German Foreign Minister says Germany reserves right to “act decisively against Ukrainian leadership, including sanctions”

From Fort Russ

Ukrainian MFA summons Germany’s ambassador after Steinmeier mentions possible sanctions against Kiev

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s announcement that sanctions against Kiev are possible cause a furious reaction by the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Foreign Minister Steinmeier made this statement in an interview with the ARD TV channel.

Steinmeier said that if no political decision is reached in Ukraine, the German government reserves the right to “act decisively against the Ukrainian leadership, up to and including sanctions”.

Germany’s ambassador to Ukraine Christoph Weil was forced to have a discussion with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andrey Olefirov due to Steinmeier’s statement.

Ukrainian diplomats are very sensitive to Western countries’ position on the ongoing crisis in the country. However, that sensitivity is very one-sided. In December Ukraine’s ambassador to the EU Andrey Eliseev similarly strongly reacted to Steinmeier’s statement that Ukraine is not wanted in NATO.

“Nobody can prevent Kiev from joining NATO!” was the Ukrainian diplomat’s reply. Germans, as usual, took no offense, and nobody summoned Ukraine’s ambassador to the German MFA.

J.Hawk’s Comment: Let’s not forget Steinmeier’s statement was made against the background of Angela Merkel’s visit to the US. It would seem that everyone knows what Poroshenko must do. It would seem that we now know what was agreed to between Putin, Merkel, and Hollande in Moscow, namely the federalization of Ukraine. It’s a solution that is consistent with the interests of both Russia and Germany, as the two countries in effect decide the zones of their respective zones of economic influence. It also has the benefit (from everyone’s perspective except the junta’s) of cutting the junta out of the equation to a significant degree. Poroshenko, for his part, is still insisting that the situation should revert to the original (and never implemented) Minsk agreement. “Finis Ucrainae” is still the most likely scenario, unless something snaps in Kiev. That Western leaders are, for the first time, suggesting the possibility of Kiev being sanctioned suggests Poroshenko is in process of graduating from “disappointment” to “liability.”


American military expert to Ukraine: The territories are lost, Ukraine has no army left, weapons won’t solve this situation

In the interview below are interesting comments about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, John McCain, and the overall situation. However, Mr. Kofman does not acknowledge the political situation, and he parrots the American and Kiev regime lie that Russia is attacking Ukraine. This is, after all, a Ukrainian publication doing the interview.

“Sanctions have not changed the policy of Russia” —  American/NATO policy and American/Western actions are the things that need changing. Until American and NATO leaders and the American people, in particular, start living in the real world instead of the fantasy one they’ve created, and take responsibility for what they’ve done, they will continue to create disasters everywhere while pretending they are the victims.

For information on George Kennan, which the Kennan Institute is named for:

Posted on Fort Russ

February 8, 2015
Tatiana Kozak, Novoe Vremia, (Ukrainian publication)
Translated by Kristina Rus

No one in history has ever won a war with Russia at its borders – an American military expert

Why Ukraine can not win the war with Russia and why America will not supply the Ukrainians with weapons, explained the military expert of the Academy of Public Policy at the Kennan Institute, Michael Kofman

In his last statement, Obama opposed arms deliveries to Ukraine. Why did he decide this, given that the opinion of some of his surrounding is the opposite?

You must understand, there are several problems.

First, the presidential circle is not trying to persuade him. The most important thing, is that our National Security Council, which is headed by Susan Rice, believes that this approach to Ukraine is not reasonable and will not solve the problems.

The second problem is that the head of the European policy towards Ukraine and in general the European resistance against the actions of Russia – is Germany. And in Germany, in Berlin, they agree [that weapons will not solve the problem in Ukraine].

Yes, this was recently stated by Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Foreign Minister of Germany.

If the US changed its decision, it would also put Germany in an awkward position. They would also have to change their mind. But we have to follow the same policy towards Ukraine, as Europe.

It is clear that any weapons today will not change the situation in Ukraine – in the sense of hostilities that are waged by the militia and Russia.

Why? We really could use those drones.

Even if we decide today, those weapons will not appear on the front tomorrow. It takes time. That is, it will not change the current situation. The main thing is to hope for the future.

Many believe that all problems are in the Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian army is unfit for combat, it has no coordination with the volunteer battalions – they do not fight as a unified force. It has many structural problems, that weapons will not solve, even if we sent our best tanks, and put rockets and grenade launchers on top of them.

The US has a good experience in this [deliveries of weapons – NV]. We did this in Iraq, and it backfired. We sent antitank weapons to the rebels in Syria – it did not change their destiny. It prolonged the war, they [the rebels] were still destroyed by the Syrian army.

The US goal is to find a political way out of this conflict so that we can actually be able to engage in Ukraine. This conflict gradually destroys the chances of Ukraine to become a new country, to reform and to continue their European path. Most important for the United States and Germany is not to engage in this war with Russia. The war with Russia on the border with Russia is almost impossible to win. It’s absurd. No one in history has ever won a war with Russia on it’s border. The plan to simply send weapons to Ukraine and see: may be, there will be some result, doesn’t work. There is no strategy.

How can you explain then all the statements of Republican senators who advocate that these weapons are sent to Ukraine?

They are senators, they can talk. But to do something – it is not their job. They do not take responsibility for the outcome of their recommendations. The President is responsible.

If he sends weapons to Ukraine – Russia will change its tactics and its approach in the worst for all of us way. Russians have many ways to fight and they can easily respond.

For example, we will send you an antitank missiles, and they will destroy Russian tanks – then will everything change? Of course, the Russians are not stupid. They will not lose tanks like that. It is clear that they will change their tactics. It is easy to write this on paper, but we all understand, because we have a serious combat experience.

John McCain actively supports the delivery of weapons.

John McCain… You know, his policy is to send arms to all and always. We joke like that. He never met such a problem, that he would not want to bomb. His entire life he wanted to bomb Iraq, Syria, Libya, Georgia, by the way, and now Ukraine. He has one answer to all problems. If John McCain had been President, we would have had four more wars.

Yes, now there is huge political pressure on the President, and, by the way, not from Republicans. Most of the people who wrote the report [on the provision of weapons to Ukraine] are former players and very influential people from the administration of Hillary Clinton. That is, this attack mainly is from the Democratic party, not the Republican.

So all these statements should be seen, rather, in the context of the upcoming elections? They are more related to the domestic policy of the States?

Yes, of course, since this report was signed by the most important person of the campaign – Michelle Flournoy, who, most likely, will participate in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton.

We all expect if Hillary Clinton becomes President in two years, then Michelle Flournoy is likely to be the first woman to become Secretary of Defense. It’s the nuances of our domestic policy.

She is one of eight people who signed this report, participated in its creation. The main idea of this report is to seriously push the President to change his policy. I think this is the wrong approach to Ukraine. Sending weapons will not change anything, except it will extend the war.

Which option would be better for Ukraine?

The main goal is to achieve a ceasefire, truce and bring the conflict to the political plane.

As for Ukraine, the USA needs to have a strategy for longer-term to build an army in Ukraine. Ukraine does not need weapons, it needs an army. Weapons without an army do not work. Ukraine needs to create a real strategic partnership with the US. In this structure we can work together and cooperate to solve fundamental problems of Ukraine. It’s economic reforms, it is democratic and political reforms, the creation of an efficient army, which Ukraine will be able to finance itself.

But not so we will send $1 billion per year for the Ukrainian army. The entire budget of the Ukrainian army now – $2 billion. That is, the armed forces, which will be in Ukraine in three years, will be 50% dependent on the money that will come from the States, but we will not continue to give endlessly. That is, your army will be financially dependent on us. Our goal is to create an army that Ukraine will be able to maintain, otherwise it makes no sense.

Are such cooperation programs being developed? The States help to train our future police. And the army?

We started a very modest training plan for four Ukrainian companies in the West, near Poland. Help to train your UAF. For today there is no overall strategic approach. Each is doing what they can. We train, Lithuanians train Ukrainians, Poles also send weapons, training. Britain sends armored personnel carriers. Canadians send military uniform, we – body armor. This is a temporary situation, because the situation is extreme. There is no strategic approach.

And most importantly, there are no financial resources to help Ukraine – this is the main problem. People say – let’s send weapons. But don’t want to give real money on the reform in Ukraine.

Will there be a case, if there will be no cooperation with Ukraine? Or this will not happen?

I think Ukraine will always be supported. But now the question is not whether to help or not to help. The question is, how to help effectively, what works and what doesn’t. This is the discussion in Washington.

In Ukraine, many are convinced that Ukraine needs American weapons, because without it we cannot achieve the ceasefire.

You cannot achieve a ceasefire with the armed forces. You simply don’t have any.

When can we achieve something? Sanctions against Russia are not particularly enhanced. It begins to attack harder. So everyone sees the solution in armed resistance.

You see, these are the illusions of the Ukrainian government.

The real problem in Ukraine is that no one – neither Poroshenko nor Yatsenyuk – don’t want to sign a real agreement on a compromise with Russia. They don’t want to realize what had happened, and to give some political status to this militia. They are very afraid of the people, a third Maidan.

Indeed, the probability of the third Maidan exists.

The fact is that the West in Ukraine is not allowed to make serious adult decisions in this environment. They just keep saying “yes” to Ukraine.

Because of this, Ukrainians continue to live in the illusion that they with their fighters can stand against one of the largest armed military in the world. This can not happen. My colleagues in Russia, associated with the General staff, are well aware that any day, if Russia wants to, it can completely destroy the entire UAF in 72 hours. They have such plans.

We understand that.

That won’t happen, because Russia doesn’t want to. But people need to understand that the problem is not with anti-tank missiles. If we will send anti-tank missiles, then Russia will send something else – aircraft, artillery, simply will wipe the area from the face of the earth.

Should we recognize these territories are not Ukrainian, to abandon them?

What did the conflict reach? These territories are really lost. The only result that I see over the past year, is that Ukraine has been losing territory and soldiers. And there are no improvements. Sanctions have not changed the policy of Moscow.

Why do they attack? Because the Minsk agreements did not give Russia anything. Russia believes that it made a serious mistake when it signed an agreement in Minsk. Ukraine had no sincere interest to observe Minsk protocol. Plus everyone knows that in addition to this protocol, between Kiev and Moscow, there was the second protocol signed on September 19, where there was a map of control between the UAF and the militia. According to this map Ukraine had to give them Donetsk airport and areas that Ukraine was not going to ever give up. It’s all well known. Ukraine was in no way going to give up, despite the fact that it signed the agreement. Nobody wants to go for a real compromise in Ukraine.

Secretive Neo-Nazi military organization linked to NATO involved in Euromaidan sniper shootings

From Global Research, November 22, 2014
First published in March, 2014
By F. William Engdahl

This article –which recounts the events of the November Euromaidan 2013 Sniper Shootings was first published in March 2014

The events in Ukraine since November 2013 are so astonishing as almost to defy belief.An legitimately-elected (said by all international monitors) Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovich, has been driven from office, forced to flee as a war criminal after more than three months of violent protest and terrorist killings by so-called opposition.


Yanoukovitch, ousted president of Ukraine

His “crime” according to protest leaders was that he rejected an EU offer of a vaguely-defined associate EU membership that offered little to Ukraine in favor of a concrete deal with Russia that gave immediate €15 billion debt relief and a huge reduction in Russian gas import prices. Washington at that point went into high gear and the result today is catastrophe.

A secretive neo-nazi military organization reported linked to NATO played a decisive role in targeted sniper attacks and violence that led to the collapse of the elected government.

But the West is not finished with destroying Ukraine. Now comes the IMF with severe conditionalities as prerequisite to any Western financial help.

After the famous leaked phone call of US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (photo, left) with the US Ambassador in Kiev, where she discussed the details of who she wanted in a new coalition government in Kiev, and where she rejected the EU solutions with her “Fuck the EU” comment,[1] the EU went it alone. Germany’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier proposed that he and his French counterpart, Laurent Fabius, fly to Kiev and try to reach a resolution of the violence before escalation. Polish Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski was asked to join. The talks in Kiev included the EU delegation, Yanukovich, the three opposition leaders and a Russian representative. The USA was not invited.[2]

The EU intervention without Washington was extraordinary and reveals the deeping division between the two in recent months. In effect it was the EU saying to the US State Department, “F*** the US,” we will end this ourselves.

After hard talks, all major parties including the majority of protesters, agreed to new presidential elections in December, return to the 2004 Constitution and release of Julia Tymoshenko from prison. The compromise appeared to end the months long chaos and give a way out for all major players.

The diplomatic compromise lasted less than twelve hours. Then all hell broke loose.

Snipers began shooting into the crowd on February 22 in Maidan or Independence Square. Panic ensued and riot police retreated in panic according to eyewitnesses. The opposition leader Vitali Klitschko withdrew from the deal, no reason given. Yanukovich fled Kiev.[3]

The question unanswered until now is who deployed the snipers? According to veteran US intelligence sources, the snipers came from an ultra-right-wing military organization known as Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO).

IMAGE: Members of UNA-UNSO marching in Lviv.

Strange Ukraine ‘Nationalists’

The leader of UNA-UNSO, Andriy Shkil, ten years ago became an adviser to Julia Tymoshenko. UNA-UNSO, during the US-instigated 2003-2004 “Orange Revolution”, backed pro-NATO candidate Viktor Yushchenko against his pro-Russian opponent, Yanukovich. UNA-UNSO members provided security for the supporters of Yushchenko and Julia Tymoshenko on Independence Square in Kiev in 2003-4.[4]

UNA-UNSO is also reported to have close ties to the German National Democratic Party (NDP). [5]

Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 the crack-para-military UNA-UNSO members have been behind every revolt against Russian influence. The one connecting thread in their violent campaigns is always anti-Russia. The organization, according to veteran US intelligence sources, is part of a secret NATO “GLADIO” organization, and not a Ukraine nationalist group as portrayed in western media. [6]

According to these sources, UNA-UNSO have been involved (confirmed officially) in the Lithuanian events in the Winter of 1991, the Soviet Coup d’etat in Summer 1991, the war for the Pridnister Republic 1992, the anti-Moscow Abkhazia War 1993, the Chechen War, the US-organized Kosovo Campaign Against the Serbs, and the August 8 2008 war in Georgia. According to these reports, UNA-UNSO para-military have been involved in every NATO dirty war in the post-cold war period, always fighting on behalf of NATO. “These people are the dangerous mercenaries used all over the world to fight NATO’s dirty war, and to frame Russia because this group pretends to be Russian special forces. THESE ARE THE BAD GUYS, forget about the window dressing nationalists, these are the men behind the sniper rifles,” these sources insist. [7]

If true that UNA-UNSO is not “Ukrainian” opposition, but rather a highly secret NATO force using Ukraine as base, it would suggest that the EU peace compromise with the moderates was likely sabotaged by the one major player excluded from the Kiev 21 February diplomatic talks—Victoria Nuland’s State Department.[8] Both Nuland and right-wing Republican US Senator John McCain have had contact with the leader of the Ukrainian opposition Svoboda Party, whose leader is openly anti-semitic and defends the deeds of a World War II Ukrainian SS-Galicia Division head.[9] The party was registered in 1995, initially calling itself the “Social National Party of Ukraine” and using a swastika style logo. Svoboda is the electoral front for neo-nazi organizations in Ukraine such as UNA-UNSO.[10]

One further indication that Nuland’s hand is shaping latest Ukraine events is the fact that the new Ukrainian Parliament is expected to nominate Nuland’s choice, Arseny Yatsenyuk, from Tymoshenko’s party, to be interim head of the new Cabinet.

Whatever the final truth, clear is that Washington has prepared a new economic rape of Ukraine using its control over the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

IMF plunder of Ukraine Crown Jewels

Now that the “opposition” has driven a duly-elected president into exile somewhere unknown, and dissolved the national riot police, Berkut, Washington has demanded that Ukraine submit to onerous IMF conditionalities.

In negotiations last October, the IMF demanded that Ukraine double prices for gas and electricity to industry and homes, that they lift a ban on private sale of Ukraine’s rich agriculture lands, make a major overhaul of their economic holdings, devalue the currency, slash state funds for school children and the elderly to “balance the budget.” In return Ukraine would get a paltry $4 billion.

Before the ouster of the Moscow-leaning Yanukovich government last week, Moscow was prepared to buy some $15 billion of Ukraine debt and to slash its gas prices by fully one-third. Now, understandably, Russia is unlikely to give that support. The economic cooperation between Ukraine and Moscow was something Washington was determined to sabotage at all costs.

This drama is far from over. The stakes involve the very future of Russia, the EU-Russian relations, and the global power of Washington, or at least that faction in Washington that sees further wars as the prime instrument of policy.

Writer F. William Engdahl is a geopolitical analyst and the author of “Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order”.


[1] F. William Engdahl, US-Außenministerium in flagranti über Regimewechsel in der Ukraine ertappt, Kopp, February 8, 2014, accessed in

[2] Bertrand Benoit, Laurence Norman and Stephen Fidler , European Ministers Brokered Ukraine Political Compromise: German, French, Polish Foreign Ministers Flew to Kiev, The Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2014, accessed in

[3] Jessica Best, Ukraine protests Snipers firing live rounds at demonstrators as fresh violence erupts despite truce, The Mirror UK, February 20, 2014, accessed in

[4] Aleksandar Vasovic , Far right group flexes during Ukraine revolution, Associated Press, January 3, 2005, Accessed in

[5] Wikipedia, Ukrainian National Assembly Ukrainian National Self Defence, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, accessed in

[6] Source report, Who Has Ukraine Weapons, February 27, 2014, private to author.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Max Blumenthal, Is the US backing neo-Nazis in Ukraine?, AlterNet February 25, 2014, accessed in

[9] Channel 4 News, Far right group at heart of Ukraine protests meet US senator, 16 December 2013, accessed in