Germany

Germany accuses NATO of “dangerous propaganda”. America’s strategic objective is to prevent a German-Russian alliance

Posted by

0

From Russia Insider, March 23, 2015
Jens Wernicke and Dr. Daniele Ganser

This article originally appeared at NachDenkSeiten. Translated for RI by Mihajlo Doknic

The German Chancellery has accused NATO chief Philip M. Breedlove of “dangerous propaganda”. The question: what to think about this critique coming from a government that uses this kind of propaganda technique itself. Jens Wernicke, media scientist and author of several books, talked with the renowned Swiss peace researcher and NATO expert Dr. Daniele Ganser.

Mr. Ganser, the German Chancellery accuses NATO chief Philip M. Breedlove, of “dangerous propaganda”. Breedlove exaggerates Russia’s military involvement in East Ukraine, for example. What is going on here? Is the German government just accusing NATO of war propaganda?

The German Chancellery is right with its critique. In my opinion, something dangerous is happening right now: US generals like Breedlove are trying to provoke a war, where Germans and Russians would kill each other in order to weaken both countries. This is a cynical, actually a diabolical plan. But this is exactly what US strategist like Georg Friedman, director of the Stratfor think tank, are suggesting. United, Germany and Russia are the only power that could threaten the US, Friedman said in a speech in February 2015 in Chicago.

“Our primordial interest [preventing a German-Russian alliance] is to ensure that will never happen,” said Friedman.

“The US, as an empire, cannot intervene in Eurasia all the time,” he explained. Therefore they must turn countries against each other, so they don’t build close alliances. “I suggest something President Ronald Reagan used against Iraq and Iran: He supported both war parties!” Freidman stated. The war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988 claimed at least 400.000 dead, so from the point of peace science it is frightening what Friedman suggests. “So the Iranians and Iraqis fought against each other and not against us,” explained Freidman in his speech. “That was cynical and amoral. But it worked.”

The USA cannot occupy Eurasia. The same moment we put our boots on European soil, we will be outnumbered due to demographics. In my opinion the radical US generals like Breedlove are trying to implement this strategy, where in future German and Russian Soldiers kill each other in Ukraine, thus destabilizing and weakening the whole of East Europe. That would be a catastrophe. Therefore a peace movement needs to encourage an alternative solution, like the neutrality of Ukraine. No NATO membership and friendship between Germany and Russia.

How is NATO trying to fuel this conflict?

NATO General Breedlove often sticks out by spreading exaggerated and untrue claims. This is how NATO is fueling the war. This is dangerous, because the situation is very tense, as we know. On the 12th of November 2014 Breedlove claimed that Russian toops and tanks have marched into Ukraine! But that wasn’t true and it wasn’t just a little thing. Literally the NATO general said: “We have seen that Russian troops, Russian tanks, Russian artillery and air defense systems have moved into Ukraine.” BBC and other mass media spread that worldwide but it was a lie.

And US General Ben Hodges, commander of the US troops in Europe, also pushes for war by supporting the Ukrainian army. In January 2015 he visited a military hospital in Kiev and handed over a medal for bravery of the US Army to a wounded Ukrainian soldier! That, of course, increases tension.

However, the US General Hodges shows symbolically: The US is an “active party of war” in the Ukraine. It stands by the Ukrainian army that is fighting the Russian supported separatists in East Ukraine. Because Germany is a NATO member, there is a danger that German soldiers are dragged into this war by the US. Similar to Afghanistan after 2001. If that happens, then we have exactly the situation Friedman is asking for: Germans and Russians shooting at each other in the Ukraine. Of course I hope that this won’t happen. However, a peace movement needs to raise this and warn of such dangers in order to avoid them.

Is this a very common thing, I mean, that NATO lies, exaggerates or deceives?

Yes, regrettably NATO has, on a regular basis, combined lies and war. In my book NATO’s secret armies in Europe. Staged terror and clandestine warfare I show how, during the Cold War, NATO had built in Western countries, supported by CIA and the British secret service MI6, secret armies, of which existence the governments and population didn’t know anything.

Especially the US generals are dangerous, because they have been continuously fighting wars in different countries during the last 70 years. As representatives of an empire they are not only used to kill but also to deceive. General Lyman Lemnitzer, for example, who served as SACEUR of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) between 1963 and 1969, so one of Breedlove’s predecessors, suggested in the 60s that the US should stage a war against Cuba by destroying an American ship at the military base in Guantanamo and by staging terror attacks in Washington, and then for both crimes accuse Fidel Castro in order to get the American public behind the war. John F. Kennedy, however, stopped the operation [Northwoods]. But it shows, how dangerous the officers in the Pentagon are.

Is only the US pushing for wars or are other countries also involved?

NATO has 28 members and unfortunately other NATO countries are involved in war propaganda as well. For example, the Brits! In March 2003, before they attacked Iraq, Tony Blair, the then prime minister, said: “Iraq is in possession of chemical and biological weapons. Its rockets are ready for use within 45 minutes.” That was a lie! The attack on Iraq by USA and Great Britain started, nevertheless, without an UN mandate. So it was illegal!

It was also an illegal aggression when NATO, on the 24th of March 1999, started bombing Serbia. Because NATO didn’t have a mandate of the UN Security Council. Back then it was Germany under the Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the Defense Minister Rudolph Scharping and the Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, that actively took part in the aggression [War on Yugoslavia], together with the US. In the run-up to the aggression lies were spread to get the people behind this war. Later, in 2014, Schröder admitted that NATO violated International Law. “When the question came up how to deal with developments in Yugoslavia and Kosovo respectively, we sent our planes, our Tornados [German warplanes] to Serbia together with NATO and bombed a sovereign state without a Security Council Resolution,” admitted Schröder self-critically.

How come that in those cases nobody raises its voice and we only read the same NATO statements with their arguments?

The mass media in Germany are pushing people into a direct confrontation with Russia, in a way the radicals in the US, like Stratfor director Friedman, are asking for. It means, they fuel animosity towards Russia. And very rarely there is a critical discussion about NATO or about the strategic interests of the US, those powers that are fueling the war in Ukraine.

Many journalists don’t even call the US an empire fearing for their jobs and other things. But it is apparent that the US is an empire of our times, the most powerful nation that, of course, is pursuing its national interests. This fact is rarely raised by the mass media. So many people watching TV don’t even know the term ‚US Empire’ or the strategic interests of this empire in Eurasia. Therefore, critical people disappointed by the TV and Newspapers are trying to inform themselves through alternative media on the Internet.

So, do you think the critique by our [German] government is a sign that they finally try to break the global spiral of violence and distance itself from propaganda in favour of respectful dialogue with Russia? And, is our government more credible than NATO itself?

I am from Switzerland, whicht is not part of NATO. So I do look at the German policy and Chancellor Merkel from the outside. And I see that many people are concerned with the situation [war] in Ukraine, because of its proximity. And most of the Germans that I know, they don’t want a future, where German soldiers and Russian soldiers shoot at each other! But I am not sure what the German government wants. They move in a zigzag course. One day, as a NATO member, they fuel, together with the US, the war in the Ukraine by increasing tensions with Russia. And sometimes they try to keep the friendship or at least the respect with Russia by publically criticizing NATO war-hawk Breedlove. So which line will be predominant in future its hard to tell.

What is your assessment of the departure of the hawk Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO General Secretary? Will Jens Stoltenberg establish himself as a peaceful successor? To put it differently: How much influence has a Secretary General actually on NATO policies?

If you study the history of NATO it is easy to notice that the post of Secretary General is always staffed with an European, now Stoltenberg, a Norwegian, and before that, Rasmussen, a Dane. But the Europeans should not be mistaken as to who is calling the shots in NATO, it is the US! Secretary General is not the most important post. It is actually the one of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, because here lies the military command. An American, now Breedlove, always holds this position.

Has Stoltenberg publically criticized Breedlove or tried to stop him? No, he is not able to. His job as Secretary General is primarily to give NATO an European face. This is better received in Europe, than having a US diplomat appear all the time.

So I don’t believe that Stoltenberg is able or willing to transform NATO into a peaceful organization. Also because of the track record of NATO in the past two decades: NATO wars and the technique of, Regime Change’ have left countries in ruins and traumatized people, in Libya, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. So I hope that Ukraine won’t be put on this list too!

Thank you for the interview.

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/23/4815

http://www.globalresearch.ca/germany-accuses-nato-of-dangerous-propaganda-americas-strategic-objective-is-to-prevent-a-german-russian-alliance/5439264

War Reparations and Germany’s 1952 Debt Reduction Plan

Posted by

0

This is in addition to the huge sums that Germany owes Greece.

Posted on Global Research
Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt
5 March 2015
by Oscar Ugarteche

The largest debt problems in terms of GDP faced in financial history have belonged either to the United States or to European Governments. Large debt problems in developing and emerging nations have usually stemmed out of a drop in GDP size due to a fall in export earnings and a rise in interest rates. The reason is that creditors stop lending at a certain point and start restructuring existing debt which leads to debt growth but it is not really new lending. In major nations, lending goes on as the strategic reason for borrowing has normally been justified: a war. As a result, the leading debt reduction and innovative management schemes are related to these.

Contrary to the impression generated by extensive works on the Latin American and African debt, it is the under researched European and US historical debt that must be looked into in order to understand some historical solution patterns to debt problems. Current European very high debt levels (over 90% of GDP) are due partially to accumulated current account deficits of over 3% of GDP for over a decade plus the cost of bank rescues in 2009-2010 plus some countercyclical policy costs. Greece has additional debt due to major infrastructure works. It entered the Euro with a high debt level (around 100% of GDP) but the total GDP amount shrunk 33.3% from 55,318 million euros to 36,866 million euros in constant terms between 2007 and 2013 as a result of austerity policies. |1| If GDP had remained stagnant, the index would be 131% and not 174.9% and rising.

Historically the debt that arose from the Confederate States of the United States was not recognised by the US Federal Government and was subject to complicated negotiations with British private bondholders until the late 1920’s when it was finally agreed that it would not be repaid. (Corporation of Foreign Bondholders, First Annual Report of the Council, London, February, 1904 and Fifty Seventh Annual of the Council, London, 1930) What was agreed finally in the League of Nations was that State debts have always to be guaranteed by the National Governments in order for creditors to be able to collect their debts.

The debt discussion revived after WWI, as the European war was financed locally in each country and internationally by the United States from 1915 onwards. This implied two things: first, the UK borrowed from the United States and onlent to third parties; and secondly the warring countries additionally borrowed directly from the US. At the end of the war this had to be solved somehow in order for those countries to recover growth. This is dealt with in H. Fisk’s The Inter Ally Debts. An Analysis of War and Post War Public Debts. New York, Banker’s Trust, 1924. Germany was not able to float bonds in New York after the War was declared so they only borrowed in Marks and dealt with through hyperinflation that did away with most of its value in 1922-1923.

Another aspect of the German debt was the introduction of reparation payments that although just from an ethical point of view, were extremely large for the economic capacity of the country as Keynes pointed out in his Economic Consequences of the Peace. According to Professor Albrecht Ritschl |2| from the LSE Germany managed to keep afloat borrowing money from the US during the 1920’s. The two largest loans are the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan but there were other loans adding up to 840.7 million dollars in 1939. The Young Plan contained massive debt reduction. Reparations payments were never met in full in the 1920’s and were suspended in 1932. They were reinitiated in 1990 without any readjustment in value after the reunification. The last quota was paid in 2010. |3|

In October 1929, U.S. President Hoover, under pressure from US academia, announced the creation of a Hoover Year that was meant to restructure debts payments due from July 1, 1931 to June 30, 1932, into ten yearly quotas. The mechanism would be in place as long as it was needed. The object was to relieve the UK from its payments to the US and to transfer this benefit on to the other allies that in turn would transfer them to German reparations. This relief was later eschewed by Chancellor Hitler who, after winning the elections, declared a debt cease payment in June 1933.

After WWII, in May 1951 a tripartite commission was formed by the US. UK and France in order to discuss post war and pre war debts. All creditors met in London in July 1951 to see what to do with the German debts and the solution proposed by Germany and widely accepted by the US and UK was that as Germany was divided into two, the debt would have to be divided equally and only 50% of the total public debt would be negotiated. Reparations would not be restored until after reunification. The other half would be left for negotiations also after the reunification, someday.

The Tripartite Commission announced that they were prepared to make important concessions in terms of the amounts and priorities of their claims some referred to post war assistance (1945-1951), making it clear that post war debts were conditioned by satisfactory and equitable agreement on pre-war debt. The amounts owed in 1939 were: 840.7 million dollars, 51.5 million pounds and 2,775.2 million French Francs, to name the debts of the leading three creditors. In 1939 constant US dollars the equivalent would be 206 billion dollars.

This plus the debt to the other 67 countries was reduced first by 50% and then the remaining 50% was reduced by half and made payable over a 25 year period (1953 to 1979). More interestingly, when the German unification finally came about, The German Federal Government demanded that the winning countries (of WWII) do not place a debt burden on the defeated countries, I.E. on East Germany. If they had respected the 1953 London agreement it would have meant recognising the other 50% of the debt and doping something with it. Instead, Germany was given a massive debt reduction in exchange for restoring reparations payments without any adjustment in value.

The German people should be grateful and remember the massive debt reductions and the concessional terms it received in time of need and despair after World War II. No one at the time either in the US, UK nor France, to name the three largest creditors, said “the taxpayers were unwilling to bail out those people.” History serves a purpose and we should all learn from it.

Source : Alainet

Oscar Ugarteche, a Peruvian economist, is the Coordinator of the Observatorio Económico de América Latina (OBELA), IIE-UNAM, Mexico – www.obela.org. Member of the SNI/Conacyt and president of ALAI. His most recent book is Arquitectura Financiera Internacional: una Genealogía de 1850-2008, México DF., IIEC-UNAM, 2014. 392pp. The material presented here uses that source except when stated otherwise.

http://cadtm.org/The-Debt-Reduction-Germany

http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-reparations-and-germanys-1952-debt-reduction-plan/5438502

What are Germany and France doing about Minsk 2 violations? — Sample action letter

Posted by

0

Germany and France are guarantors of Minsk 2. Ukraine is violating Minsk 2. Where are the protests by these two countries?

If you oppose what Ukraine is doing, contact the ambassadors for Germany and France in your country, as well as the consulate located in your nearest city.

Here is a letter written to the French Ambassador to the United States Gérard Araud.

—————————————————————

Dear Ambassador Araud:

Ukraine is in gross violation of the Minsk 2 agreement. France is a guarantor of Minsk 2. I urge you and the government of France to take aggressive action now to condemn these violations and the related actions by the United States

The Minsk 2 agreement requires that all foreign military personnel be removed from the country.

  • Pullout of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under OSCE supervision

However, the United States, with President Poroshenko’s support, is moving US military personnel into Ukraine and weaponry for constant NATO exercises starting this week. The Verkhovna Rada is considering a bill legalizing this – in complete defiance of Minsk 2.

There is also the question of whether Kiev has pulled its heavy weaponry from the line of contact, as required by the agreement. In addition, there are continuing violations of the ceasefire by Kiev forces.

The Kiev government and its forces are engaged in genocide and war crimes against Ukrainian citizens. The people of East Ukraine are acting in self-defense. The French government has not recognized that.

As France well knows, there is no Russian aggression against Ukraine; there is no Russian invasion. However, there has been constant aggression by the U.S. in Ukraine for years. This culminated in the Maidan violence and overthrow of President Yanukovich and the ongoing support for the present violence and ethnic genocide against the Ukrainian people. The French people experienced this same violence in the assassination attempts on President De Gaulle traced to NATO, the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, and the FBI.[1]

France must take aggressive action now against these violations of Minsk 2 to stop a European war that could easily turn nuclear.

 

[1]  http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lessons-of-history-in-1966-president-de-gaulle-said-no-to-us-nato/5386501

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

Posted by

0

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

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

Posted on Fort Russ
 2/11/2015

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

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by

0

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:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-blueprint-for-global-domination-from-containment-to-pre-emptive-war-the-1948-truman-doctrine/5400067

Posted on Fort Russ


February 8, 2015
Tatiana Kozak, Novoe Vremia, nv.ua (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.

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/american-military-expert-to-ukraine.html