Germany

Foreign Minister Lavrov speaks to UN Security Council on Ukraine, September 23, 2026

Posted by

0

From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the UN Security Council on Ukraine, New York,
September 23, 2026:

I would like to begin with expressing gratitude to our Western colleagues, primarily European ones. Let me explain.

If not for them, the situation in Ukraine would have remained in limbo, and the people of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya would have been deprived of the right to choose.

Back in 2004, when Ukraine was forced to hold the illegal third round of presidential elections, Brussels decided to fully clarify the matter, demanding that Ukrainians make a choice between Russia and Europe. In 2013, when public unrest was orchestrated in Kiev to demand the immediate signing of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, Brussels insisted on its approach to the matter, completely disregarding its obligations under the CIS Treaty on a Free Trade Area. Assuming leadership of the February 2014 negotiations between the legitimate president and the opposition, Europeans secured a crisis settlement agreement, under which Viktor Yanukovych accepted all their conditions, including the creation of a national unity government that was to prepare an early presidential election provided that both the authorities and the opposition immediately renounce any violence. That document was signed on February 21, 2014, under the official guarantees of Germany (Frank-Walter Steinmeier), Poland (Radoslaw Sikorski) and France (Laurent Fabius). However, on the night of February 22, 2014, the opposition trampled on these guarantees and its own commitments, seizing government buildings and announcing the establishment of not a “national unity government” but a “government of victors.” As they say, feel the difference.

As for the guarantors of the agreement, which the putschists trampled down, Paris stated with a straight face as soon as February 23, 2014, that the nascent democratic transition meets the aspirations of the Ukrainian people.

Britain could not stand idly by, of course. Foreign Secretary William Hague stated on February 22, 2014: “Events in the last 24 hours show the will of Ukrainians to move towards a different future.” He said about Yanukovych on February 24, 2014, that “his authority is no longer widely accepted in Ukraine as a legitimate President.”

A bit later, on March 1, 2014, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel joined in: “We must provide all-round assistance to the striving of the Ukrainian people for freedom and democracy.”

The new authorities in Kiev, emboldened by the free hand granted by the West, immediately declared the goal of terminating the status of the Russian language, and responded to the protests of people in Crimea and Donbass against the bloody coup by denouncing them as terrorists and sending groups of armed fighters and regular army units, including artillery and aviation, against them. This resulted in the Crimean referendum on its independence from the openly Nazi regime that seized power in Kiev, and on its reunification with Russia.

If Europeans had not been cheating but would have forced the opposition to honour the agreement signed in February 2014 under the guarantees of Berlin, Paris and Warsaw, Ukraine would have retained its territorial integrity within the 1991 borders, which Zelensky and his Western patrons dream of. But Europeans could not suppress their inherent instinct to lie and to achieve their goals by criminal means.

A year later, the Minsk Agreements, which Berlin and Paris strongly requested, were signed. They were signed on February 12, 2015, and on February 17, 2015, they were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council at Russia’s initiative. It should be noted that under Article 25 of the UN Charter, member states “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

However, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko categorically refused to do that, and his patrons in Berlin and Paris did not even try to reason with him. When Emmanuel Macron assumed office in France, there was a surge in traditional French activity. On December 19, 2019, the Normandy Four (Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine) held a summit in Paris, where the Kiev regime was represented by Vladimir Zelensky, who had come to power under the high-sounding slogans of establishing peace and good-neighbourliness with Russia and putting an end to attacks on the Russian language. They adopted a declaration that reaffirmed the need to ensure strict compliance with the Minsk Agreements, including to enshrine the special status of certain Donbass areas in the Constitution of Ukraine. This status did not imply anything extraordinary – only the right to use the Russian language and establish local self-governments.

Had the 2015 Minsk Agreements, which were reaffirmed in Paris in 2019 when Zelensky was president, were fulfilled in accordance with the requirements of the UN Security Council, Ukraine would have remained within the 1991 borders, with the exception of Crimea, of course, and everyone is fully aware of this. However, Europe did not allow this again. As Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko admitted after leaving office, they never planned to implement the Minsk Agreements they signed. They only needed time to flood Ukraine with weapons. A very candid confession. All those meetings, like the one in Paris, were only needed to feign intense diplomatic activity, using it as a cover for building up the anti-Russia campaign.

In December 2021, NATO and the Biden administration arrogantly rejected Russia’s proposals to reach an agreement based on mutual respect for the security interests of Russia, the countries of Europe and North America. From a practical standpoint, preparations were underway to have Kiev take over Donbass territories which were outside of its control. In February 2022, to prevent the Western scenario from materialising, we were forced to launch the special military operation. Just one week into it, the Ukrainians requested talks. We agreed. After several rounds of negotiations in Belarus and Istanbul, Ukraine came forward by proposing the key settlement principles, and our negotiators accepted them. The main provisions provided for asserting Ukraine’s neutrality, recognising the reality on the ground, while also setting forth collective security guarantees as a reliable safeguard for preventing any future military escalation, provocations or aggressive undertakings. The Ukrainian and Russian delegations initialled the document, but everyone knows how the events unfolded from that point. The then UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, prevented the Ukrainians from entering into a legally binding agreement based on the text as suggested and initialled by Kiev. Instead, he urged Ukraine to fight back. Europe de facto agreed with London’s position.

Had this initialled agreement been executed as a treaty and honoured, Ukraine would have remained within its 1991 borders, minus Crimea and a part of Donbass.

After that, Europe continued “to contribute to peace efforts” following the August 2025 summit meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump in Alaska. At the summit, the President of Russia accepted Washington’s proposals with their compromises, as he has said many times. The leaders of Russia and the United States made it clear during their joint press conference in Anchorage that an agreement of principle had been reached, and President of the United States Donald Trump made the same point in his statements the following days.

Unnerved by these developments, Europe rushed to persuade the President of the United States to back out of his own initiative, just like Boris Johnson forced Ukrainians to withdraw their own proposals in Istanbul. A European squadron was instantly dispatched to Washington with a mission to do everything to make sure that any further efforts to fulfil the Anchorage agreements stalled. As a result, during the Group of Seven Summit in Evian and the NATO Summit in Ankara in June 2026, Emmanuel Macron and other Western leaders were boasting about burying Anchorage, while alleging that the United States was firm in its commitment to siding with Ukraine.

When Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner once again visited Moscow recently, they reaffirmed Washington’s interest in facilitating a settlement for Ukraine. Just as President of the United States Donald Trump said after the Anchorage meeting in August 2025, everyone agrees that what was needed was not some kind of a ceasefire deal, but a lasting peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine to end the war for good.

Russia is ready to hold talks to reach this kind of a just and sustainable peace, just as President Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions. He set forth the objectives that must be reached to achieve this goal with abundant clarity in his program-setting speech in June 2024. That said, considering our negative experience, we will not make any pauses in the special military operation during talks, regardless of their format. However, this is what Europe is after, with the same straightforward goal of getting a respite and replenishing the Kiev regime’s depleted war arsenals. Having found itself in this dire situation, it has switched to what amounts to outright terrorism.

Apart from guaranteeing Russia’s security interests, the special military operation’s objectives include ensuring that all the rights of Russian and Russian speakers are fully respected not only in Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya, but also on the territory of Ukraine where there are still laws in force as encouraged by the West to fully cancel the Russian language in all spheres, including education, mass media, culture and in everyday life, while also outlawing the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Having started in 2017, the effort to adopt these laws by far pre-dates the special military operation. But Europe and NATO stayed silent.

At the same time, there was a legislative effort to encourage Nazi ideology and practices. It culminated with Vladimir Zelensky and other regime officials taking a knee to honour the remains of Hitler’s accomplices. These remains received what amounted to royal honours when they were transferred from Europe to be reburied in Kiev. Moreover, they plan to create what they call a Pantheon of Ukrainian Heroes based on these devilish tombs on the territory of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, which is a sacred site for all Orthodox believers. It is saddening that our former allies with whom we fought against Hitler and Nazism have been condoning these undertakings.

The West, and above all – the European Union, is ever ready to speak about human rights at every conceivable opportunity. Yet in relation to the Kiev regime, one never hears that phrase. Russia insists on the strict observance of Article 1 of the UN Charter, which requires all states to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. We understand that with regard to sex (gender), the Kiev regime looks more to Europe for guidance, but where language and religion are concerned, no subterfuge will avail them here. When we draw attention to the unacceptability of the ban on the Russian language and the UOC, we are told, at best, that when a comprehensive settlement is reached, this aspect will be taken into account “in the package.” Yet the requirements of the UN Charter cannot be made the subject of bargaining. They must be upheld unconditionally, without any caveats. Those who cosset the Kiev regime are duty-bound to ensure that this is done. In practice, however, Ursula von der Leyen and other figures in Brussels and across European capitals declare with fervour that Ukraine is moving towards the European Union and must continue to be supported with funds and weapons, because – note well – “Ukraine is defending European values.” This implies that racism, the persecution of the Church and its clergy, and the glorification of Nazism in the loathsome, bestial forms of Ukrainian nationalism are the very values on which the European Union today rests. President of Finland Alexander Stubb recently made a wistful confession: “Western countries are now learning more from Ukraine than Ukraine is learning from them.”

Nowhere in the world, save for Ukraine, is an entire language banned. This is to say nothing of the fact that it is one of the official languages of the UN. One can speak Arabic and Farsi in Israel, and Hebrew – in any Arab country and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where there is a Jewish community with its own synagogues. Even in Ireland, one can speak English. Yet in Ukraine, Russian is banned, and, as we understand it, the members of the EU and NATO are perfectly content with this. They even take their cue from Vladimir Zelensky – as the Baltic states do.

Naturally, I cannot fail to mention the position of the guardian of the UN Charter – the Secretary-General of our Organisation. For a long time, since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, he and his official representatives have repeated one and the same thing: “The conflict must be settled on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, the relevant General Assembly resolutions , and the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” In response to our regular remarks, including those addressed personally to Mr António Guterres, pointing out that the Charter contains a whole series of other principles, including the right of nations to self-determination and respect for the right to one’s native language and religion, we were told that the formulation regarding Ukraine was “well-considered and not subject to change.”

When President Donald Trump announced that Greenland could well become part of the territory of the United States, the official UN spokesperson was asked at a press conference what he thought about this. He replied: “The matter must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, the principle of the territorial integrity of Denmark and the right of the population of Greenland to self-determination.”

During the press conference held on January 29 of this year, António Guterres was asked: “Does the UN believe that the right of self-determination applicable to Crimea and Donbass?” The Secretary-General replied (I am compelled to quote him in full): “We have had very interesting discussions on this. And there are two principles that are essential. First principle is territorial integrity of states. The other principle is self-determination of peoples. But, self-determination of peoples has a number of requisites. So, the way it is defined has a number of requisites. And after a very careful study by our Office of Legal Affairs, it is our position that the principle of self-determination does not apply in the situations of Crimea and Donbas. So, in that situation, the principle that prevails is the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” If anyone has understood a word of that, I envy them.

As we can see, Greenland is not Crimea nor is it Donbass, and “never the twain shall meet.” We await the continuation of this “soap opera” with keen anticipation; it will be interesting to hear the Secretariat’s reaction to possible questions from journalists about the plans of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We hope that the new Secretary-General will return the language used in the statements of the Secretariat’s official representatives to the international legal mainstream.

This might perhaps also help our Western colleagues, above all the European ones, to return to the realms of reality and to realise what consequences their reckless course of unstinting support for Ukrainian Nazism is leading to, and has already led to.

In conclusion, I will once again refer to the consensus Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The Declaration clearly stipulates that the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity are applicable to those states which comply with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and have a government representing the whole people inhabiting the given territory, without distinction as to race, creed or colour. It seems to me that it is obvious to all that the Kiev regime cannot be considered a government representing the interests of the inhabitants of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya, whom it has branded “terrorists, subhumans and creatures.”

https://mid.ru/en/press_service/vizity-ministra/2146984/

Also
https://consortiumnews.com/2026/09/23/what-lavrov-told-the-un-security-council/
with video

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaks on the international situation — the West versus cooperative, respectful, egalitarian relationships

Posted by

0

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
September 3, 2026
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions during a dedicated lecture and educational programme of the Russian Znanie Society on the sidelines of the 11th Eastern Economic Forum, Vladivostok, September 3, 2026

Dear friends,

I am delighted to attend the Eastern Economic Forum again. I have visited all its 11 editions and believe that with every passing year the forum is not only increasing its attendance but is also increasing the scope of issues for discussions. The issue of young people is especially relevant now.

Eurasia is our common continent, the most rapidly growing, the richest and the most densely populated continent that is distinguished from the other continents by the fact that it is home to several great civilisations, which have maintained their identity throughout thousands of years. One of them is our multinational Russian civilisation, which stands side by side with the Indian, Chinese, Ottoman, Persian and a number of other civilisations.

That is why young people, who are showing a growing interest in interacting with their Eurasian neighbours while remaining open to communication with their peers on other continents, should absorb this history. It is very difficult to preserve one’s national identity without feeling part of what our ancestors did, what they protected and lived for. And while preserving this identity, it is important to remain open to the entire world.

This has been a distinguishing feature of our country, our people and our leaders throughout history, including before the establishment of the Russian Empire, during and  after  the reign of Peter the Great, during the Soviet period, and in modern Russia.

The Eastern Economic Forum is a successful platform. It attracts guests from widely different countries. The leaders of India, China, Malaysia, Mongolia and Myanmar have attended it. The leaders of Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Laos and Thailand have visited it in various capacities. In the past, when the West maintained normal relations with our country, the forum was visited by the leaders of those countries that now have unfriendly governments, such as Japan and South Korea.

The business segment of the Eastern Economic Forum has long gone far beyond the geographical boundaries of Eurasia. Its frequent guests include businesspeople from South America, Africa and the Middle East.

Of course, we remain open to contacts with everyone who sincerely wants to set aside misguided ideologies and distorted politics, instead focusing on natural interests, primarily in the economic and social spheres. We have never shut our door, but we don’t want to be placed in a situation where we will depend on the “goodwill” of our so-called former Western partners.

We are developing our multilateral cooperation on the Eurasian continent through venues and platforms that are based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit and honest dialogue, which are entirely different from those of Western-oriented structures. These platforms include the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (which held a regular summit in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, the other day), the Eurasian Economic Union and ASEAN. They have signed memorandums of cooperation at the level of their general secretaries, emphasising their desire to harmonise their economic and social development, trade and investment programmes in order to avoid overlapping and to more effectively use the potential of these organisations.

We maintain contacts with such organisations as the Asia Cooperation Dialogue. There is also BRICS, which is broader than Eurasia but has the leading states of our continent among its members. The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) is becoming involved in the processes which we are doing our best to stimulate within the Eastern Economic Forum.

This cross-platform cooperation between these structures is developing, growing deeper and creating a new agenda. It is objectively beneficial to all those who are engaged in these processes and constitutes the essence of what President Vladimir Putin described as Greater Eurasian Partnership more than ten years ago. He did not present it as an initiative but as principles for shaping this partnership.

This initiative has been enshrined in Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept, which was approved in March 2023. It provides for shaping a partnership based on the coincidence of economic and development interests open to every single country in Eurasia, the largest continent on the planet.

For a long time, the use of the advantages of the world’s largest and richest continent, given by God and geography, has been hindered by the policy which the West pursued and continues to pursue. The West is carrying it out even more fiercely, if not frantically now, seeking to divide our continent. You probably know that they are physically building walls along the border between the European Union and the Russian Federation and digging ditches that are a hundred metres wide  (I don’t know how deep) to prevent Russia from “conquering” them.

That is a sick imagination. Moreover, I think that this is not so much a sick imagination as a deliberate policy. They – NATO and the EU – always need an enemy. Without an artificially created image of Russia as the enemy, people would get rid of their governments in the overwhelming majority of EU and NATO countries.

Our position is the exact opposite. We believe that the use and development of wealth given to our continent by God and geography should be open to all nations living here. Even if we approach this issue purely pragmatically, this will at least cut costs.

We are not building walls; we don’t want to isolate ourselves from Europe. But Europe has isolated itself from us. It has decided that our past cooperation was so important for the Russian Federation that we would plead and beg them to forgive, forget, go back, and lift sanctions. We won’t do this. It is against the genetic code of our people. We have, if you like, a pride of our own in the best sense of the word. We don’t need anybody’s goodwill. We have enough friends and partners who are ready to play fair.

Europe is not ready to cooperate in earnest, nor does it know how to do it. For more than five hundred years, Europe has been the main source of many troubles and misfortunes that have afflicted humanity. It was where two world wars began, and it is also the source of the current situation, in which it has simply stifled itself with the sheer volume of sanctions and illegal restrictions it has imposed in an attempt to defend what it considers its right to hegemony in global affairs.

Europe has never lived by its own resources or its own wits. It has always lived at the expense of others, both during the era of colonial rule and the era of slavery. Now, these unprecedented sanctions have been imposed simply because Russia is defending the interests of its people, who, in our view, have been oppressed by the Nazi regime in Ukraine. The sanctions imposed on states that cooperate with or even simply trade with Russia demonstrate that this neo-imperial, colonial – I would even say neo-Nazi – spirit remains deeply entrenched in Europe.

I have already mentioned in several of my speeches that I was simply stunned by the resurgence of Nazism in Germany. But when German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that he would once again make Germany the leading military power in Europe, I was genuinely shocked. Because if he does not understand what the word “again” means in this context, then it is indeed very sad and extremely dangerous for Europe, which is once again becoming a breeding ground for ideas of national and racial superiority.

As I have already said, we are choosing a different path. I have listed the organisations with which we cooperate: the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN, the Asia Cooperation Dialogue, and several others. One of the fundamental formats for interaction in these global spaces has always been the ASEAN Plus partners format. Russia, along with a dozen other states, is a strategic partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Every year, ASEAN brings its partners together for a summit. The ASEAN Ten –now eleven, following the admission of Timor-Leste – plus ten partner countries make up the East Asia Summit. This format is open to other states wishing to join, and applications can be submitted at any time. The East Asia Summit is based on what are now commonly referred to as universal principles of inclusiveness. In other words, all participants have equal rights. The mechanism is open to countries that uphold the principles and values promoted at these summits.

The West dislikes structures where it has to be part of a consensus. This is increasingly characteristic of the West, and particularly of Europe: the Anglo-Saxons – primarily the British, but also the Americans, including the current administration – are increasingly driven by the desire to continue dictating their will. These neo-colonialist tendencies are very tenacious.

Now, all Western diplomacy boils down to… Diplomacy is about reaching an agreement. I have already said that it is the oldest profession. Even in what was once considered the oldest profession, an agreement had to be reached first. Therefore, diplomacy is the oldest profession. I ask everyone to keep this in mind. However, the West seeks to dictate rather than reach an agreement. For them, diplomacy has now been supplanted by sanctions. From the perspective of our Western colleagues, sanctions are immediately imposed on anyone who “does something wrong”: primary, secondary, tertiary sanctions, and whatever comes next.

The West dislikes the consensual nature of the processes that have been evolving around ASEAN for many years. The Bali Treaty – the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, which laid the foundation for ASEAN cooperation – was signed in the mid-1970s. Since then, the Association has continued to develop. Yes, it has been a slow process – you know where haste is necessary, but building consensus takes time. It can take months or even years. But a consensus reached through such lengthy efforts is far more reliable and durable than a hastily imposed ultimatum. This, I believe, is clear to everyone.

Now the West seeks to dismantle the inclusive format that has developed around ASEAN, undermine its central role, and undermine the principles upon which the Association builds cooperation with its partners: consensus, mutual respect, and mutual benefit.

To achieve this, various bloc-based “trios” and “quartets” are being created. There is AUKUS: the United States, Britain, and Australia. This group aims to implement a nuclear-powered submarine programme for Australia using American and British technology. However, the activities of this nuclear “trio” do not fully comply with the standards and norms established for all countries within the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) framework. We are carefully examining this matter because failure to comply with, or partial compliance with, IAEA standards carries a risk of the proliferation of military nuclear technology. Unfortunately, the organisation’s current leadership seems to be taking this matter very lightly, clearly under severe pressure from the United States and Britain.

Blocs of four, or so-called “quartets,” are also being created. There is the QUAD format, or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue: the United States, Japan, Australia, and India. Our Indian friends are very uncomfortable within this format. They joined it solely because they saw the potential for additional economic opportunities. But as soon as they joined, the Americans and Japanese immediately began doing everything possible to imbue this positive economic “quartet” with a military component. They organise, or attempt to organise, maritime security exercises and are keen to draw our Indian friends, our closest partners, into games directed against another of our great friends, the People’s Republic of China.

To be continued…

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2137977

Why is Germany pushing WW3 with Russia? Interview with Heinrich Bücker

Posted by

0

Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
http://www.space4peace.org
February 22, 2023

Space Alert interview with German activist Heinrich Buecker

Heinrich Bücker is the founder and operator of Berlin’s Coop Antiwar Cafe, a popular gathering place for leftist activists in the city. He has come under attack by the German government for his criticism of Germany’s role in the war in Ukraine.

In this interview Global Network coordinator Bruce Gagnon speaks with Heinrich Buecker from Berlin. They discuss the following:

  • Germany has been in the news a lot lately for giving tanks to Ukraine and also due to comments by Green Party foreign minister Annalena Baerbock who declared that Europe was ‘at war with Russia’. She has since withdrawn the words but the damage from them still remains.
  • Pulitzer prize journalist Seymour Hersh recently released a blockbuster article about how the Biden administration was responsible for the terrorist attack blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline. How are the German people reacting to that story?
  • How has the shortage of oil and natural gas and inflation impacted life across your country?
  • How many American troops are currently deployed in Germany? How would you respond to claims by many people that the US is responsible for forcing Germans into the current anti-Russian hatred?
  • Why is it so important for Germans to resist this new wave of anticommunism and Russophobia?
  • Were there similar waves of Russophobia in Germany before WW2? 

On June 22, 2022 Heinrich Buecker gave a speech at an event hosted by Berlin’s Friedenskoordination (Peace Coordination) at the Soviet War Memorial in Berlin’s Treptower Park, in which, according to a statement on the antiwar cafe’s website, he said that “… it seems incomprehensible to me that German politics should again support the same chauvinistic and especially Russophobic ideologies on the basis of which the German Reich found willing helpers in 1941. The SS and Wehrmacht used Ukrainian national-fascist organizations as repressive and murderous squads against their own countrymen, including millions of Jewish men, women and children.”

As a result, he is now facing the possibility of up to three years in prison.

Arguing in favor of sending tanks to Kiev, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Green Party) said EU countries were fighting a war against Russia. US and EU officials have previously gone out of their way to claim they were not a party to the conflict in Ukraine.

“And therefore I’ve said already in the last days – yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks,” Baerbock said during a debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). “But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other.”

Additional Resources:
US-petition by UNAC: https://unac.notowar.net/drop-the-cha… –

Heinrich speech in Berlin GERMAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bshdb…
Statement on the investigation – by Heinrich Buecker / ENGLISH https://bit.ly/3R6jthu
Info and press (German and English) https://kurzelinks.de/strafverfahren
Global Network links: https://linktr.ee/space4peace

Andrew Napolitano: What is Biden’s goal in Russia-Ukraine war? And where is the public outrage?

Posted by

0

Andrew P. Napolitano is a former professor of law and judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Pulblished in the Washington Times
February 15, 2023

Which is more destructive to personal liberty: a government that engages in secret acts of war, or a public and news media that are indifferent to it? In the current American toxic stew of anti-Russian hatred and beating the drums of war — in President Biden’s America — we have both.

Here is the backstory…

For the rest of the article:
https://www.washingtontimes(dot)com/news/2023/feb/15/what-is-bidens-goal-in-russia-ukraine-war/

Ray McGovern discusses Seymour Hersh’s story on Nord Stream attack by U.S.

Posted by

0

from Consortium News
February 12, 2023

Ray McGovern discusses Seymour Hersh’s story, “How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline” on Garland Nixon and Wilmer Leon’s radio show, The Critical Hour. (With transcript).

Transcript

Garland Nixon

Sy Hersh has a piece at his Substack account entitled How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline. The New York Times called it a, quote unquote mystery. But the United States executed a covert C.I.A. operation that was kept secret until now. For insight into this, let’s turn to our first guest. He works with Tell the World, The publishing arm of the Ecumenical Church of the Savior in inner city Washington; has 27 year career as a C.I.A. analyst, serving as chief of the Soviet foreign policy branch and preparing the president’s daily brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and he is, of course, Ray McGovern. As always, Ray, welcome back.

Ray McGovern

Thanks for having me.

Garland Nixon

So Sy Hersh writes, last June, the Navy divers operating under the cover of a widely publicized midsummer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that three months later destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines. This is according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning. 

What I’ll say, Ray, is usually when we hear of unknown sources, we tend to question the veracity or validity of the piece.

But if it’s Sy Hersh, I got to give it its due. Ray McGovern.

Ray McGovern

I know Sy Hersh.

Garland Nixon

I know you do.

Ray McGovern

I know him to be a meticulous reporter, winner of five Polk Awards, Pulitzer Prize, you name it. Back in the day when honest reporters were so honored. This piece has all the earmarks of Sy’s meticulous approach, and he clearly has a very good source who felt, well, he felt a constitutional obligation to honor his or her oath to the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme oath any of us take. And that is to make sure that you tell the truth, especially when the Constitution is being violated. 

Now, this was an act of war, pure and simple. Curiously enough, it was against Germany. And curiously enough, President Joseph Biden, at a press conference in the presence of the chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, said this is going to happen if Russia invaded Ukraine. And, of course, he was asked, well, how do you do this? I mean, how can you how can you be so confident that Nord Stream will be killed and Biden said, well, just, you know, trust me, it’s going to happen. 

And so she, bilingual, the Reuters reporter, turned to Scholz – and this is not widely available now for obvious reasons – and she said, well, I mean, do you agree with that? I mean, hello, how do you feel about this? And this hack, this political hack said: we do everything together. We do everything together. We will be together on this now. So that’s available now. It’s available. Not Sy Hersh’s piece yet, but that interview is available in Germany.

You know, I describe Olaf Scholz as kind of the epitome of the abused spouse. Stands there and is abused not only by his master, Joe Biden, but also by this hack that he has as foreign minister. Her name is [Annalena] Baerbock. She is the the most vociferous of all the people saying that we are at war. That’s what she said. We are at war with Russia. 

So the question will be: it has been 90 years, count them, nine zero years since the Nazis were making a push for power in Germany. What happened? The Reichstag, the German parliament building was burned down at the end of January, 1933. What happened? The Germans caved. The Nazis didn’t have a majority, but they scared the living daylights out of German citizens.

First of all, Social Democrats gave in. Next to fall, the Zentrum party, the Catholic Party. No one spoke up. We know the rest of the story. All right. Now, sometimes history is replete with ironies. Here it is exactly to the month, 90 years later. Will the German people acquiesce in their industry, and then their bodies being frozen out this winter? Or will they rise up and say: “Look, Mr Scholz, you don’t know what the hell you’re doing, and neither does Baerbock. Get out of here!”, and replace that government? 

Now, the key to all this, of course, is the fact I have already mentioned. Sy Hersh’s piece has not been published in Germany. The New York Times hasn’t published it. The major media haven’t published. Where did Sy have to publish this? On Substack. Now, at one point he had a friend at the German newspaper, Die Welt, and they published an incredible exposé on Syria. It turned out to be true, but Sy couldn’t get it published anywhere else. He used to publish in The New York Times, then in The New Yorker. He has been banned. 

So the question is, will it be possible to inform not only the American people, but more important, the German people that they’ve been had? Okay? This is depriving them of livelihoods and industry. Will they, unlike 90 years ago, act like adults, stand up and say: “Now we’ve had it. Blowing up our our gas pipeline, that’s too far. We’re going to look at things differently. First and foremost, our involvement in Ukraine.”

Garland Nixon

Ray, domestically. Here. In this piece, if it is to be believed – which, I believe it and it certainly warrants an internal investigation here – the Biden administration admitted that what they were doing was an act of war, which means they understood that only Congress could, in fact, constitutionally clear that action. And they, with malice and aforethought, took action to mitigate their accountability to the Constitution and Congress.

And Joe Biden was the head guy there. He was the man that… eventually they decided rather than just put explosives on it, apparently Biden wanted to give the word for when it was done. This is an impeachable offense. This is a requirement of Congress, to act on it. Your thoughts on Congress not acting on it? I don’t suspect they will. And if there will be ultimately in the long term, any ramifications for that? Your thoughts on that anyway Ray.

Ray McGovern

Well, again, if the big tree falls in the forest and there’s no one around to hear it fall, does it make a sound? It is incredible how The New York Times – actually I’ve taken to calling The New York Times The New Yellow Times, after yellow journalism, which as most people know is what you do when you exaggerate or slant things beyond the truth.

The New Yellow Times can prevent this from being heard, and more important now, prevent corroboration from being a voice. We have corroboration now from Gil Doctorow in Brussels, Larry Johnson in Tampa, it’s coming in. And so I applaud the source that told Sy Hersh all this information. I believe it implicitly. Sy has never been wrong on really important issues like this. As I say, he’s meticulous, and he was distraught – and I know this personally – distraught at all this stuff about Russiagate.

He and Bob Parry used to – my mentor, Robert Parry, Consortium News – used to commiserate on the phone and, you know, what’s happened to the to the media? So here again, we have the media right in the middle of this thing. Only Tucker Carlson has had the cajones so far to play this story. Will it go further? I suspect… well, I don’t know but I like to try to be the optimist. Can The New York Times and the major media suppress this indefinitely? Well, I suppose they can. They’ve suppressed other stories, equally important, like the fact that the Russians are proven not to have hacked into the DNC, and that the ‘Russian offensive’ there with Facebook amounted to nothing.

So if they can deceive the American people, as the American people are willing to be deceived, then you know this will not have its desired effect. The fact that that Sy had to go on Substack to do this is really a lurid manifestation of the fact that not even the most prized, the most meticulous investigative reporter in the United States, could not get this published elsewhere.

That speaks volumes.

Garland Nixon

Part of this piece, Sy discusses meetings that Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan held in the executive office of the President, where they debated options for an attack on the pipeline. And he writes that the C.I.A. argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. And at the time, the C.I.A. was directed by Bill Burns, as Sy describes him, a mild mannered former ambassador to Russia. I know you know Burns well. He says that Burns quickly authorized a C.I.A. working group whose ad hoc members included someone who was familiar with the capacity of these Navy deep sea divers. Your thoughts on Burns’s involvement in this?

Ray McGovern

I do know Burns. He let me, well, in effect shame James Clapper by pointing out to an audience that Clapper had admitted that he fudged the evidence on weapons of mass destruction before the attack on Iraq. Burns was, some of us hoped, that he might be the adult in the room, but Burns is the epitome of a cog in the wheels of the system. He’s a state Department type. He got to be number two in the State Department and you don’t get to be number two in the State Department unless you salute. Whether it’s a harebrained scheme or not you salute. Well, here you have the epitome of a harebrained scheme. Did did Burns salute? Yes, as soon as the president said do it. He turned to his people and he said, Do it.

And they they rubbed their hands and said: Oh, man, this is going to be fun! We can do this. We can work with the Navy. We can do it. Okay. Now, what do the analysts say? Well, Burns didn’t give a rat’s patootie about what his analysts say, but Sy Hersh includes the notion that some of them said: You know, this is really crazy, this is really stupid. This is going to come back to bite us. 

That’s what we always used to say on cockamamie schemes like this. What’s the point here? The point here is that the operations people at C.I.A. get all the money, get all the attention and get all the influence over whatever director comes in and another side lesson here is that if you’re going to pick a director for the C.I.A., don’t go to the State Department for a yes man. You don’t go to the Congress for somebody who compromises, for God’s sake. You find somebody like Admiral Stansfield Turner, four star, who had made his own his own mark on life and was not going to take any crap from nobody else, is going to tell the truth. He’s the last guy we had like that. God forbid we keep having these, well, these bureaucrats that salute when the president says jump.

Garland Nixon

One thing I did want to ask you, I had some thoughts. You know, the last – interesting – the last sentence where, you know, whoever the source is says, Oh, yeah, they did this thing. It was a brilliant operation, blah, blah, blah. He says the only flaw was the decision to do it. Here’s what it seems to me. I’m guessing it seemed like it came from somebody in the Pentagon, based on the knowledge. They basically said: You know, these idiots in the executive department, they have not a good move.

And C.I.A. was not real smart. State Department, bad move. The Pentagon wasn’t mentioned. And there are generally, I have heard recently, there are some pragmatists. It almost seems like there may. Well, anyway, your thoughts on the origins of this, if you have any?

Ray McGovern

Well, all I can say is that Sy Hersh has proven for about 40 years now that he is a trusted journalist. And when someone – and I suspect it aptly pertained to this particular source – when someone sees that an act of war has been has been committed by our government against all the… well, against the Constitution, maybe not against the U.S. designed “rules based order,” but, you know, we all swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now this guy took that seriously. I suspect he went to that little corner in that bar where Sy meets his – I know where that is – meets his sources and told him this whole story. Sy said it only took him three months. I believe that. And American people… it’s eminently believable. The question is the fallout and whether the mass media can prevent this story from sneaking into the consciousness of Americans who have been taught, who have been brainwashed over the last seven years. Okay? Seven years now, to hate Russia. 

Okay. Will Rogers had that wonderful aphorism, the comedian way back a century or two ago. Will Rogers put it this way. He said: “The problem is this: it’s not what people know. It’s what people know that ain’t so.” That’s the problem. And the people think that the Russians are just evil to the core. That Putin… Here’s an example. Okay? At the time when Sy Hersh’s story is going out, here’s The New York Times on February ninth. A yellow journalism piece by a fellow named Constant Méheut – a Frenchman, apparently – and it shows that Vladimir Putin was personally responsible for killing the 298 aboard Malaysian Airlines MH 17 over Ukraine in July of 2014. Now it says that in the title; it says that in the first paragraph; and third paragraph it says: Well, we can’t prove that Putin was really… Give me a break! Okay. So this is a day when they should have been featuring Sy’s research. They’re still at it. Blackening Putin, first and foremost, the rest of the Russians, and, you know, this was consequential. 

Let me remind you that after the coup in Kiev, after the annexation of Crimea, the U.S. could still not get the Europeans to shoot themselves in the foot by sanctions. It was only after Malaysian Airlines MH 17 was downed – according to The New York Times, by Vladimir Putin himself – that they could get real sanctions that bit the Europeans more than they bit anyone, including the Russians. So this was consequential. This was the beginning of really strict sanctions. And I just wonder if the West Europeans and the East Europeans will wake up and say: “You know, this is a this is a bad deal to get involved with, what the U.S. wants, because they want war with Russia. And this is going to come to, as the Chinese used to call it, a no good end.”

Garland Nixon

Ray McGovern, as always, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate that analysis and we look forward to having you back.

Ray McGovern

Aye and most welcome.

The views expressed are solely those of the speakers and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/02/12/listen-nord-stream-attack-an-act-of-war/

Pres. Putin’s speech at 80th anniversary of victory in the Battle of Stalingrad

Posted by

0

From the Kremlin

February 2, 2023

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Dear veterans and friends,

Today, we are celebrating one of the most important, fateful dates in the history of our country and the world. Exactly 80 years ago, here on the banks of the great Russian Volga River, the hated, cruel enemy was stopped and sent into irreversible retreat, bringing to a conclusion the long, arduous, fierce battle for Stalingrad.

This was not merely a battle for a city – the very existence of a tormented but unvanquished country was at stake, as was the outcome of not only the Great Patriotic War but of World War II as a whole. Every person in the trenches and on the home front felt and understood this. And so, as it has happened repeatedly in our history, we united in the decisive battle and won.

The Battle of Stalingrad justifiably went down in history as a turning point in the Great Patriotic War. In addition to defeating the largest Wehrmacht group and its satellites, the will of the entire Hitler coalition was broken. The European vassals and accomplices of Nazi Germany, many of which fought at Stalingrad, representing practically all countries of subjugated Europe, began feverishly looking for ways to flee, to evade responsibility and shift the blame onto their former masters. Everyone realised what the Soviet people knew from the start – the Nazi plans to destroy our country and Nazi ideas about global domination were doomed to fail.

For 200 days at Stalingrad, two armies fought to the death amid the ruins of this legendary city. The army that proved stronger of will prevailed. The fierce resistance of our soldiers and their commanders, exceeding what is humanly possible, can only be understood and explained by their loyalty to the Motherland, their firm, absolute belief that the truth was on our side. The willingness to go beyond for the sake of the Motherland and the truth, to do the impossible, has always been and remains in the blood, in the character of our multi-ethnic people. This is what defeated Nazism.

Stalingrad has forever become a symbol of the invincibility of our people, of the very power of life. This city, its suburbs and nearby villages had to be rebuilt from the ground up, as hardly a tree or intact building was left standing in the city by February 1943.

The exceptional endurance and self-sacrifice of the defenders and residents of Stalingrad still move us to the core, evoking feelings of the deepest gratitude and respect. It is our moral duty – primarily to the victorious soldiers – to faithfully honour the memory of this feat, to pass it down the generations, and not to let anyone devalue or distort the role of the Battle of Stalingrad in the victory over Nazism and in liberating the entire world from this monstrous evil.

Now we are seeing that unfortunately, the ideology of Nazism – this time in its modern guise – is again creating direct threats to our national security, and we are, time and again, forced to resist the aggression of the collective West.

However incredible, it is a fact – we are again being threatened with German Leopard tanks with crosses on board. There is again a plan to fight Russia on Ukrainian land using Hitler’s successors, the Banderites.

We know that despite the efforts of official bodies and the corrupt propaganda of the unfriendly Western elites, we have many friends all over the world, including the Americas, North America, and Europe.

However, those that are dragging European countries, including Germany, into a new war with Russia, and especially those that are irresponsibly talking about it as a fait accompli, those who are hoping to defeat Russia on the battlefield, apparently fail to understand that a modern war against Russia will be a completely different war for them. We do not send our tanks to their borders but we have what to respond with, and it is not limited to the use of armour. Everyone must realise this.

Obviously, those who are threatening us do not understand a simple truth: all our people, we all grew up and absorbed the traditions of our people at our mothers’ knee – generations of winners who built our country with hard work, sweat and blood, and passed it on to us as a legacy.

The fortitude of the defenders of Stalingrad is the most important moral and ethical guideline for the Russian Army, for all of us. Our soldiers and officers are loyal to this. The continuity of generations, values, traditions is what distinguishes Russia, makes us strong and self-confident, makes us believe in our rightness and in our victory.

I warmly congratulate everyone here, all defenders of the Motherland today, all Russians, and compatriots abroad on the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Happy anniversary to you. Happy celebrations of the triumph of life and justice.

Thank you for your attention.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/70434

Germany publicly declared war against Russia

Posted by

0

From Strategic Stability

January 26, 2023

On January 25 Germany and the United States decided to provide Ukraine with Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks totaling 45 (respectively: 14 + 31). Some European countries also intend to join these supplies that could reach around 300 main battle and light tanks during this year. The Pentagon official said that collected ‘the armor basket’ could include 300 tanks and ACV/APC during 2023. It will be 28th ‘basket’ of lethal military supplies of the transatlantic alliance to Ukraine that started on a massive scale in 2022.

1. Unlike fascist Germany, current Germany openly declared a war against Russia on January 25

Arguing in favor of sending NATO tanks and ACV/APC to Ukraine, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said EU countries were fighting a war against Russia. US and EU officials have previously gone out of their way to claim they were not a party to the conflict in Ukraine. It is a wrong statement. The USA and NATO began arming and training Armed Forces of Ukraine soon after the demise of the USSR in 1991.

This is a quotation from what Baerbock has stated at PACE.

“And therefore, I’ve said already in the last days – yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks,” Baerbock said during a debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on January 25. “But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other.”

It means that unlike fascist Germany that started undeclared war against the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, current German state openly declared a war against Russia.

If she has not been sacked so far from the German Government, it means that her statement is fully shared by the FRG Government and the Parliament.

It also means that the FRG has radically changed its foreign policy and once again is unleashing the next World War – the Third one.

It means that German tanks again will appear in Ukraine and Russia like in 1941-1945.

It also means that pro-Nazi coalition supports ultra-nationalist regime in Kiev that began its own and unprovoked aggression – initially against Donbass in April 2014, and later against Russia in October 2022.

It means that since January 25, 2023 current joint Ukrainian-NATO actions in Ukraine can be politically and juridically labelled as “a declared direct combined Ukrainian-NATO aggression against the Russian Federation”.

Such Ukrainian-NATO aggression has purely offensive nature.

Its aim is a three-fold:

1) to kill more and more Ukrainians and Russians (in Donbass only April 2014 till January 2023 nearly 20,000 civilians have been killed partly by US/NATO ammunition);

2) to support endlessly ultra-Nazi regime in Ukraine,

and 3) to dismember and destroy entirely the state named “The Russian Federation” and gradually many other states not bowing to NATO and the USA.

Continue reading →

Prelim results for referenda: majority voted to join Russia; U.S. weapons shell residential areas; Kiev continues shelling Zaporozhye

Posted by

0

From Strategic Stability

Report # 146. Breaking news: The majority voted to live in Russia

September 27, 2022

1. The majority of voters in four regions expressed their wish to live in Russia

Four separate referenda held in two independent republics in Donbass and in two regions in southern Ukraine, namely Kherson and Zaporozhye Oblast or Regions between September 23-27 ended at 16:00 hours local time on September 27th, 2022.

According to preliminary results (with 15% of ballot papers counted by 17:00 Moscow time) overwhelming majority of voters have OKeyed admission of all these regions to the Russian Federation as equal subjects.

All referenda have been recognized as valid. They have witnessed very high level of participation of voters despite permanent heavy shelling of the residential areas in all four regions by heavy weapons, including the U.S.-made MLRS HIMARS, by Armed Forces of Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter, the OSCE decisions and the EU basic principles.

The preliminary results in full will be announced on September 28th, and final results – some days later.

Such fantastic returns ran counter to Mrs Annalena Baerbock, German Foreign Minister’s allegations, who in a Marcus Lanza’s TV program have disseminated false information about the referenda by claiming that the voters are shot, they are raped, and then they have to put crosses for three days while soldiers with Kalashnikovs [assault rifles] in their hands stand next to them.

Where she has got this false information? Nowhere. Such cases have not been recorded during the referenda. More than 200 foreign observers who have arrived to these regions have not confirmed such false allegations. And no local citizen has lodged any respective complaint, by the way.

The German Ambassador in Moscow should be summoned to the Russian MFA to give explanations why Baerbock has used such unverified propaganda with a very bad smell. She has undermined her political carrier by many coarse and unverified false statements earlier.

This is one more and the latest vivid example of her wrong behavior. Shame that she still represents Germany as the head of the German diplomatic service.

2. Why the majority of citizens in four named regions have voted for joining Russia?

No long arguments and explanations – there are plenty of them to catalogue them here. No time. Later. Just official figures:

In LPR

Since 2014 till February 24, 2022:

killed – 1771 (here and in all other cases atrocities have been done by Armed Forces of Ukraine);
wounded – 3350;
children killed – 38;
children wounded – 91;
social infrastructure buildings destroyed – more than 7200;
social infrastructure buildings damaged – more than 26000

Since February 24 till September 23, 2022:

killed – 91;
wounded – 292;
children killed – 7;
children wounded – 26;
social infrastructure buildings destroyed – 252;
social infrastructure buildings damaged – 2846.

Continue reading →

“Stop the Ramstein Air Base” protests, 24 June – 1 July; German citizens preparing to block U.S. main base at Kaiserslautern

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

By Tom Winter
May 25, 2018

Translated from a German commentary by Klaus Hartmann

Again this year, the campaign “Stop the Ramstein Air Base” aims to expose the threat of war that emanates from this US military base at Kaiserslautern.

The Ramstein Air Base plays the central role in NATO warfare and all the covert and open aggression that the United States has in the Middle East. Whether drones to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen, arms supply for the terrorists in Syria, the threat of war against Iran – nothing works without Ramstein. From here, from German soil, war is going out!

Surely the drone war out of Ramstein as a way station is superficially in the focus of public attention. This is also very justified, because this permanent murder without declaration of war and without court sentences is barbaric and scandalous. However, it should not be forgotten that the overall threat caused by the Air Base is many times greater.

In recent years and months, NATO has stationed a chain of new headquarters and weapons depots, battalions, and “spearheads” along the Russian border. NATO tanks are rolling through Germany to the “Eastern Front,” as the German media write without restraint, without inhibitions or scruples. With the Allied Air Command, the command center of a war against Russia lies in the US Ramstein Air Base.

Continue reading →

German media doesn’t want journalist’s documentary about Donbass (VIDEO)

Posted by

0

From Rusvesna.su

March 22, 2017

Journalist Who Made Truthful Movie About Donbass Is Hounded in Germany (VIDEO) | Русская весна

Perhaps it is indeed the most European values: no one from the German TV channels showed an interest in the documentary of the journalist Mark Bartalmai, who is living in Donetsk since 2014, and impartially documented events in the People’s Republics. The truth about Donbass appeared to be uninteresting for central media, and instead of this they released the hounds on the journalist.

Mark Bartalmai is the only German journalist who, except for small breaks, is in Donetsk for such a long period of time, since 2014. None of his colleagues can brag about such experience. For example, the famous propagandist of ARD TV channel Golineh Atai mostly gives her reportings about Donbass from Kiev, receiving information on the conflict from the “hands of the enemy“: such an approach has little in common with qualitative journalism, writes the German website Telepolis.

Mark Bartalmai repeatedly offered his works to central TV channels and news services, however all of them were rejected. And as if that seemed to be not enough, in July of last year the ARD TV channel showed a reportage, the aim of which was to discredit the journalist.

Most likely, this programme was a reaction to the first film of Bartalmai under the name “Ukrainian agony – The concealed war”. Despite the fact that the author of the film was branded “Putin’s propagandist”, the film gained success, then the journalist was engaged in fund raising for further work.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/bkFVNRZv2eM&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen><!–iframe>

The new movie of the journalist “Frontline City Donetsk – Republica Non Grata”, first of all is a classical documentary, which after viewing the watcher can create their own opinion on the events. And it is due to this fact that this film has an advantage over the first film, where the conflict in Ukraine was shown more from the point of view of global interests.

It should be immediately noted that the film doesn’t describe the “camouflaged Russian army, which oppresses the local population with assistance of insurgents lusting for power”. Instead, the film describes those people who, in May, 2014, in their vast majority voted for separation from Ukraine, because, for them, the Kiev coup and the course on friendship with NATO was unacceptable.

Now, nearly three years later, the German media began to pay less and less attention to the crisis region. Meanwhile, the film of Bartalmai shows how consumers of news in the West are deprived of honest and realistic reportings from the place of events.

In the documentary the process of reconstruction of civil buildings in Donetsk is shown: houses, hospitals, schools destroyed by the Ukrainian artillery in 2014-2015 – i.e. in the hottest phase of the war.

At the very beginning of the film, the journalist asks a question – and who actually is a separatist? In the documentary numerous examples are shown of how actions of the Ukrainian authorities simply didn’t leave the people of the DPR another choice except how to create their own state.

The people living on that side of the blockade could hardly do something other than create their own structures for the maintenance of civilized life. Thus, it is possible to understand why decisions on nationalization of the enterprises creating additional profit were adopted: now the profit ceased to go into the pockets of Ukrainian oligarchs, and goes towards providing life for the people of Donbass.

Bartalmai draws a portrait of young society, which created – if to measure by international standards – their own apparatus of justice and police, which has its own car registration plates, passports, and committee on the defence of human rights, which is in continuous contact with OSCE and other structures. It is possible to say that the DPR is an even more constitutional State than Ukraine itself.

All this completely contradicts the image of “Russian occupation”, which so willingly is distributed by our (German) media. Thus, in the film the significant role of Russia isn’t denied: after the Ukrainian market disappeared, the traditional market – Russia – became the main supplier for the DPR. In addition, Russia regularly sends humanitarian convoys to the Republic.

At the end of the film the author convincingly shows that the destiny of the civilian population of Donbass in reality doesn’t especially interest neither western governments, nor the OSCE.

Somewhere it is even possible to assume that the German government realized already a long time ago that in the case of Ukraine it made a huge mistake, however it can’t recognize its own failure. Of course, it is difficult if you always present actions as non-alternative.

The documentary of Mark Bartalamai would have appeared on central German TV channels, however our news, obviously, declared Donbass “nobodies land”. And it is precisely for this reason that we need this film, summarizes Telepolis.

http://rusvesna.su/english/1490176780