OSCE

Lustration by Right Sector against Justice Department official

Posted by

0

From OSCE — Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
April 9, 2015

On 9 April in Ivano-Frankivsk, the SMM [Special Monitoring Mission of the OSCE] monitored a protest organized by the “Pravyy Sektor” (Right Sector) and the non-governmental organization Self-Defence. Around 200 people, including ten women, gathered at the main square. The regional Right Sector leader called for honouring the “Heavenly Hundred” and he and the Self-Defence co-ordinator also called for swift lustration. The protestors proceeded to the Department of Justice where they entered the building and forcefully brought out the head of the justice department. They accused him of registering the Opposition Block in the region, placed him in a trash-bin, threw eggs at him and poured ethyl green over him before dispersing. Ten police officers were present but did not intervene.

http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/150681

This man was lucky he wasn’t beaten or killed.

What actions will the OSCE take? Or will they continue observing and taking notes?

Ukrainian security forces are fighting each other

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

April 12th, 2015
Anatoly Tarasov for Vesti, Latvia – translated by Joaquin Flores

Fighting occurred between regular units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces yesterday in Avdeyevka, in the Donetsk oblast. This was reported by the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) Ministry of Defense Corps, Deputy Commander Edward Basurin.

“We have documented evidence of an exacerbation of confrontation not only between the regular army and the Ukrainian Volunteer Battalions, but also skirmishes between units of the UAF,” explained Basurin.

The Deputy Commander said this before reports that the 93rd mechanized brigade of the UAF required the rogue volunteer battalion ‘OUN’ (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) to leave their positions near Peski.

“And today, April 11, in Avdeyevka there has been fighting between regular units,” said Basurin.

“Please note that these facts of Ukrainian units firing at each other, are presented to the Ukrainian authorities as a violation of the ceasefire by the DNR militia, as regularly reported in the OSCE and Ukraine controlled media,” – said the representative of the military department DNR .

Recall that on April 1st, the DNR Defense Ministry reported that the Ukrainian battalion “Donbass” opened fire on positions of the “Right Sector.” According to representatives of the militia units who do not want to obey the command of the UAF, “We reserve the right not to respect the ceasefire.”

The leadership of the armed forces of Ukraine had decided, at the end of the day, to take the Volunteer Battalion ‘OUN’ from the line of contact (ceasefire line) in Peski.

“By staying on the front line, the Volunteer Battalion of the OUN, which is not officially part of the armed forces, did not allow Ukraine to fully implement the Minsk agreement”- said in a statement posted on the UAF website.

The ceasefire officially came into effect in Donbass on February 14, 2015 at 01:00 in Donetsk. The DNR has repeatedly stated that compliance with the truce depends entirely on the Ukrainian side.

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/04/ukrainian-security-forces-are-fighting.html

Minsk 2 agreement — Text

Posted by

0

Translation posted on the UK Telegraph, February 12, 2015
The footnotes for the agreement were not translated or posted by the Telegraph.

This was agreed to by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany, and signed by East Ukraine leaders.

  • Immediate and full ceasefire in particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine and its strict fulfilment as of 00.00 midnight (Kiev time) on Feb. 15, 2015.
  • Pull-out of all heavy weapons by both sides to equal distance with the aim of creation of a security zone on minimum 50 kilometres apart for artillery of 100mm calibre or more, and a security zone of 70km for MLRS and 140 kilometres for MLRS Tornado-S, Uragan, Smerch and tactical missile systems Tochka U.

– for Ukrainian troops, from actual line of contact;

– for armed formations of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine, from the contact line in accordance with the Minsk memorandum as of Sept. 19, 2014

  • The pullout of the above mentioned heavy weapons has to start no later than the second day after the ceasefire and finish within 14 days.
  • This process will be assisted by OSCE with the support of the Trilateral Contact Group.
  • Effective monitoring and verification of ceasefire regime and pullout of heavy weapons by OSCE will be provided from the first day of pullout, using all necessary technical means such as satellites, drones, radio-location systems etc.
  • On the first day after the pullout a dialogue is to start on modalities of conducting local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine “On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts,” and also about the future of these districts based on the above mentioned law.
  • Without delays, but no later than 30 days from the date of signing of this document, a resolution has to be approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, indicating the territory which falls under the special regime in accordance with the law “On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts,” based in the line set up by the Minsk Memorandum as of Sept. 19, 2014.
  • Provide pardon and amnesty by way of enacting a law that forbids persecution and punishment of persons in relation to events that took place in particular departments of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine.
  • Provide release and exchange of all hostages and illegally held persons, based on the principle of “all for all”. This process has to end – at the latest – on the fifth day after the pullout (of weapons).
  • Provide safe access, delivery, storage and distribution of humanitarian aid to the needy, based on an international mechanism.
  • Define the modalities of a full restoration of social and economic connections, including social transfers, such as payments of pensions and other payments (income and revenue, timely payment of communal bills, restoration of tax payments within the framework of Ukrainian legal field)
  • With this aim, Ukraine will restore management over the segment of its banking system in the districts affected by the conflict, and possibly, an international mechanism will be established to ease such transactions.
  • Restore full control over the state border by Ukrainian government in the whole conflict zone, which has to start on the first day after the local election and end after the full political regulation (local elections in particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts based on the law of Ukraine and Constitutional reform) by the end of 2015, on the condition of fulfilment of Point 11 – in consultations and in agreement with representatives of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts within the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group.
  • Pullout of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under OSCE supervision. Disarmament of all illegal groups.
  • Constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new Constitution to come into effect by the end of 2015, the key element of which is decentralisation (taking into account peculiarities of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, agreed with representatives of these districts), and also approval of permanent legislation on special status of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts in accordance with the measures spelt out in the footnotes, by the end of 2015.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11408266/Minsk-agreement-on-Ukraine-crisis-text-in-full.html

Brussels: NATO holds 50-nation meeting on Ukraine war

Posted by

0

This meeting was convened at the request of Ukraine — by the Kiev government.

NATO “allies and partners” accept and protect the violent neo-Nazi leadership of Kiev. They accept and protect the Kiev regime’s violent accession to power, using snipers to kill police and protestors at Maidan. They accept and protect the ethnic cleansing and genocide campaign by the Kiev leadership. They accept and protect naziism and ultra-right extremism.  They accept and protect the war crimes done by the Kiev regime, its use of white phosphorus and chemical weapons, and its shelling of civilians. They denounce self-defense and self-protection by East Ukrainians. They denounce self-determination. They denounce civil rights and life.

These are our leaders — American, British, and European — and this is what they represent.

From Rick Rozoff

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
March 11, 2015

NATO Allies and partners discuss Ukraine crisis

nato-planes

Ambassadors of NATO Allies and twenty-two partners met in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council on Wednesday (11 March 2015) for an exchange of views on the current situation in Ukraine. Chaired by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the session was convened at the request of Ukraine.

The meeting, attended by Russia’s Ambassador to NATO, took place almost one year after the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea by Russia, which NATO Allies do not recognise.

Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) nations expressed deep concern over the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, urging Russia to withdraw its forces and its support for the separatists. All members of the EAPC agreed that the full implementation of the Minsk agreement is the only path to a lasting and peaceful solution. Secretary General Stoltenberg stressed that the ceasefire remains fragile and sporadic violations continue. He said that all parties should fully implement the Minsk agreement in good faith, including Russia, whose support for the separatists has further fuelled the conflict. As a first step, he called for a “withdrawal of heavy weapons from the line of contact in a transparent and verifiable manner”, with full access to the OSCE monitors.

Allies and other EAPC participants also condemned Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, and called on Moscow to reverse course.

The NATO Secretary General said that “the stability of the entire Euro-Atlantic region have been undermined, as have the values of national sovereignty and peaceful conflict resolution, values which all members of the EAPC have committed to uphold”. Mr. Stoltenberg underlined that the Basic Document of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council contains a joint pledge to promote peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. He called on all EAPC members to respect this fundamental commitment.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/brussels-nato-holds-50-nation-meeting-on-ukraine-war/

Breedlove’s bellicosity: Berlin alarmed by aggressive NATO stance on Ukraine — Spiegel

Posted by

0

Spiegel, March 8, 2015
By Matthias Gebauer, Christiane Hoffmann, Marc Hujer, Gordon Repinski, Matthias Schepp, Christoph Schult, Holger Stark and Klaus Wiegrefe

—————————————————————-

Top NATO commander General Philip Breedlove has raised hackles in Germany with his public statements about the Ukraine crisis.

US President Obama supports Chancellor Merkel’s efforts at finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis. But hawks in Washington seem determined to torpedo Berlin’s approach. And NATO’s top commander in Europe hasn’t been helping either.

It was quiet in eastern Ukraine last Wednesday. Indeed, it was another quiet day in an extended stretch of relative calm. The battles between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian separatists had largely stopped and heavy weaponry was being withdrawn. The Minsk cease-fire wasn’t holding perfectly, but it was holding.

On that same day, General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before the press in Washington. Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again “upped the ante” in eastern Ukraine — with “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” having been sent to the Donbass. “What is clear,” Breedlove said, “is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day.”

German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn’t understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn’t the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove’s numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America’s NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove’s comments as “dangerous propaganda.” Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove’s comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

The ‘Super Hawk’

But Breedlove hasn’t been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats.

Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel’s diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that Breedlove’s bellicose comments are first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general, they say, has the role of the “super hawk,” whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America’s more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Barack Obama after a Feb. 9 meeting in Washington: Increasing pressure on America’s more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

A mixture of political argumentation and military propaganda is necessary. But for months now, many in the Chancellery simply shake their heads each time NATO, under Breedlove’s leadership, goes public with striking announcements about Russian troop or tank movements. To be sure, neither Berlin’s Russia experts nor BND intelligence analysts doubt that Moscow is supporting the pro-Russian separatists. The BND even has proof of such support.

But it is the tone of Breedlove’s announcements that makes Berlin uneasy. False claims and exaggerated accounts, warned a top German official during a recent meeting on Ukraine, have put NATO — and by extension, the entire West — in danger of losing its credibility.

There are plenty of examples. Just over three weeks ago, during the cease-fire talks in Minsk, the Ukrainian military warned that the Russians — even as the diplomatic marathon was ongoing — had moved 50 tanks and dozens of rockets across the border into Luhansk. Just one day earlier, US Lieutenant General Ben Hodges had announced “direct Russian military intervention.”

Senior officials in Berlin immediately asked the BND for an assessment, but the intelligence agency’s satellite images showed just a few armored vehicles. Even those American intelligence officials who supply the BND with daily situation reports were much more reserved about the incident than Hodges was in his public statements. One intelligence agent says it “remains a riddle until today” how the general reached his conclusions.

Much More Cautious

“The German intelligence services generally appraise the threat level much more cautiously than the Americans do,” an international military expert in Kiev confirmed.

At the beginning of the crisis, General Breedlove announced that the Russians had assembled 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border and warned that an invasion could take place at any moment. The situation, he said, was “incredibly concerning.” But intelligence officials from NATO member states had already excluded the possibility of a Russian invasion. They believed that neither the composition nor the equipment of the troops was consistent with an imminent invasion.

The experts contradicted Breedlove’s view in almost every respect. There weren’t 40,000 soldiers on the border, they believed, rather there were much less than 30,000 and perhaps even fewer than 20,000. Furthermore, most of the military equipment had not been brought to the border for a possible invasion, but had already been there prior to the beginning of the conflict. Furthermore, there was no evidence of logistical preparation for an invasion, such as a field headquarters.

Breedlove, though, repeatedly made inexact, contradictory or even flat-out inaccurate statements. On Nov. 18, 2014, he told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that there were “regular Russian army units in eastern Ukraine.” One day later, he told the website of the German newsmagazine Stern that they weren’t fighting units, but “mostly trainers and advisors.”

He initially said there were “between 250 and 300” of them, and then “between 300 and 500.” For a time, NATO was even saying there were 1,000 of them.

The fact that NATO has no intelligence agency of its own plays into Breedlove’s hands. The alliance relies on intelligence gathered by agents from the US, Britain, Germany and other member states. As such, SACEUR has a wide range of information to choose from.

Influencing Breedlove

On Nov. 12, during a visit to Sofia, Bulgaria, Breedlove reported that “we have seen columns of Russian equipment — primarily Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defense systems and Russian combat troops — entering into Ukraine.” It was, he noted, “the same thing that OSCE is reporting.” But the OSCE had only observed military convoys within eastern Ukraine. OSCE observers had said nothing about troops marching in from Russia.

Breedlove sees no reason to revise his approach. “I stand by all the public statements I have made during the Ukraine crisis,” he wrote to SPIEGEL in response to a request for a statement accompanied by a list of his controversial claims. He wrote that it was to be expected that assessments of NATO’s intelligence center, which receives information from all 33 alliance members in addition to partner states, doesn’t always match assessments made by individual nations. “It is normal that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide,” he wrote.

He says that NATO’s strategy is to “release clear, accurate and timely information regarding ongoing events.” He also wrote that: “As an alliance based on the fundamental values of freedom and democracy, our response to propaganda cannot be more propaganda. It can only be the truth.” (Read Breedlove’s full statement here.)

The German government, meanwhile, is doing what it can to influence Breedlove. Sources in Berlin say that conversations to this end have taken place in recent weeks. But there are many at NATO headquarters in Brussels who are likewise concerned about Breedlove’s statements. On Tuesday of last week, Breedlove’s public appearances were an official item on the agenda of the North Atlantic Council’s weekly lunch meeting. Several ambassadors present criticized Breedlove and expressed their incredulity at some of the commander’s statements.

The government in Berlin is concerned that Breedlove’s statements could harm the West’s credibility. The West can’t counter Russian propaganda with its own propaganda, “rather it must use arguments that are worthy of a constitutional state.” Berlin sources also say that it has become conspicuous that Breedlove’s controversial statements are often made just as a step forward has been made in the difficult negotiations aimed at a political resolution. Berlin sources say that Germany should be able to depend on its allies to support its efforts at peace.

Pressure on Obama

German foreign policy experts are united in their view of Breedlove as a hawk. “I would prefer that Breedlove’s comments on political questions be intelligent and reserved,” says Social Democrat parliamentarian Niels Annen, for example. “Instead, NATO in the past has always announced a new Russian offensive just as, from our point of view, the time had come for cautious optimism.” Annen, who has long specialized in foreign policy, has also been frequently dissatisfied with the information provided by NATO headquarters. “We parliamentarians were often confused by information regarding alleged troop movements that were inconsistent with the information we had,” he says.

The pressure on Obama from the Republicans, but also from his own political camp, is intense. Should the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine not hold, it will likely be difficult to continue refusing Kiev’s requests for shipments of so-called “defensive weapons.” And that would represent a dramatic escalation of the crisis. Moscow has already begun issuing threats in anticipation of such deliveries. “Any weapons deliveries to Kiev will escalate the tensions and would unhinge European security,” Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s national security council, told the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda on Wednesday.

Although President Obama has decided for the time being to give European diplomacy a chance, hawks like Breedlove or Victoria Nuland are doing what they can to pave the way for weapons deliveries. “We can fight against the Europeans, fight against them rhetorically,” Nuland said during a private meeting of American officials on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference at the beginning of February.

In reporting on the meeting later, the German tabloid Bild reported that Nuland referred to the chancellor’s early February trip to Moscow for talks with Putin as “Merkel’s Moscow stuff.” No wonder, then, that people in Berlin have the impression that important power brokers in Washington are working against the Europeans. Berlin officials have noticed that, following the visit of American politicians or military leaders in Kiev, Ukrainian officials are much more bellicose and optimistic about the Ukrainian military’s ability to win the conflict on the battlefield. “We then have to laboriously bring the Ukrainians back onto the course of negotiations,” said one Berlin official.

Nuland Diplomacy

Nuland, who is seen as a possible secretary of state should the Republicans win back the White House in next year’s presidential election, is an important voice in US policy concerning Ukraine and Russia. She has never sought to hide her emotional bond to Russia, even saying “I love Russia.” Her grandparents immigrated to the US from Bessarabia, which belonged to the Russian empire at the time. Nuland speaks Russian fluently.

She is also very direct. She can be very keen and entertaining, but has been known to take on an undiplomatic tone — and has not always been wrong to do so. Mykola Asarov, who was prime minister under toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, recalls that Nuland basically blackmailed Yanukovych in order to prevent greater bloodshed in Kiev during the Maidan protests. “No violence against the protesters or you’ll fall,” Nuland told him according to Asarov. She also, he said, threatened tough economic and political sanctions against both Ukraine and the country’s leaders. According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public.

Nuland has also been open — at least internally — about her contempt for European weakness and is famous for having said “Fuck the EU” during the initial days of the Ukraine crisis in February of 2014. Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.

When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand. On the first day of the Munich Security Conference, the two gathered the US delegation behind closed doors to discuss their strategy for breaking Europe’s resistance to arming Ukraine.

On the seventh floor of the Bayerischer Hof hotel in the heart of Munich, it was Nuland who began coaching. “While talking to the Europeans this weekend, you need to make the case that Russia is putting in more and more offensive stuff while we want to help the Ukrainians defend against these systems,” Nuland said. “It is defensive in nature although some of it has lethality.”

Training Troops?

Breedlove complemented that with the military details, saying that moderate weapons aid was inevitable — otherwise neither sanctions nor diplomatic pressure would have any effect. “If we can increase the cost for Russia on the battlefield, the other tools will become more effective,” he said. “That’s what we should do here.”

In Berlin, top politicians have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding, but the dispute is a fundamental one — and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action. Additionally, the trans-Atlantic partners also have differing goals. Whereas the aim of the Franco-German initiative is to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, it is Russia that concerns hawks within the US administration. They want to drive back Moscow’s influence in the region and destabilize Putin’s power. For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow.

A massive troop training range is located in Yavoriv in western Ukraine near the Polish border. During Soviet times, it served as the westernmost military district in the Soviet Union. Since 1998, though, it has been used for joint exercises by Ukrainian forces together with the United States and NATO. Yavoriv is also the site where US soldiers want to train members of the Ukrainian National Guard for their future battle against the separatists. According to the Pentagon’s plans, American officers would train the Ukrainians on how to use American artillery-locating radar devices. At least that’s what US Army in Europe commander Lt. Gen. Hodges announced in January.

The training was actually supposed to start at the beginning of March. Before it began, however, President Obama temporarily put it on hold in order to give the ceasefire agreement reached in Minsk a chance. Still, the hawks remain confident that they will soon come a step closer to their goal. On Tuesday, Hodges said during an appearance in Berlin that he expects the training will still begin at some point this month.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/03/08/breedloves-bellicosity-berlin-alarmed-aggressive-nato-stance-ukraine.html

 

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Russia concerned as U.S. military moves into Ukraine, Black Sea

Posted by

0

Xinhua News Agency
March 6, 2015

Russia concerned with U.S. military deployment in Ukraine

MOSCOW: Russia is concerned with arrival of U.S. military personnel on Ukraine soil, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Thursday.

“Up to 300 U.S. troops reportedly have been deployed to a peacekeeping center in Ukraine’s western Lvov region,” the ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich told reporters.

Noting that those U.S. military instructors would train Ukrainian soldiers from March 5 to Oct. 21 on western military hardware operations, Lukashevich said that U.S. military presence in that country has become a fact.

He also highlighted danger of U.S. plans to start massive arms supply to Ukraine despite successful implementation of the ceasefire agreement reached in Minsk, the Belarusian national capital, on Feb. 12 between Ukrainian government and Donbass insurgents in eastern Ukraine.

Moreover, the U.S. Congress has been drafting a bill on allocating one billion U.S. dollars for Ukraine’s army training and armament equipment, according to Lukashevich,

“It seems like Washington decided to take (Ukrainian armed forces) under full maintenance,” Interfax news agency quoted Lukashevich as saying.

Meanwhile, the spokesman blamed the U.S. for its military presence in the Black Sea, as NATO Maritime Command said Wednesday in an online announcement that six NATO warships had arrived in the Black Sea for joint exercises.

“This somehow contradicts the public statements of the U.S. administration supporting political settlement of conflict in Ukraine,” Lukashevich said.

He warned that such actions might lead to “the most serious consequences” for the peaceful settlement of the crisis.

Lukashevich also urged the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe monitoring mission in Ukraine to verify implementation of Minsk agreements, especially to monitor the weapon withdrawal by conflicting parties in the “impartial, well- organized and systemic way.”

 

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/u-s-nato-move-military-into-ukarine-black-sea-russia-mildly-perturbed/

Zakharchenko ultimatum: DPR withdrew 90% of heavy equipment, Kiev: none (video)

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

Alexander Zakharchenko, head of DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic):

 

Today we have passed on the following declaration to the head of OSCE:

“In order to fulfill the declaration as of February 12, 2015 and a complex of measures to fulfill the Minsk agreements, DPR withdrew heavy equipment to the distance agreed by the Minsk agreements.

(As you know we withdrew about 90% of artillery guns, mortars and heavy equipment)

However in a violation of Part 2 of the complex of measures to fulfill the Minsk agreements, the Ukrainian side is evading it and has not begun the withdrawal of heavy equipment.

DPR is giving the Ukrainian side an opportunity to begin withdrawing heavy equipment until 18:00 Kiev time and 19:00 DPR time on February 27, 2015.

In the event of the Ukrainian side violating the declaration as of February 12, 2015 and a complex of measures on the fulfillment of the Minsk agreements, DPR will reserve the right to return heavy equipment to its former locations as of February 12, 2015.

I believe that Ukraine has failed to fulfill the agreements.

The entire responsibility for violating the peace agreement in the declaration as of February 12, 2015 and the complex of measures to fulfill the Minsk agreements, DPR is placing on the Ukrainian side.”

This declaration was given to OSCE in a written form, signed.

I would like to add regarding today’s statement of Ukrainian General Staff about beginning to withdraw it’s heavy equipment, if it will have only a declarative manner, it will not void this declaration.

Further I would like to point your attention at relentless attacks and provocations of Ukrainian authorities.

Today there was an attack with tanks and infantry on the airport, yesterday there were two attacks, another attack was on the Kirovsky district from Mariinka. Further the shelling of Gorlovka, Dokuchaevsk and Elenovka continue until now. Therefore I would like to say the following, I don’t understand how Ukrainian military is demanding ceasefire within 48 hours, how can they demand it?

I would like to remind the Ukrainian military that their UAF units ended up in Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo cauldrons, therefore to demand anything by the Ukrainian side, judging that they had suffered two heavy losses already, I believe is not feasible.

There is no need to give us ultimatums, if the attacks and shelling will not stop we will consider the Minsk agreement violated by the Ukrainian side.

I announced in Minsk, that if they will continue to violate the agreement, there will not be any more Minsk agreement. The equipment will be returned to it’s positions.

Any attempts to attack our cities and villages will be stopped at the beginning.

I will be honest, dear Ukrainian government, judging by the map, prepare for more cauldrons if you don’t follow the Minsk agreements.

Your army is unable to fight, ask for peacekeepers, ask for more weapons, ask for arms and so forth.

Thank you for your attention.

Questions:

Is a sudden attack by the Ukrainian army possible before the stated time?

The logic of Ukrainian military is unpredictable, they live on a different planet, therefore, I cannot understand the logic of Ukrainian military, anything is possible. We are prepared for any scenario.

Will you be able to return the weapons back to your positions?

You know, I hope so in any case. To be attacked, and be unable to defend ourselves – that’s not possible on any stretch of our front. We will be able to bring back the equipment and join the fight.

OSCE announced that it is not ready to control the withdrawal of equipment, since DPR is not giving the withdrawal plans and locations of heavy equipment. 

Did Ukrainian side provide it to them? Today it was announced that the Ukrainian side they will not give the locations of their units. Then why should we do it?

I don’t understand, Ukrainian side is the loosing side of the conflict. It has lost in this conflict. They lost several thousand people in Debaltsevo cauldron. They are unable to hold the frontline, and they have some demands? Wake up, guys, what planet have you come from?

Your military is loosing battle after battle. I recommend to accept it, swallow it, wipe your nose, and follow the Minsk agreement, otherwise it will be worse.

If you don’t want to leave in peace, we will have to teach you.

Is [Lugansk People’s Republic Prime Minister Igor] Plotnitsky supporting you, have you discussed it with him?

Absolutely supporting my declaration. This relates to LPR. Our fate is the same with Lugansk. Igor will make the same statement. I am 100% sure that Igor Plotnitsky would support me.

Thank you

 

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/zakharchenko-ultimatum-dpr-withdrew-90.html

Vladimir Putin’s remarks following adoption of declaration on Ukraine, February 12

Posted by

0

“Kiev authorities still refuse to have direct contacts with representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Even though they have not been recognised, we have to proceed from the realities of life and if everyone wishes to achieve an agreement on establishing long-term relations, direct contacts are essential.”

From The Kremlin, February 12, 2015

Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petro Poroshenko took part in the talks on a settlement to the situation in Ukraine. At the final stage, they were joined by Heidi Tagliavini, OSCE Special Representative to the Trilateral Contact Group on the Ukrainian Settlement.

Participants from the Russian side included Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Karasin, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov.

Following the Normandy format talks, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany adopted a declaration in support of the Measures to Implement the Minsk Agreements adopted on February 12 by the Contact Group on the Ukrainian Settlement.

Vladimir Putin also made a statement for the press.

* * *

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good morning,

This was not the best night of my life, but the morning, I believe, is good. This is because, despite the difficult negotiations, we finally managed to agree on the key issues.

Incidentally, you might wonder why the negotiations took so long. In my opinion, this was because unfortunately the Kiev authorities still refuse to have direct contacts with representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Even though they have not been recognised, we have to proceed from the realities of life and if everyone wishes to achieve an agreement on establishing long-term relations, direct contacts are essential.

We operated under the existing conditions and, in my view, have managed to agree on many things. The first is that we agreed on a ceasefire to begin at midnight on February 15. The second item that I find extremely important is the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the current line of confrontation for Ukrainian troops and from the line established on September 19, 2014 in Minsk for the Donbass self-defence forces.

Then comes a set of matters dealing with a long-term political settlement. This includes several items, the first being a constitutional reform that should take into consideration the lawful interests of the people residing on the territory of Donbass.

This is followed by matters dealing with a solution to border issues upon agreement with the Donbass militia, humanitarian issues, and the implementation of the earlier adopted law on the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk territories.

Finally, there is a set of economic and humanitarian items.

We proceed from the notion that all the parties will show restraint until the complete ceasefire. The problem here was that representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics claimed that in response to the aggressive actions of the Kiev authorities they not only held back the Kiev forces but also managed to mount an offensive and surrounded a group of 6,000 to 8,000 servicemen. They, of course, proceed from the idea that this group will lay down arms and stop its resistance.

We nevertheless call on both sides to show restraint and in order to avoid unnecessary excessive bloodshed and casualties they should do everything possible to ensure that the separation of forces, mainly the heavy equipment, is conducted without unnecessary bloodshed.

Representatives of the Ukrainian authorities believe their troops have not been surrounded and therefore think this process will go sufficiently smoothly. I had some initial doubts that I can share with you. If the troops really had been surrounded, then, logically, they will try to break free, while those who are on the outside will try to arrange for a corridor for their trapped servicemen.

Eventually, we agreed with President Poroshenko that we will instruct our experts – I am ready to do so – to establish what is actually going on there. In addition, I will repeat, we will try to develop a set of measures to verify the implementation of our decisions by both sides.

I would like to call on both conflicting parties once again to stop the bloodshed as soon as possible and proceed to a truly political process of a long-term settlement.

Thank you for your attention.

<…>

(Answering a question from a Russian journalist.)

One document has just been signed by the Minsk Contact Group, it is called Measures to Implement the Minsk Agreements.

The other document does not require signing: it is a statement by the President of France, the President of Ukraine, yours truly and the Federal Chancellor of Germany to the effect that we support the process.

Thank you.

 

http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23594

Minsk-2 Preliminary Analysis

Posted by

0

Posted on Fort Russ
2/12/2015

Minsk-2: Withdrawal of Forces and Autonomy for the Donbass.
By Russkiy Malchik

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Information is still scarce. We have seen the main principles which were clear. But it’s obvious that they spent 16 hours discussing not the basic principles but the details. It is the details that are the core of the peace plan.

Unfortunately neither Poroshenko nor other leaders signed the joint declaration, and the “Collection of Measures” were signed only by the members of the contact group, namely LPR/DPR, Kuchma in Kiev’s name, OSCE, and Zurabov. That list likewise contains 13 points with fairly general formulations, which will require further clarification. But there are also specifics that have been published and by which we can assess how the negotiations went and what kind of compromise was reached.

The first has to do with the withdrawal of heavy weapons under OSCE control. The conditions are rather odd: it specifies a distance of 50km (for cannon) or 140km (for rocket artillery), from the actual line of the front as of midnight, February 15, and for the militia from the September 19 line [the line of demarcation from Minsk-1].

This means that both sides should leave their positions, creating a huge belt (100-300km) without weapons, de facto up to the borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Which leads to the following question: who will control it? This is the key question. So far there are no clear answers. But considering that the issue of peacekeepers was frequently brought up, this is who they have in mind. It is not for nothing that the Donbass representatives said that they will accept only Russian and Belarusian peacekeepers. Kiev, on the other hand, does not want peacekeepers, but if it does agree it will want NATO troops. So there is a big question mark here.

The second interesting provision is this. In the paragraph 11 which concerns Ukraine’s constitutional reform, which is to be implemented by the end of 2015, there is a provision which includes the main provisions of the law on the “Special Status of Lugansk and Donetsk Region”, which read as follows:

–Immunity from punishment, prosecution, or discrimination for individuals which participated in the events that took place in various parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions (this amounts to legalizing all combatants).

–The right to language self-determination.

–The participation of local self-government in the nominating process for the office of prosecutor general and the courts in the regions (LPR and DPR de-facto control over the legal and law enforcement systems).

–The central government shall enter into agreements with the local self-government concerning economic, social, and cultural development of the regions (Kiev will enter into agreements with Donetsk and Lugansk concerning all crucial aspects of the joint economy).

–The government supports the socio-economic development of the separate regions (Kiev will partially finance the reconstruction of Lugansk and Donetsk, and guarantees the fulfillment of social obligations).

–The central government shall facilitate cross-border cooperation between the several districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions with regions of the Russian Federation (Kiev will not oppose the cooperation between Lugansk, Donetsk, and Russia).

–The establishment of people’s militia in accordance with local government decisions in order to maintain public order in the several regions (the militia becomes a law enforcement organization, all power institutions remain under the control of the current leadership).

–The authority of the local authorities and officials from special elections that were designated by the Verkhovna Rada in accordance with this law, cannot be invalidated before their terms run out (this guarantees the rights of the current DPR and LPR government until they are re-elected as part of the process of forming local self-government through new elections).

As a result, Donbass receives widespread autonomy within the framework of nominally unitary Ukraine. This is the compromise which satisfied Putin after the 16-hour Minsk marathon. Moreover, France and Germany guarantee the re-establishment of the Donbass banking system, and will reach an agreement with Russia concerning the rules concerning the free trade zone between EU, Russia, and Ukraine, while taking into consideration the special status of Donbass.

The third detail pertains to border control. Here the language is extremely clear. The border between Ukraine and Russia will be re-established only after Ukraine carries out constitutional reforms, which implies autonomy (self-government, people’s militia, cross-border cooperation with Russia). In other words, once Kiev gives Donbass control over its own territory, then the border shall be re-established…but will remain under militia control.

To sum up this quick analysis based on still-incomplete information one can say the following: in purely diplomatic sense, Russia scored a success, forcing Kiev and the West to accept a painful and temporary, but real compromise. It is based on freezing the military conflict and the autonomy of the Donbass while nominally preserving Ukraine’s borders. In practice we are talking about reformatting Ukraine from a unitary into a federal state, regardless of Poroshenko’s denials. If the Galicia banderites realize this, they’ll start screaming about “Poroshenko’s treason.”

Of course, the implementation of the agreement is another question. The fact that neither Poroshenko nor European leaders signed it does not make it easier. On the other hand, Hollande’s and Merkel’s wishes are more than real, so it will fall to them to compel Kiev to implement the “Collection of Measures.” The only other option is a complete defeat for Ukrainian forces. To which Putin merrily alluded when he mentioned Debaltsevo—either you come out with your hands up, or you’ll continue to get killed.

The Minsk peace plan from February 12 does not solve the problem (and it could not solve it), but creates the possibility to delay the war until the end of 2015. With one condition: that Kiev and Washington accept the federalization of Ukraine. If not, the war will come to Kiev.

J.Hawk’s Comment:  The biggest factor here is whether the Ukrainian military is up to the task of continuing the fighting. If it is, if Poroshenko believes its forces have been sufficiently restored, the fighting will resume. However, the Ukrainian military took a heavy beating in the last months’ fighting and it will find it difficult to replace the lost equipment. Mobilization is unpopular, and there is little chance that NATO will rearm Ukraine. Last but not least, there is also the IMF and its stringent conditions on government spending that come as part of its bailout packages. Yaresko had already announced that Ukraine’s budget will have to undergo significant changes in order to accommodate the IMF. It’s difficult to see what else in that budget could be cut aside from the defense spending. Hollande and Merkel are not stupid, they’ve seen enough of Poroshenko to know what he is capable of, so therefore they will most likely act through the IMF to reduce Ukraine’s ability to wage war.

So overall this is a better agreement than Minsk-1, though not as good one as might have been reached should the Ukrainian military first suffered a catastrophic defeat. The fact that Novorossia will continue to enjoy unimpeded contact with the Russian Federation is also a major plus–Minsk-1 agreement called for the border control to be returned to Ukraine. 

But in the meantime Novorossia continues to exist and to enjoy a high degree of autonomy, though it is not likely that its authority will spread all the way to the borders of the Lugansk and Donetsk regions, even though Minsk-2 does not appear to contain any language concerning demarcation lines.   The above, of course, assumes that there will be a ceasefire at midnight of February 15, and there might not be one. Minsk-2 says nothing about Debaltsevo, which means the Ukrainian side will continue its attempts to break into or out of the encirclement. If the ceasefire goes into effect as of the 15th with the Ukrainian forces still trapped in Debaltsevo, they will have no choice but to surrender their weapons and depart. Poroshenko cannot allow that to happen, so the fighting could well continue. One can always perpetrate a “false flag” attack or two as an excuse for breaking the ceasefire…

 

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/minsk-2-preliminary-analysis.html

Ukraine SITREP: EXTREMELY dangerous situation in Debaltsevo

Posted by

0

An urgent warning about the possibility of a false flag with the evacuation of civilians from Debaltsevo.

Posted on Vineyard of the Saker, February 6, 2015

Ukraine SITREP: *Extremely* dangerous situation in Debaltsevo

The Novorussian and the junta have agreed to a cease-fire to allow the civilian population to leave Debaltsevo.  In theory, each civilian will get to chose whether he/she wants to be evacuated to Novorussia or to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine.  The convoy of refugees will be escorted by senior OSCE officials.  Both sides to the conflict have pledged not to open fire during the time needed for this operation.  Now consider this:

1) The only thing protecting the junta forces are, precisely, these civilians.  If these civilians leave, then Debaltsevo will turn into Saur Mogila.  Until now, the Novorussians have advanced rather slowly precisely because they could not use the full power of their artillery to soften up the well dug-in junta forces.  But thanks to the Voentorg, the Novorussians now have plenty of firepower now and if they decide to really open up upon the junta forces the latter will suffer the same devastating consequences as their (now dead) colleagues in Saur Mogila.  Everybody understands that.

2) Tonight the junta has used white phosphorus again, and in the recent days they have used both ballistic missiles and cluster munitions.  Why this sudden concern with the Debaltsevo civilians (whom the Nazis consider as “bugs” anyway)?  Does anybody really believe that the Nazi freaks in Kiev care for Novorussian civilians?!

3) Kerry, Hollande and Merkel were in Kiev today.  The latter two will be in Moscow tomorrow.   In Germany, the Munich Security Conference is meeting.  NATO is still claiming that “hundreds and hundreds” of Russian Federation soldiers are operating in Novorussia.  While some US officials speak of sending “lethal aid” to the junta, others seem to oppose it.

What does that all tell you?

Me – it tells me that this is the PERFECT opportunity for the kind of false flag massacres NATO and the US are so good at.  That is how the “Empire of Kindness” justified bombing the Bosnian Serbs, that is how the “Empire of Kindness” justified bombing Kosovo and that is how the “Empire of Kindness” justified bombing Libya.

Tomorrow, such an attack will be very easy to organize.  Just send a group of men to post a Claymore mine anywhere along the convoy’s route, plant a 152mm shell with a remote under the road where the bus will collect the refugees, pay some patsy to hide in the ditch with an RPG, or use a regular Grad strike at any time – and, voilà, you will have exactly the kind of atrocity which was used to justify all the previous wars of the “Empire of Kindness”.

Except that this time around, the goal will not be to bomb or invade Novorussia (that is something the US/NATO simply cannot do), but to create the kind if hysteria which might make it possible to save the junta forces in the Debaltsevo cauldron.  That, at least, could be the plan.  Also, if a massacre happens at the evacuation of refugees, then this will “prove” that the Novorussians don’t care about civilians and create a “Sarajavo-like” situation in which the surrounded force gets to shoot as much as it wants while the surrounding force is crucified by the imperial propaganda for every shell fired.

I sure hope that I am wrong, but I won’t breathe normally again until tomorrow evening because if no false flag happens tomorrow this will be a real miracle.

The Saker

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/ukraine-sitrep-extremely-dangerous.html