Victory Day 2017: Expect more violence by Ukrainian Nationalists, but don’t expect to hear about it in Western mainstream news

May 3rd, 2017 – Fort Russ News –

Ukrainian nationalists, 1941, parading before the Nazi flag
While a repetition of “May 2nd” did not occur in Odessa, it may still occur in the Ukraine, on May 9th.
Three years ago, on May 2, 2014 the war in Ukraine began. Dozens of people were burnt alive in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa – local anti-fascists and people who happened to be in the building accidentally. Official data names 48 deaths. Residents say that among the dead were more than 200 people.
Even if the first figure is closer to the truth (we would like to think that this is so), burning people alive literally under the city center’s cameras, which calls itself Europe, is an event as horrible and as absurd in it is seemingly improbable. However, the whole history of Ukraine since EuroMaidan is a theater of the absurd, and a theater of horror.
Commenting on the events in Odessa three years ago, the ex-deputy of the Verkhovna Rada, Elena Bondarenko, stated that only Odessa alone is enough to remove President Poroshenko from power. After all, this courageous woman added, after Odessa, there were still Mariupol and Donbass.
This would be the case if Ukraine was a European country, but Ukraine belongs to Europe only geographically. Mentally and culturally, Ukraine and Ukrainians are mired in the “Asiatic” of Genghis Khan’s time. Therefore, events like Odessa can occur here with ease.
Relatives of the victims of May 2nd 2014 called for an impeachment to President Poroshenko. Deputies of the opposition block demanded an investigation into the circumstances of the tragedy. Of course, neither the latter nor the former will happen: the Ukrainian government was an accomplice in the terrorist attack, and the Ukrainian Nazis – only performers. The aim of the burning of Odessa is to frighten and shock millions of residents of the “Southeast” of Ukraine (they call this region the lands of historical Russia). This goal has been achieved. Only the Donbass found the strength to resist this, but the Donbass always differed from the rest of Ukraine, much like Sevastopol.
On May 2nd 2017, Odessa was relatively calm. About five thousand people gathered yesterday at the Kulikovo Field (the traditional site for the Odessa anti-fascist activists, according to local police data) who came to honor the memory of the deceased. Any collision with Neo-Nazis was avoided. The authorities prepared in advance. Two thousand policemen from other regions of Ukraine were brought to the city. Servicemen of the national guard arrived in the Kulikovo Field in full arms. This prevented the re-occurrence of the slaughterhouse. At the same time, the SBU reported on the detention of several local residents who were preparing a terrorist attack in Odessa using explosives. No details have yet been reported.
So, a repetition of the tragedy of May 2nd did not occur. Poroshenko’s regime is not interested in airing out dirty laundry, especially on the eve of the Eurovision contest, which will be held in Kiev. Preventing large-scale clashes, the authorities able to demonstrate that they were capable of preventing the tragedy of three years ago, given the burning down of the House of Trade Unions took place for several long hours. Therefore, at the future Nuremberg-2 court in the former Ukraine, not only will there be leaders of Nazi groups, but also the then leaders of the Ukrainian state, Turchinov and Avakov in particular, will be on the dock (if they survive until then).
But until this time, new tragedies may occur.
A few days ago, commenting on Sputnik radio, I said that the repetition of the tragedy in Odessa on May 2nd is possible, but it is unlikely (for the above reason – not to spoil the European image of Ukraine). But, unfortunately, the probability of large-scale collisions increases many times on May 9th. A number of Ukrainian Nazis are in power (for example, Shkiryak, adviser to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine; Abroskin, police chief of the Donetsk region) and in the opposition (the OUN – Organization of Ukrainian nationalists, an heir of the Bandera OUN, Kochanivsky, and the leader of Azov and the party if “National Corps” – Biletsky). These people have said that they will not allow such a “sabbath” to dominate Ukrainian streets. Kokhanivsky, for example, called on the “patriots”, that is, the Nazis, to take to the streets of Kiev and disrupt the procession of veterans of the Great Patriotic War.
In turn, the organizers of the Immortal Regiment stated that they will not be afraid to march along the streets of Kiev. A collision is virtually inevitable. The police, I believe, cannot prevent it – the scale and motive are completely different than in Odessa. Therefore, with great probability we will see bloodshed on the streets of Kiev on May 9th. It is my hope that the confrontation will be limited to a smaller number of anti-fascists – Neo-Nazis clearly will not come to the fight with bare hands. Our only hope is in the attention of journalists (especially foreign ones) and the professionalism of the Kiev policemen.
Advertisements

U.S. Syria strike could hit Donbass and Europe, too, to “bring democracy” – Popov

“Trump’s willingness to take such drastic actions means for us a whole new spectrum of opportunities and responsibility.”
Dmitry Kuleba, Ukraine’s permanent representative to the Council of Europe
April 8, 2017 – Fort Russ –
By Eduard Popov – translated by J. Arnoldski –
The missile strike on a Syrian airbase on April 7th by US ships in the Mediterranean Sea buried hopes for a warming of relations between the US and Russia with the ascent of Donald Trump’s White House. The prevailing opinion among Russian experts is that Trump was forced to pursue the previous administration’s foreign policy program in the Middle East. Others argue that Trump’s hardened actions and rhetoric towards Russia are the new US President’s bargaining for giving him a free hand in implementing his domestic program. Yet perhaps these explanations are marked by a degree of confusion and self-deception on our part.
People in Russia see Trump like they want to see him. But Trump the Republican is merely trying to regain America’s role as the main cowboy which it lost after two terms of a Democratic President. Therefore, the clash of US and Russian interests in Syria (and not only Syria) was probably predetermined. And our attempts to explain this as the insidious influence of the Democrats is another self-deception.
The US really did behave in the spirit of a cowboy in bombarding a sovereign state with 59 cruise missiles which hit a base where Russian troops were present. This was probably done even with a view towards them possibly being killed. Fortunately, this did not happen, but Syrian troops were killed. But who can guarantee that Russian or American troops won’t be killed next time?
The situation in Syria’s skies was very disturbing in the last several months of Barack Obama’s presidency. Military experts repeatedly warned of the danger of a high-speed collision of Russian and American aircraft in Syria’s airspace. Yesterday, Russia suspended the memorandum on preventing air incidents over Syria, which means that the probability of a collision, even accidental, only increases. Yet Russia was compelled to take this step, just as it was forced to send the Admiral Grigorovich frigate to the Syrian coast. Russia is responding to US actions with a show of force. These non-allies could at any moment become enemies in not a cold, but hot war.
Frightening news is coming from Europe as well. Western countries and their satellites are being locked in place against Russia. French President Hollande and German Chancellor Merkel expressed solidarity with President Trump’s actions which are an obvious violation of international law. From the point of view of Western countries, political expediency (the desire to “punish” countries deemed “wrong”, such as Syria, Russia, etc.) overrides respect for international law and the basic principle of national sovereignty. 
This gives the US’ European allies justification to intensify NATO encroachment on Russia’s borders as well as close their eyes to the failure of their domestic policies, first and foremost the crisis of migration from Muslim countries. The worsening situation in Syria and strengthening of anti-Russian rhetoric undoubtedly increase the electoral chances of pro-government candidates such as Macron in France and Merkel and the CDU/CSU in Germany. As follows, they avoid the need to explain to the peoples of European the feasibility of building up NATO infrastructure near Russia’s borders and intensifying military exercises in the Baltic states and Poland.
Ukraine, a satellite of the West, rapidly responded to the changing situation. Reports are coming in from Donbass on a supposedly impending UAF attack on the People’s Republics. These concerns are partially confirmed by the statements of Ukrainian diplomats. Ukraine’s’ permanent representative to the Council of Europe, Dmitry Kuleba, stated that the US’ nighttime missile attack on Syria strengthens Kiev’s position “in the war with Russia.” He believes that “Trump’s willingness to take such drastic actions means for us a whole new spectrum of opportunities and responsibility.” This is a more than transparent hint that Ukraine will announce an  offensive on the Donbass republics and hope for the US’ political and military assistance. This Ukrainian diplomat should not have made such a statement which contradicts Minsk-2 and reveals Kiev’s plans, but, as always, emotions triumph over cold calculation in the mind of young Ukrainian diplomacy.
There is every reason to believe that not only will the Middle East, but also the European theater of rivalry between the West and Russia will be aggravated. One does not want to say aloud just how far this confrontation could go. And one really does not want to think that the Old World could turn into a continent on fire in the likes of the Middle East to which US’ cruise missiles will bring democracy. 

Ukrainian Armed Forces use fake OSCE cars for provocations

From Rusvesna.su

April 3, 2017

Ukrainian Armed Forces use fake OSCE cars for provocations  | Русская весна

Ukrainian Armed Forces use fake OSCE cars for provocations, this was confirmed by the report of the OSCE SMM. 

Ukrainian army officials use OSCE symbols, it is said in the daily report of the special monitoring mission of the organization for March 31st, 2017.

As reported in the document,  OSCE observers saw a car in Avedeyevka which was painted in organization’s the colors and bore logo of the organization.

“In Avdeevka the SMM observed a white-coloured, four-door civilian sport utility vehicle driven by men in military-type uniforms, with decals on the front doors mimicking the colours and design of the OSCE SMM logo,” the report says.

It was also reported that thу car was driving to the east on Vorobyova street in front of the building where the SMM camera is placed. The SMM saw a similar vehicle on March 4th in the same area.

Stalker Zone note: On February 4th, 2017, the Ministry of State Security of the Lugansk People’s Republic reported that it told the head of the OSCE SMM in Ukraine Alexander Hug that the SBU were using replica uniforms and vehicles of the OSCE and emergency services. Hug in turn said that he would look into the issue. It seems that the OSCE now has firsthand visual confirmation of what was reported to them over a month ago. Next they will confirm that it is the Ukrainian Army that continuously violates the Minsk Agreements?

Ukrainian Armed Forces use fake OSCE cars for provocations  | Русская весна

Источник: http://rusvesna.su/news/1491387036

http://rusvesna.su/news/1491387036

February 20, Kiev: new Maidan or build up to civil war?

From Fort Russ
February 17, 2017 –
By Eduard Popov for Fort Russ – translated by J. Arnoldski –

 

On February 16th, Zoryan Shkiryak, an adviser to the minister of internal affairs of Ukraine, appealed to block Odnoklassniki and VKontakte social networks in the country. In his opinion, this is necessary to defend the Ukrainian info-field. Parallel to this, Anton Gerashchenko, an assistant to the minister of internal affairs and a Verkhovna Rada deputy, accused Russia of preparing to blockade railway lines with the republics of Donbass, which is actually being carried out by members of neo-Nazi gangs headed by Rada deputy Parasyuk.
These statements by “Avakov’s clowns” (the words of Mikhail Pogrebinsky, a leading Ukrainian political analyst) were, without a doubt, coordinated and focused on one goal: preventing the recurrence of a new Maidan in Kiev. More precisely: not allowing a Maidan created by competitors.
A number of Ukrainian organizations intend to hold protests on February 20th, the third anniversary of the Maidan’s victory. In particular, the NAZHDAK movement which is positioning itself as an “anti-oligarch association of the common people” is set to protest. The Radical Right Forces movement has also stated its participation, as have the “federation of small businesses,” an association of failed banks (headed by the leader of NAZHDAK, Nikolay Dulsky), and the military wing of the neo-Nazi Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian National Self-Defense.
Nikolay Dulsky has appealed to his followers and other potential protest participants with the call to bring officially registered weapons. The aim is the overthrow of the treacherous Poroshenko and Groysman government. Characteristically enough, the organization’s VKontakte page speaks in detail of its relations with Azov, whose leader is Verkhovna Rada deputy Andrey Biletsky. Azov, in Dulsky’s opinion, is nothing but a pet of Avakov in his service.
In this regard, the statements of Shkiryak and Gerashchenko are not random, but are aimed at (1) competitors’ organizations (not associated with the interior ministry like Azov and its offshoots) and (2) Russian social networks. The current Ukrainian government, and especially the interior ministry, remember the massive organizing role played in the Euromaidan by social networks, and first and foremost VKontakte. During the days of the Maidan, the Right Sector group grew to number as many as 600,000 people. But the call to close Russian social networks is being sounded now, not three years ago, for an obvious reason: the government is afraid of a repetition of the events of three years. 
Appeals to go out onto the Maidan on February 20th are essentially an announcement of plans to overthrow the new government. However, it is by no means evident that this overthrow will happen on February 20th, since the Ukrainian neo-Nazis opposed to the current internal minister simply lack sufficient resources. But as a training and mobilization all, this action fits perfectly. On the other hand, the government will also have a wonderful opportunity to practice dispersing a new Maidan.
Already now, based on “Avakov’s clowns’” statements, it is obvious that the ruling regime has chosen an easy formula: declare militants striving to overthrow the legal government “agents of Putin” operating with the help of Russian social networks.
The West “does not notice” violations of freedom of speech in Ukraine or the literally bloody dispersal of protesters. Therefore, I am skeptical of the possibilities of a new Maidan in Ukraine. More likely is a second scenario in which the disease will be pushed deeper and, as a result, protest energy will later explode into a civil war. The fire of civil war has already been smoldering for three years. The bloody suppression of rallies in Kiev, the dispersal of “blockade” participants in Donbass, and a number of related operations, might ignite this. And then the war against Donbass will spill over into Ukraine and turn into a civil war. 

L’UE exhorte à lever le blocus commercial du Donbass

Sputnik

16.02.2017

Un blocus du Donbass au lieu d'une aide

Face à la perspective des coupures d’électricité tournantes en Ukraine, l’Union européenne s’est enfin aperçue du blocus commercial du Donbass, Kiev n’en recevant plus la houille anthracite absolument nécessaire pour les centrales ukrainiennes.

Le blocus commercial du Donbass viole les droits des Ukrainiens habitant sur les territoires qui échappent actuellement au contrôle de Kiev et risque de déclencher une crise énergétique dans le pays, prévient, dans un communiqué, la représentation de l’Union européenne en Ukraine, ajoutant que les organisateurs du blocus doivent le lever immédiatement.

« Le blocus du Donbass par l’Ukraine contredit l’approche inclusive envers les Ukrainiens habitant sur les territoires où les organes du pouvoir n’exercent pas provisoirement leurs fonctions. Les responsables du lancement du blocus doivent le lever immédiatement. Quant aux autorités, elles doivent régler ce problème au plus vite », lit-on dans le communiqué, cité par Sputnik.

Il s’agit en l’occurrence du blocus de la communication ferroviaire avec le Donbass qui se poursuit depuis fin janvier, quand un groupe d’anciens combattants des bataillons de volontaires, qui avaient participé aux hostilités dans le sud-est de l’Ukraine, et de députés de la Rada suprême (parlement ukrainien), a barré le trafic sur la ligne de chemin de fer. Les organisateurs du blocus ont affirmé que tout commerce avec les Républiques populaires autoproclamées de Donetsk (DNR) et de Lougansk (LNR) était illégal, et que toutes les marchandises transportées relevaient par conséquent de la contrebande.

Le blocus ferroviaire a débouché sur des problèmes de livraison de houille anthracite depuis le Donbass, engendrant des difficultés dans le secteur énergétique de l’Ukraine. Comme résultat, Kiev envisage d’ores et déjà des coupures d’électricité tournantes dans la plupart des régions du pays.

https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201702161030122172-ue-blocus-donbass-levee-commerce-kiev/

What America should know about “annexed” Crimea”: “We the People of Crimea…”

Global Research, February 09, 2017
Oriental Review 8 February 2017

The speech by the new US permanent representative to the UN Security Council, Nikki Haley, at a Security Council meeting on 3 February backed up the idea that the new administration policy on Crimea will be followed up. Haley said exactly the same nonsense as Samantha Power before her: «Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine». The White House supported Haley’s statement the same day.

It is interesting that Mrs Haley was speaking about the territory of Crimea rather than the people. I wonder how she seeks the «return» of the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine – with the people or without them? It’s a pity that this question has remained unanswered yet.

Does Nikki Haley know whether the Crimean people regard themselves as Ukrainians or not?

It is unlikely that the US ambassador to the UN wants to move the people out of Crimea so that she can give the peninsula back to Ukraine.

Especially as she would have to move not only the living, but also the dead, since the ‘Ukrainian’ history of Crimea is very short, around a quarter of a century. It is surprising that the citizen of a country whose constitution begins with the words «We the people of the United States…» is doing everything to avoid a conversation in terms of «We the people of Crimea…»

From the point of view of the people who live on the Crimean Peninsula, Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991, grossly violating the rules of international law. Crimea became part of independent Ukraine illegally, and repeated attempts by the Crimean people to redress this injustice met with opposition from Kiev.

In order to understand this, Nikki Haley just needs to be made aware of a few facts.

In 1990, the Parliament of the Ukrainian SSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty, which hid behind the words «Expressing the will of the people of Ukraine…» and spoke of a new state being established within the existing boundaries of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic based on the Ukrainian nation’s right to self-determination. But did the Ukrainian nation have the right to self-determination in Crimea if the number of Ukrainians on the peninsula made up only 25.8 percent of the population?

The answer is obvious – no, it did not. This was the first step in the annexation of Crimea by the Ukrainian state, which, at that point, was the Ukrainian SSR separate from the Soviet Union.

On 20 January 1991the first Crimean referendum was held on the restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of the USSR and as a party to the Union Treaty. (Between 1921 and 1945, the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.) With a high turnout of 81.37 percent, 93.26 percent of the Crimean population voted in favour of restoring autonomy. On 12 February 1991, the restoration of the Crimean ASSR was confirmed by law: the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR accepted the results of the referendum. The Crimean people were clearly self-determining, and this self-determination differed hugely from the self-determination of the Ukrainian nation.

The Ukrainian SSR 1991 law on establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Republic, signed by the Chair of the Supreme Council of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk

So what did the Ukrainian state do next? On 24 August 1991, the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR, again on the basis of self-determination, declared the independence of Ukraine, arbitrarily identifying the Crimean ASSR as a territory of the newly established state. By doing so, the founders of Ukraine ignored a law requiring a separate referendum to be held in Crimea on the Crimean ASSR’s status within Ukraine. This was done deliberately, since Kiev knew perfectly well that the people of Crimea would never vote in favour of becoming part of Ukraine. At the same time, a huge scam to manipulate history was being prepared: on 1 December 1991, another referendum was held in the whole Ukraine including the Crimean ASSR, known as “the Ukrainian independence referendum”. The results in Crimea and Sevastopol were notably different from those in the mainland Ukraine (most of the Crimeans ignored the plebiscite), but the quorum was reached thanks to non-residents were allowed to vote at the Crimean poll stations. In this underhand way, Ukraine took its second step towards the annexation of Crimea.

A Crimean boy standing for boycott of the Ukrainian elections

The Crimeans did not agree with the Ukrainian sharp cookies, however. From the start of 1992, the number of protests began to increase – the Crimean people were outraged at the deception and demanded secession from Ukraine. Under pressure from the people, the Supreme Council of Crimea adopted the Act of State Independence of the Republic of Crimea, approved its own constitution(link in Russian), and passed a resolution to hold a referendum on 2 August 1992. It was another step towards the self-determination of the Russian majority of Crimea was pushing for lawfully and legitimately. The Constitution of Crimea began with the words: «We the people, who make up the multi-ethnic nation of Crimea and are united by centuries-old ties of a common historical fate, are free and equal in dignity and rights…»

By this time, however, Kiev had already gotten a taste for political tricking. The referendum was postponed to a later date (it was held in 1994 in the form of a public opinion poll) and the Constitution of Crimea, under pressure from Kiev, was rewritten dozens of times until the peninsula was tied to Ukraine for good. The first presidential elections took place in Crimea in 1994, but by 1995, both the position of president and the Constitution of Crimea had been abolished. In late 1998, the Ukrainian authorities brought the legislation of the Autonomous Republic of Ukraine completely in line with the legislation of Ukraine. This was the penultimate step in the annexation of Crimea, the final step being to deprive Crimea of its autonomous status by establishing a Crimean region as part of Ukraine.

Over the next decade, Kiev did not dare do this, since any attempt to raise the issue of abolishing Crimean autonomy led to large-scale protests and demands to restore the 1992 Constitution and the statehood of the Republic of Crimea. Creeping Ukrainization was also unsuccessful – moulding Crimea to be more like Ukraine did not work even in light of the 2001 census:

The February (2014) uprising in Kiev was not supported in Crimea, but attempts by Crimeans to oppose it led to tragedy: on the night of 20 and 21 February, buses taking protesting Crimeans home from a chaotic Kiev were stopped by armed nationalists in the small city of Korsun-Shevchenkivskyi. The Crimeans were beaten, tortured, forced to sing the Ukrainian national anthem under threat of death, and made to pick up broken glass from the buses’ windows, which had been smashed with sticks, with their bare hands. This episode was reported in details in Andrei Kondrashov’s 2015 documentary “Crimea: way back home”:

In the referendum on 16 March 2014, the Crimean people once again confirmed their historical choice, just as the United States once did when they broke away from the British Crown. In the US Declaration of Independence, it says that the Creator endowed people with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just like Americans, Crimeans also want to live, be free and be happy. That is precisely why they spent decades trying to break away from the Ukrainian dictate, something they finally achived in 2014 when they returned to Russia.

It seems that Nikki Haley, like millions of her fellow Americans, does not know the history of the Crimean people’s struggle against its illegal annexation by Ukraine, which began in 1990 and ended in 2014. Questioning the choice of the Crimean people in 2014 seems to be the reason why the US permanent representative to the UN Security Council is keeping quiet about the Ukrainian annexation of Crimea in the 1990s. After all, no one in the world could doubt the results of the Crimean referendum held on 20 January 1991. If it is a case of the deliberate distortion of facts, however, then the situation looks a lot worse.

If you were to side with the Crimean people, then the history of Crimea’s reunification with Russia becomes simple and understandable. It is enough to know that for each territory, whether that is the US or Crimea, exactly the same words are key: «We the people…»

Source:Strategic Culture

Ukraine continues bloody barrage of Donetsk civilians

February 5th, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
– DNR News – translated by J. Flores –

 

Ukrainian security forces fired at the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic almost 1800 times on Friday. The situation on the front-line remains tense, said Eduard Basurin, the deputy commander of the operational command of the DPR .
“The situation in the Donetsk People’s Republic remains tense. Over the past day, criminal forces of Ukraine just shelled territory DPR 1777 times; heavy artillery was used 366 times, MLRS -.. 80 times,  tanks – 56 times, mortars of various calibres – 518 times, BMP – 53 times, anti-aircraft guns, rocket-propelled grenades and small arms – 649 times,” said Basurin.
According to the command, very intense fire from the enemy was once again waged upon Donetsk and Makeyevka.

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/02/ukraine-continues-bloody-barrage-of.html