Ukraine:

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine – bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire…(…)  the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.

Hillary Clinton: There is a move to re-Sovietise the region (…) It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, (…) But let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.

Victoria Nuland: F**k the EU!

Between the three, these senior US “deep-staters” have clearly and unambiguously defined the primary goal of the USA: to take control of the Ukraine to prevent Russia from becoming a new Soviet Union, regardless of what the EU might have to say about that.  Of course, there were other secondary goals which I listed in June of this year (see here):

As a reminder, what were the US goals in the Ukraine: (in no particular order) [Editor: I’ve substituted Saker’s colors for words]

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine [Still possible ]
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev [Still possible ]
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea [Failed ]
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier [Failed ]
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe [Compromised ]
  6. Further devastate the EU economies [Still possible ]
  7. Secure the EU’s status as “US protectorate/colony” [Still possible ]
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies [Still possible ]
  9. Politically isolate Russia [Failed ]
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar [Compromised ]
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets [Achieved ]

I have color-coded these objectives into the following categories:
Achieved – black 
Still possible – too early to call – blue
Compromised – pink
Failed – red

Current “score card”: 1 “achieved”, 5 “possible, 2 “compromised” and 3 “failed”.

Here is how I would re-score the same goals at the end of the year:

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine [Achieved ]
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev [Achieved ]
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea [Failed ]
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier [Failed ]
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe [Still possible ]
  6. Further devastate the EU economies [Achieved ]
  7. Secure the EU’s status as “US protectorate/colony” [Achieved ]
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies [Achieved ]
  9. Politically isolate Russia [Failed ]
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar [Compromised ]
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets [Achieved ]

New score card: 6 “achieved”, 1 “possible”, 1 “compromised” and 3 “failed”

At first glance, this is a clear success for the USA: from 1 achieved to 6 with the same number of “failed” is very good for such a short period of time.  However, a closer look will reveal something crucial: all the successes of the USA were achieved at the expense of the EU and none against Russia.  Not only that, but the USA has failed in its main goal: to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower, primarily because the US policy was based on a hugely mistaken assumption: that Russia needed the Ukraine to become a superpower again.  This monumental miscalculation also resulted in another very bad fact for the USA: the dollar is still very much threatened, more so than a year ago in fact.

This is so important that I will repeat it again: the AngloZionist Empire predicated its entire Ukrainian strategy on a completely wrong assumption: that Russia “needed” the Ukraine.  Russia does not, and she knows that.  As we shall see later, a lot of the key events of this year are a direct result of this huge miscalculation.

The US is now facing a paradox: “victory” in the Ukraine, “victory” in Europe, but failure to stop a rapidly rising Russia.  Worse, these “victories” came at a very high price which included creating tensions inside the EU, threatening the future of the US shale gas industry, alienating many countries at the UN, being deeply involved with a Nazi regime, becoming the prime suspect in the shooting down of MH17 and paying the costs for an artificially low price of gold.  But the single worst consequence of the US foreign policy in the Ukraine has been the establishment of a joint Russian-Chinese strategic alliance clearly directed against the United States (more about that later). Continue reading →

Washington seeks an excuse to wage a nuclear war on Russia “We’re close to the precipice. Will the public remain silent?”

Posted by

0

Posted on Global Research, December 17, 2014
By Eric Zuesse
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-seeks-an-excuse-to-wage-a-nuclear-war-on-russia-were-close-to-the-precipice-will-the-public-remain-silent/5420283

The world is more nervous about the drift toward nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia than at any time since 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis. When French President Francois Hollande urgently side-tracked his return-flight from a diplomatic mission recently, in order to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport, at a private room that had been scoured ahead of time to eliminate any possible bugging devices, there was speculation as to what had caused Hollande’s sudden detour, and there were even rumors of a possible cause being an American “false-flag” event in the works to be blamed on Russia as a pretext for going to war against Russia, just as Russia had been falsely blamed for the Ukrainian military’s downing of Malaysia’s airliner MH17 onJuly 17th. All that was publicly released about the two-hour meeting were platitudes, hardly anything that would have justified side-tracking Hollande’s flight so as to surprise intelligence agencies and be able to meet the Russian leader in an untapped room.

The level of fear is certainly rising on both sides. On the U.S. side, the CBS News Poll in summer 2007 found 6% of Americans calling Russia an “enemy”; seven years later, that same figure was 22%. However, what is not rumor nor fear, but proven fact, by Obama’s own actions as will be documented here, is that he wants a war against Russia and is trying hard to get Europe (including Hollande) onboard with this goal in order to win it; and that America’s Republican Party want this at least as much as he does, though the American public do not. Continue reading →

Former Reagan official asks — Why is Washington opposed to Crimea self-determination?

Posted by

0

Washington Has Set The World On A Path To War

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, March 16, 2014
paulcraigroberts.org

Excerpt:
Why is Washington so opposed to Crimean self-determination?  The answer is that one of the main purposes of Washington’s coup in Kiev was to have the new puppet government evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base in Crimea. Washington cannot use the government Washington has installed in Ukraine for that purpose if Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine.  

What Washington has made completely obvious is that “self-determination” is a weapon used by Washington in behalf of its agenda.  If self-determination advances Washington’s agenda, Washington is for it.  If self-determination does not advance Washington’s agenda, Washington is against it.

The Washington-initiated UN Security Council resolution, vetoed by Russia, falsely declares that the referendum in Crimea, a referendum demanded by the people, “can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea; and calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status.”

Washington could not make it any clearer that Washington totally opposes self-determination by Crimeans.

Washington claims, falsely, that the referendum cannot be valid unless the entire population of Ukraine votes and agrees with the decision by Crimeans.  Note that when Washington stole Kosovo from Serbia, Washington did not let Serbians vote.

…

As I have been pointing out, the propaganda and lies issuing from Washington, its European puppets, New York Times, Time, and the entirety of the Western media are repeating the path to war that led to World War 1.  It is happening right before our eyes.

Entire article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-has-set-the-world-on-a-path-to-war/5373623