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

“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.

* * *


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.



“All is lost”– Poroshenko after Minsk-2

From Fort Russ


On the Outcome of the Minsk Negotiations: Kiev was given the opportunity to save face before dying.

By Ivan Lizan

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Imagine yourself as Petro Poroshenko for a minute: you fly in for a meeting, and you discover everyone is against you, the Europeans, the Russians, even the clever Belorussian with his little smile. The ally and patron is somewhere far away, behind an ocean. You have to run to make a phone call and get instructions. People are openly chuckling when you tell them there is no encirclement at Debaltsevo. They even ask you to leave the room so that Putin, Merkel, and Hollande can speak. You can’t believe in the outcome of the negotiations, and even tell the media that “all is lost.” A disaster.

But you still remember that your victory can easily be transformed into treachery, and you yourself can be deprived of power and even life. You have to save face, since you are not independent and don’t have any genuine power. Your competitor in Dnepropetrovsk already opened a parallel General Staff, and the efforts to disperse the Aidar failed completely. You even destroyed the coalition when you tried to make your friend/godfather the Prosecutor General.

So it’s better not to return at all without an agreement. It’s even more important not to return without an advantageous agreement. But there isn’t one. Because they put in front of you a compromise, and you had to sign on.

Holland and Merkel are beaming, because the plan worked and they believe in its implementation.

But only Lukashenko and Putin, and the DPR/LPR representatives understand what’s really going on.

Can you imagine how Poroshenko is supposed to issue orders to the Debaltsevo group after many of its officers had fled? If even Poltorak says that there is no encirclement. How are the Ukrainian soldiers to return to the demarcation line if they are encircled? Breaking out – means violating the ceasefire, staying put means death and capitulation.

You break the ceasefire and Minsk-2 collapses. But try to imagine how these measures are to be implemented.

First. Are the radicals going to agree to pay salaries to the “supporters of terrorism” on Donbass? For them salary non-payment is a victory over Putin.

Second. How do you intend to resurrect the Donbass special status law, after it was voided by the radicals in the Rada?

Third. How is Poroshenko going to command the territorial battalions and volunteer battalions, which are not under his control?

Fourth. How is he going to force his artillerymen to stop shelling Donbass cities?

Fifth. How is Poroshenko going to explain the troop withdrawal?

The answer is simple. He won’t. The provisions of the Minsk agreement are impossible to fulfill.

Incidentally, neither Kiev nor the republics plan to cancel their mobilizations. Units will be brought back to strength, and the republics’ mobilization is going somewhat better than Kiev’s. The war will inevitably continue, but the republics are in a better starting position than Kiev.

Therefore the outcome will be as follows: the ceasefire is temporary and will be violated. It only extends the death throes of the Kiev regime and of Ukraine as a state.

J.Hawk’s Comments: Lizan outlines Poroshenko’s quandary quite well, but in fact the situation is even worse for him.

For starters, Poroshenko clearly expected that the Minsk meeting would consist of The Leaders of the Free World (Poroshenko included) bringing “Putler’s aggression” to heel.

Instead it turned out to be Vlad and Friends putting the hurt on Poroshenko. From just observing the facial expressions and the body language, it was clear that he was on the receiving end of some serious pressure. Lavrov’s comment that the negotiations were going “better than super” was an early indication that Poroshenko walked into an ambush. What was the ambush intended to accomplish?

It would appear that Vlad’s Friends want Poroshenko to deal firmly with the Party of War in Kiev. It must have dawned on Merkel and Hollande (though the latter probably suspected this already) that the Kiev junta’s survival plan consists solely of hoping to provoke a large-scale conflict with Russia that would trigger a new Cold War on the European continent, and result in Ukraine being an “advanced forpost of the Western civilization”, an Israel of Eastern Europe of sorts, which in turn would mean billions and billions of dollars of economic and military aid. And the junta has no other plan. It never had any other plan. Its objective from the start was to provoke Russia (starting with “FSB snipers on the Maidan” and the moves to transfer the Sevastopol naval base to the US Navy) into doing something.

Well, they succeeded. Russia “did something”. It was only then that they discovered their miscalculation—the West does not have billions laying around to spend on cleptocratic Ukrainians with delusions of grandeur. Undaunted, they continued to escalate the situation, until the Europeans finally decided to step in, lest a full-scale great power war erupt on the European continent. First they apparently successfully convinced the Biden administration to kindly butt out by categorically ruling out deliveries of weapons to Ukraine. Then they pulled the plug on Kiev.

Poroshenko’s “mission impossible,” as it was evidently communicated to him by Hollande and Merkel, is to rein in the “war party” in Kiev by any means possible and then get on with destroying, excuse me, reforming the Ukrainian economy, Greece-style. It’s no longer self-evident that any violation of the ceasefire will be automatically blamed on Novorossia or Russia, as it was in the past. It is totally self-evident that no IMF credits will be forthcoming unless Poroshenko finally starts acting in a responsible manner. Moreover, considering what conditions are invariably attached to IMF credits, Ukraine’s ability to wage war will likely quickly decline due to the draconian budget cuts. Whatever Yatsenyuk had planned for this year will likely be significantly reduced if Yaresko is to convince Western donors Ukraine is serious about cutting government spending, and at the moment defense is where most of the money is.

So yes, by all means, try to put yourself into Poroshenko’s shoes at this point. His best chance is to convince the “war party” that their best chance is to help him stay in power. This line of argument has the benefit of having considerable merit to it, because should the Right Sector/Turchinov/whoever topple Poroshenko, would the new junta count on any support from the West?

Probably not, but do Yarosh and Turchinov realize it? The assumption Poroshenko and other sponsors of the Maidan made in unleashing the neo-Nazis on Ukraine’s political scene was that billions of dollars of Western aid would improve the situation in the country to such an extent that these movements would be starved of popular support. Instead, due to the deteriorating situation and the two lost military campaigns, they are gaining in strength, and their main enemy no longer is located in Donbass.




February 6 NATO meeting heightens danger of war with Russa

NATO leaders continue to lie about Russian aggression when even the Ukrainian military says there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. It is NATO aggression, pushing against Russian borders, arming neighboring countries, conducting constant military exercises in those countries, and arming and equipping the Ukrainian military to conduct genocidal operations against the Ukrainian people.

By Johannes Stern, February 5, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

NATO defense ministers are meeting in Brussels today to consolidate the military alliance against Russia, increasing the risk of a direct military confrontation between nuclear-armed powers.

NATO sources have revealed plans to establish a long-term presence in Eastern Europe, according to a report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS). So-called NATO “Force Integration Units” will be established in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. There are also plans to deploy such a unit in Hungary at a later time.

The units will consist of 40 soldiers each. They will be tasked with preparing exercises for a new NATO rapid response force and coordinating military activities in emergencies. Germany, which is spearheading the operation this year, intends to deploy a total of 25 soldiers within the units.

The ground troops of the rapid response force are to consist of a brigade of some 5,000 soldiers. The goal is for their most flexible units to have the capability to move to a new location within 48 hours. The entire brigade will be trained and equipped to be able to move to a new location within a week. The leadership of the operation will rotate yearly between NATO member countries.

According to the FAS, NATO defense ministers have already decided on the equipment to be provided during the “test phase,” which is to last until the beginning of next year. Starting in April, a company of German paratroopers will supplement American units that have been stationed in the Baltic States and Poland since last year.

Two weeks ago, the FAS revealed that NATO defense ministers will convene the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) at the beginning of today’s meeting to discuss “the nuclear threat scenario from Russia in the past few months.”

Unlike previous years, according to the FAS, this will not merely be a routine meeting. An analysis of threat scenarios worked out at NATO headquarters will be presented to the defense ministers. Afterwards, the ministers “will for the first time discuss the consequences for the nuclear strategy of the alliance.” A separate consultation session is planned with France, which is not a member of the NPG.

NATO’s nuclear simulations underscore the fact that the imperialist powers are ready to risk nuclear war in order to force Russia to its knees. In the past week, a number of prominent figures, including former Soviet head of state Mikhail Gorbachev, have warned of the danger of a Third World War if NATO, led by the United States, continues to take aggressive measures against Russia.

Under conditions of escalating fighting between troops of the Western-backed Kiev regime and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, Gorbachev warned of a “hot war” that “could well inevitably turn into an atomic war.”

On Sunday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung quoted the Russian military expert Yevgeny Buchinsky, who warned that, in response to an offensive against the Donbass by Kiev,

“Russia will have to intervene, and then, bluntly speaking, to take Kiev. Then NATO would be in a difficult situation. Then you would have to start World War III, which no one wants.”

In spite of such warnings, the imperialist powers and their proxies in Kiev are escalating the conflict. On Monday, the New York Times revealed that the Obama administration is considering sending advanced weapons to Kiev. The newspaper listed high-ranking current and former administration officials and military officers who are pushing for such a move.

The Times report triggered opposition among sections of the European elite. The Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote that a decision by Washington to arm the Kiev regime with offensive weapons would be taken by Russia as the equivalent of a declaration of war. Russian officials and German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke against any such move during a visit to Hungary.

Washington intends to use today’s NATO meeting to bring the member states into line behind its provocative and reckless course. At the beginning of the week, Alexander Vershbow, a former US ambassador to Russia and currently the deputy secretary general of NATO, referred to “Russian aggression” in Ukraine as a “game changer in European security.”

He emphasized the necessity of deploying rapid response troops in Eastern Europe, extending NATO’s reach in the east, and arming the Ukrainian military. Referring to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, all former Soviet republics, he said,

“The more stable they are, the more secure we are. So helping Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova—to strengthen their military forces, reform their institutions and modernize their economies—is not an act of generosity, it is in our fundamental strategic interest.”

He added,

“NATO is doing its part. To help Ukraine to modernize and reform its armed forces, we have launched five trust funds to assist in areas like command and control, logistics, cyber defense and military medicine. We are sending more advisors to Kiev and will be carrying out exercises with Ukraine’s armed forces. And we are helping Moldova and Georgia to strengthen their defense capacity in similar ways, and, in Georgia’s case, to help it prepare for future membership in the Alliance.”

At the end of his speech, Vershbow warned:

“This time around, having chosen our course, we must stick to it. We must stay united, stay firm and increase the costs to Russia of its aggression.”

Meanwhile, voices in favor of arming Ukraine are growing louder. Michael Gahler (Germany’s Christian Democratic Union—CDU), who is the spokesman on security policy for the European People’s Party in the European Union parliament, spoke in favor of sending weapons to Ukraine in an interview on Deutschlandfunk radio.

Wolfgang Ischinger, leader of the Munich Security Conference, which takes place this weekend, has adopted the same line. On ZDF Television he spoke in favor of the “announcement of possible weapons shipments” to Ukraine. “Sometimes one needs to use pressure to enforce peace,” he declared. While he cautioned that Germany should not send weapons, he said he could “imagine that other members of the alliance would want to do this.”

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, whose regime was brought to power nearly a year ago by a fascist-led putsch backed by the US and Germany, and has since waged a brutal war against the population of eastern Ukraine, made an appearance yesterday in Kharkiv, which is near the border with Russia and the contested areas. He said that “we will need lethal weapons, and I am sure that foreign weapons will be sent to Ukraine.” He continued: “I don’t have any doubt that the US and other partners will provide help with lethal weapons so that Ukraine will be able to defend itself.”

Poroshenko will take part in the Munich Security Conference along with 20 other heads of state and 60 foreign and defense ministers. He is meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Kiev today.


Re-posted on

Czech President says ‘only poorly informed people’ don’t know about Ukraine coup

Eric Zuesse, January 4, 2015
Posted on Washington’s Blog

The Czech Republic’s President Milos Zeman said, in an interview, in the January 3rd edition of Prague’s daily newspaper Pravo, that Czechs who think of the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych, on 22 February 2014, as having been like Czechoslovakia’s authentically democratic “Velvet Revolution” are seeing it in a profoundly false light, because, (as Russian Television translated his statement into English) “Maidan was not a democratic revolution.” He said that this is the reason why Ukraine now is in a condition of “civil war,” in which the residents of the Donbass region in Ukraine’s southeast have broken away from the Ukrainian Government.

He furthermore said that, “Judging by some of the statements of [Ukrainian] Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, I think that he is rather a prime minister of war because he does not want a peaceful solution, as recommended by the European Union (EU), but instead prefers to use force.” (By contrast, George Soros, who has invested in Ukrainian bonds, and whose International Renaissance Foundation — also called The International Renaissance Fund — helped finance the overthrow of Yanukovych, as well as the hate-mongering Hromadske TV in Ukraine, is proud of it, and has repeatedly said that the EU must invest whatever is necessary for Ukraine to win its war against the residents of Donbass, and carry the war to victory against Russia. His alleged passion for ‘democracy’ has evidently been actually a hatred of Russians; it wasn’t an opposition to communism, after all; he hates Russians even after they have abandoned communism. Today’s Czech President is instead committed to democracy, not to hatred and bigotry of any sort. He’s a real democrat.)

Zeman added, by way of contrast to Yatsenyuk, the possibility that Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko “might be a man of peace.” So: though Zeman held out no such hope regarding Yatsenyuk (who was Obama’s choice to lead Ukraine), he did for Poroshenko (who wasn’t Obama’s choice, but who became Ukraine’s President despite Obama’s having wanted Yatsenyuk’s sponsor, the hyper-aggressive Yulia Tymoshenko, to win the May 25th Presidential election, which was held only in Ukraine’s pro-coup northwest, but claimed to possess authority over the entire country).[Editor: Further events have confirmed that Poroshenko is not at all a man of peace, including his lie at Davos that 9000 Russian troops had invaded Ukraine.]

What this statement from Zeman indicates is that the European Union is trying to deal with Poroshenko, as the “good cop” in a “good cop, bad cop” routine, with Yatsenyuk playing the bad cop; and, so, the EU’s policies regarding Ukraine will depend upon what comes forth from Poroshenko, not at all upon what comes from the more clearly pro-war, anti-peace, Yatsenyuk.

Furthermore, Zeman’s now publicly asserting that the overthrow of Yanukovych was a coup instead of having merely expressed the democratic intentions of most of the Maidan demonstrators, constitutes a sharp break away from U.S. President Barack Obama, who was behind that Ukrainian coup and who endorses its current leaders. Continue reading

American troops in Ukraine? You bet.

From the Ron Paul Institute, January 23, 2015

US-backed president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, was among the elites gathering in Davos, Switzerland this week to attend the 2015 World Economic Forum. During his speech he made the remarkable claim that 9,000 Russian troops were currently fighting in Ukraine on behalf of the independence-seeking areas of the country. These 9,000 troops have brought with them tanks, heavy artillery, and armored vehicles, he claimed. “Is this not aggression?” he asked the gathered elites.

The US was quick to amplify Poroshenko’s claims, with US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power Tweeting today:

Time and again, #Putin has extended an olive branch in one hand, while passing out Grad missiles & tanks with the other. #Ukraine
— Samantha Power (@AmbassadorPower)
January 21, 2015

State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked whether the US might at least admit that the missiles fired by the Kiev authorities into residential areas in eastern Ukraine this week were a violation of the September ceasefire agreed upon in Minsk, Belarus. She refused to admit as much, and in fact she refused to even admit that the shells killing scores of civilians this past week were fired by the US-backed regime in Kiev. “Russia is not complying” with the agreement was all she would say.

NATO agreed with the US government assessment, adding that the movement of heavy equipment from Russia into Ukraine had increased in pace recently.

There appears to be a problem, however. The 9,000 troops and heavy weapons and equipment that purportedly accompanies them have been seen by no one. There are no satellite photos of what would certainly be a plainly visible incursion. We know from incredibly detailed satellite photos of Boko Haram’s recent massacre in Nigeria that producing evidence of such large scale movement is entirely within the realm of US and NATO technological capabilities. Still there remains a lack of evidence.

Moreover, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is on the ground monitoring the border crossings between Ukraine and Russia, reported just this week that, “At the two BCPs (border crossing points) the OM (observer mission) did not observe military movement, apart from vehicles of the Russian Federation border guard service.” If there has been an increase of Russian heavy weapons into Ukraine, why are the satellites in the skies and the eyes on the ground blind to them?

Poroshenko, who last week vowed to re-take eastern Ukraine by force, this week offered a different solution to the ongoing conflict:

The solution is very simple — stop supplying weapons … withdraw the troops and close the border. If you want to discuss something different, it means you are not for peace, you are for war.

That is probably good advice, but how ironic that it comes the very same week the Pentagon announced that US soldiers would be deployed to Ukraine this spring to begin training that country’s national guard. US military on the ground in Ukraine is a significant escalation, far beyond the previous deployment of additional US and NATO troops in neighboring Poland and the Baltics.

Additionally, the US announced it was transferring heavy military equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces, including the Kozak mine-resistant personnel carrier and some 35 other armored trucks.

The US government has reportedly set aside several million dollars to help train the Ukrainian national guard. Considering the fact that the national guard was only re-formed after last year’s US-backed coup and is made up in large part of neo-Nazis from the extremist Right Sector, one would hope some of the money is spent dissuading members from such an odious ideology.

So there may well be Russian troops and equipment on the ground in Ukraine — though so far no proof exists and the Russians deny it. But we know very well that there are US troops and heavy military equipment on the ground in Ukraine because the US openly admits it! So Russia has no business claiming interest in unrest on its doorstep, but the US has every right to become militarily involved in a conflict which has nothing to do with us nearly 5,000 miles away? Interventionist illogic.



Yushchenko: More than half of Ukrainians will not support joining NATO or a single official language

Posted on Fort Russ, December 30, 2014
Translated from Russian by J. Hawk

The former President of Ukraine gave Poroshenko and his advisors a lecture on how to end the civil war and how to start a national dialogue.

The former President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko stated in an interview that more than half of Ukrainians would not support the country joining NATO or enshrining the Ukrainian language as the only official language.

“If you are in favor of a single official language in Ukraine, please keep in mind that more than half of the people would not support this idea.”

Yushchenko also believes that the Poroshenko regime’s desire to push the country into NATO is likewise a measure to which 60% of Ukrainians are opposed.

“If you want to transform Ukraine’s security policy toward membership in a European collective security structures, keep in mind that 60% of the country will not understand why.”

In addition, Viktor Yushchenko argued in favor of a general national dialogue:

“Whenever we talk of policies that may be given the label “Yanukovych policies”, one has to remember that, in addition to Yanukovych, these policies were backed by 12-14 million of Ukrainians. So if we want to reach a national consensus, a national rapprochement, we shouldn’t speak of Yanukovych but rather those 14 millions who think along the same lines as Yanukovych. We have to understand our strategic interests and our past, all the while preserving a national dialogue.”

The former president underscored the need for the national dialogue to compel Poroshenko and his supporters to take into consideration the interests of all citizens of Ukraine, so that Ukraine’s diversity would never again become the source of conflict:

“The diversity of our country cannot simply be a set of contradictions, but rather a distinguishing feature, and once we realize that these differences exist then the next step is to plan how to reconcile these differences.”

Translator’s Note:

Given the mounting pressure from the West to come to terms with Russia (as evidenced by newly announced IMF conditions for the next loan to Ukraine, which include Russia’s postponement of Ukraine’s repayment of its debt to Russia), it may be that Yushchenko, while an opponent of Yanukovych in the presidential elections, is nevertheless being seen both by Ukrainians and (especially) the West as someone more capable of effectively enforcing a more conciliatory Ukrainian policy toward Russia. This is something that Poroshenko (due to the absence of his own political team) is incapable of doing (which is reflected by the cold shoulder he has received from the EU) and the Yatsenyuk/Turchinov clique is unwilling to do, preferring instead to attempt extorting billions of euros by threatening Ukraine’s collapse—which would be very difficult to avoid in the absence of the resumption of favorable Russian economic policies toward Ukraine. Yushchenko represents a substantially pro-Western political tilt without the virulent anti-Russian rhetoric that the current Kiev government excels at, which arguably makes him the most qualified to move Ukraine out of its current crisis.


Original: http://dnrespublika.info/yushhenko-bolshe-poloviny-ukraincev-ne-podderzhat-kurs-v-nato-edinyjj-gosyazyk/

National Guard takes over Odessa in an “Anti-Terror Sweep”

Posted on Fort Russ, January 3, 2015
Vajag_2007 – Live Journal
Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus

A large number of well-equipped, armed men on “Kraz” trucks arrived to Odessa train station.
According to the publication “Dumskaya”[1], at least two columns entered the city: from Tairov and through the village Kotovsky.

As explained by the press service of the Odessa police, “gunners which scared the citizens are soldiers of the National Guard, who will participate in the anti-terrorist crime-prevention sweep of the city.”

“They will patrol the streets together with the police, special battalion (former “Berkut”), the state security service, police and other security forces,” – said the head of the Department Vladimir Shablienko.

As reported by “Politnavigator”[2] earlier the Odessa Police HQ announced the beginning of the anti-terrorist operation. During their duty police officers will stop and check suspicious persons, inspect personal belongings – informed the Odessa police.

A few days ago, the Deputy of the Verkhovna Rada Alexey Goncharenko from “Poroshenko Block” said that Kyiv has retained control of Odessa only due to the position of pro-Ukrainian forces, which on May 2 did not allow the pro-Russian citizens to stage a “Russian spring”.

“Odessa was the first city that gave resistance to the separatists. On May 2nd in Odessa, when an attempt was made to disperse a pro-Ukrainian march and seize the Odessa administration building, it was stopped not by police, not by the SBU, not by the national guard, but by ordinary Odessans, which came to the city centre. And this is very important,” – said Goncharenko.

In October 2014 the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko denied the opportunity of militia’s advance in the direction of Odessa. According to him, Odessa in the Western and Russian media is now called “a banderite city”.[3]

Translator’s Note:

“Democracy” was one of the main goals declared by the Maidan movement, which promised a better future for Ukrainians. Not only the leaders of Maidan toppled a democratically elected president, but also marginalized, silenced, murdered and prosecuted a large part of Ukrainian population, just for their political beliefs – not wanting to sell out the country to the Western handlers and instead wanting to maintain the close ties with Russia, which were built over centuries, and not wanting to worship a war-criminal Stepan Bandera who inspired a brutal mass murder of 100’s of thousands men, woman and children, because they weren’t Ukrainian in the Volyn Massacre. Instead of an all-inclusive dialog and political process the opposition to the new government is dealt with by force. It is no surprise that force is the only tool that the opposition is left to resort to in the absence of a political solution. The question remains, what has changed recently which led to such a radical response by the Ukrainian government? The answer could range from an increase of a threat to the authorities on the ground to a general intensification of a crack down across the potential “hot spots” in South-Eastern Ukraine due to an influx of nationalist military commanders in the Ukrainian government, who successfully advocated for an increase in the funding for the military as of January 1, 2015 on the backs of the vulnerable sectors of the population.


Original post

[1] http://dumskaya.net/news/v-odesse-nachalas-antiterroristicheskaya-otrabot-042412/

[2] http://www.politnavigator.net/v-odesse-idet-analog-ato-kucha-bronetekhniki-avtomatchiki-i-dosmotr-veshhejj-lyubogo-prokhozhego-video.html

[3] http://www.politnavigator.net/odessa-banderovskijj-gorod-i-ehto-kompliment-poroshenko.html

U.S. House of Representatives votes 98% to donate U.S. weapons to Ukraine. U.S. public is 67% against. Is this democracy?

By Eric Zuesse, December 7, 2014

In a remarkable disjunction between voters and their elected (supposed) representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, the members of the House voted on December 4th, by  411 “Yea” to 10 “Nay,” to donate U.S. weapons to the bankrupt Ukrainian Government, which is engaged in trying to eliminate the civilian population of the portion of Ukraine that had voted 90% for the former Ukrainian President whom the U.S. Government (CIA, State Department, USAID, etc.) had overthrown in a violent coup in February of this year. (Click onto that link for full documentation.)

This 411 to 10 vote margin is 98%, and it contrasts starkly against the 62% of Americans who, in the most recent poll, opposed sending U.S. arms to the Ukrainian Government; 30% favored sending those weapons. (8% had no opinion.) (The above link includes also that poll-result.) So, 67% of those who had an opinion (62% divided by 92% is 67%) shared the view of the 10 members (2%) of the U.S. House who voted against this measure. Only 33% of the surveyed Americans who had an opinion on it shared the view of the 411 House members (98%) who voted in favor of this measure.

This is a war-and-peace issue, so the U.S. Constitution assigns it to the Congress; the President is assigned the executive function of carrying out the will of Congress, as the Commander-in-Chief and U.S. Chief Executive Officer.

However, the situation here is actually even a bit more extreme than that, because the way that the Pew poll of the U.S. public was phrased, it had the U.S. “sending arms and military supplies to the Ukrainian government,” and not “donating arms and military supplies to the Ukrainian government.” The Ukrainian Government cannot possibly actually pay back all of the financial obligations that it already has, much less pay those plus interest, and buy more weapons. As was documented in the first of the links within the linked report above, “The only reason that things haven’t totally imploded [for the Ukrainian Government] is because of the $18 billion package of assistance from the IMF and the $9 billion in additional assistance pledged by the United States and the European Union.” All of the weapons that the U.S. will be technically ‘selling’ to Ukraine will now go to the back of the line of creditors for Ukrainian debt — never be paid. U.S. arms-makers will receive payment for those arms from U.S. taxpayers (the sale won’t be merely technical for them, nor for the lobbyists they pay), it won’t be paid actually by the Ukrainian Government. Consequently, the U.S. taxpayer is totally funding Ukraine’s bombing campaign going forward, to eliminate the residents in the area which overwhelmingly supported the previous Ukrainian President.

In fact, on September 18th, when the U.S.-installed new Ukrainian President was greeted with standing ovations by a special Joint Session of the U.S. Congress, he addressed them and the weapons-lobbyists to cheers as if he were a hero; he said that this was “the forefront of the global fight for democracy,” and said “I urge America to help us, I urge America to lead the way.” He was doing a sell-job for them and their financial backers. Of course, those financial backers also fund the sale of these politicians to the public.

His use of the term “democracy” there was interesting. A secretly recorded phone conversation on 25 February 2014, right after the coup, was subsequently uploaded to the Internet, and the discussants were Catherine Ashton, the EU’s Foreign Affairs Minister, and her appointed investigator into how Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych came to be ousted on February 22nd, Urmas Paet. In it, was revealed that the snipers who precipitated the coup had been hired by “somebody from the new coalition” (perhaps the U.S. CIA) that replaced Yanukovych, and that, “it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, … they don’t want to investigate [since they were its beneficiaries].” Paet told Ashton that, “what was quite disturbing, the same oligarch [Poroshenko — and so when he became ‘democratically elected’ as President of all of Ukraine on May 25th, he already knew this] told [Paet] that well, all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, [this will shock Ashton, who had just said that Yanukovych had masterminded the killings] that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides.” So, Poroshenko himself knows that his regime is based on a false-flag (meaning set up so as to falsely blame the other side) U.S.-controlled coup d’etat against his predecessor. So, there can be no reasonable doubt that, despite his rhetoric when speaking before the Special Joint Session of the U.S. Congress on September 18th, Poroshenko actually knew, by no later than February 25th, that the regime that replaced Yanukovych was being appointed by the United States Government, hardly a ‘democratic Maidan’ event (though it is sold as if it were). Continue reading