Military vehicles on the way, Biden says U.S. troops to train Ukrainian National Guard soon

From Rick Rozoff

UNIAN
March 19, 2015
Biden: US military to train Ukraine’s National Guard soldiers soon

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has discussed the situation in the Donbas with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, and informed him about the latest laws adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements, the Ukrainian president’s press service reported on Wednesday.

Speaking by phone with Poroshenko, Biden said U.S. President Barack Obama had decided to send U.S. servicemen to conduct the training of 780 Ukrainian soldiers of the Ukrainian National Guard in the near future.

The Vice President also said that a first shipment of U.S. military vehicles, which Washington is sending to enhance the country’s defense, would arrive in Ukraine in late March.

Ukrainian President thanked the United States for its strong stance with regard to Crimea and consistent support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/military-vehicles-on-the-way-biden-says-u-s-troops-to-train-ukrainian-national-guard-soon/

Back to war? Ukrainian parliament rejects the Minsk agreement

“No special status or authority, not provided for in the Constitution,” – confirmed speaker Vladimir Groysman

“We can negotiate only when Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts hold elections under the full control of the Ukrainian government” -declared Deputy Speaker Andriy Paruby

From Fort Russ

Back to war?

March 17, 2015
Translated by Kristina Rus

A month after the Minsk agreement the masks are off. New weapons are coming, American instructors are in Ukraine, the IMF credit is approved. Time to get back to killing the kids of Donbass. Where are the sanctions on Kiev?

Did anyone have any doubts that those who chose bombs instead of talks a year ago will flip and turn into peacemakers? There is no other choice in the alternate reality perpetuated by the Ukrainian media. There is no other choice for the ultra-nationalist Kiev government, like there was no choice for Hitler. It has to follow the program. They only understand the language of force. Only when Novorossia forces enter Kiev will anything change. 

The only reason they paused the war is because they were annihilated, and couldn’t physically go on. But that’s no longer a problem, thanks to the Americans, who can’t wait to start killing the Russians.

Will Europe open its eyes and realize what monster they helped create?

Mikhail Ryabov for Politnavigator:

Verkhovnaya Rada rejected the Minsk agreements, promising a storm of Donetsk

The Verkhovna Rada after a day of backroom negotiations on Tuesday night voted in favor of a resolution on Donbass. In fact, the documents violate the Minsk agreement. Firstly, the Ukrainian side has already failed the deadline for the adoption of laws. Secondly, MPs rejected the dialogue between Kiev and DPR and LPR, declaring the Republics – “occupied territories”. Thirdly, the Ukrainian Parliament appealed to the UN Security Council with a proposal for the deployment of a peacekeeping mission, which is opposed by the militia. Moreover, the representatives of Peter Poroshenko had promised that the army will eventually bring Ukrainian order to Donetsk and Lugansk.

“We can negotiate only when Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts hold elections under the full control of the Ukrainian government – not under the supervision of the Yakut tanks and Chechen snipers. It is therefore not surprising that since the morning the leaders of the terrorist groups are screaming that these laws undermine the negotiations,”  – declared Deputy Speaker Andrey Paruby.

[Who should talk about snipers! So the counteroffer is – to negotiate with themselves – KR]

He was supported by the MP-commander Andrew Teteryuk. According to him, Kiev will agree to the elections in Donetsk and Luhansk, only when “all the fighters, all equipment, all Russian mercenaries leave the territory, and the process of renewal of life on our Ukrainian lands will begin”.

The only one who tried to protest, was the deputy Yuriy Voropayev from the Opposition Bloc.

“These laws ask one side to capitulate, and only after that projects that provide special conditions will be considered. More precisely, these are just instructions for the Cabinet of Ministers to prepare special conditions. We cannot vote on this bill, it will reject the peace,” – said Voropaev.

“What party do you represent in the Parliament? The other side are Putin’s occupants! The occupier will be forced to capitulate, or will be destroyed by the Ukrainian army! Don’t listen to the militants, the State Duma, don’t be afraid to vote for Ukraine!” – said Paruby.

No special status or authority, not provided for in the Constitution,” – confirmed speaker Vladimir Groysman. According to him, the task now for the Ukrainian side is “to free from the clutches of the aggressor, the aggressor and terrorist,” Donetsk and Lugansk.

“These laws are not for Putin, not for Europe or America, but for Ukraine and its future. They lead not to the battle for the ruins of our land, but to a future resumption of sovereignty on the territory that is temporarily controlled by the rebels and the Russian army.

They provide the possibility of elections then and only then, when the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian state will bring the Ukrainian flag, the Ukrainian parties and laws to this territory, when there will be Ukrainian parties, the police, the CEC. The laws do not give any concessions to the terrorists,” – said the deputy Yury Lutsenko, the head of the faction of the Poroshenko Bloc.

Oleg Lyashko and Yulia Tymoshenko stated that they will not even vote for the laws in this form.

“They propose to implement what was signed in Minsk… Read the Minsk agreement: “until the end of 2015 – the establishment of a special status for Donbass”! Crimea already had a special status!” said Lyashko.

Yulia Tymoshenko also rejected any dialogue with the LPR and DPR. In her opinion, otherwise at the elections in Donetsk and Lugansk “will be selected the people whose hands are covered in blood, who killed Ukrainians. Does anyone have any doubts, which judges and prosecutors they will agree on for the Ukrainian authorities to confirm?”

The vote in the Verkhovnaya Rada has already received a sharp reaction from Moscow. Russian political analyst Alexey Chesnakov stated that Peter Poroshenko violated the Minsk agreement.

“Today in Parliament – another circus. Poroshenko and company are playing that part of the coalition does not want to vote for a resolution defining the boundaries of special areas. Blatantly lying, in order to then lie to the Germans, the French and us, that the voting was difficult and their option is the maximum, that can be achieved from the Rada”, – said the expert.

KR: The Rada had no problem voting for population-reducing budget after five attempts, so have no doubt – if they vote like this it’s because they have the green light from the puppet-masters. 
Don’t have any illusions – they will blame the resumption of the war on DPR and LPR.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s speech in Munich

Posted on Fort Russ, February 7, 2015

February 7, 2015
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation
Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus

Remarks and replies to media questions by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, during the discussion at the 51st Munich Conference on Security Policy, Munich, February 7 2015

Ladies and gentlemen,

Mr. Wolfgang Ischinger included in the agenda the topic of “the collapse of world development”. It is impossible not to agree that the events unfolded not by the optimistic scenario. But you cannot accept arguments of some of our colleagues that a sudden, rapid collapse of the world order, which existed for decades, had occurred.

On the contrary, the events of the past year have confirmed the validity of our warnings regarding deep, systemic problems in the organization of European security and international relations in general. I would like to remind about the speech by President Putin spoken here eight years ago.

The design of stability, based on the UN Charter and the Helsinki principles was long ago undermined by the actions of the US and its allies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, by NATO expansion to the East, the creation of new lines of separation. The project of building a “common European home” failed because our partners in the West were guided not by the interests of building an open architecture of security with mutual respect for interests, but illusions and beliefs of the winners in the “cold war”.

Solemnly adopted in the framework of the OSCE and the Council of the Russia-NATO obligation not to provide own security at the expense of security of others, remained on paper, but in practice was ignored.

The issue of missile defense is a stark evidence of the powerful destructive impact of unilateral steps in the field of military building, contrary to the legitimate interests of other states. Our proposals for joint work on missile defense issue were rejected. Instead we were advised to join the creation of the US global missile defense system, strictly according to the designs of Washington, which, as we’ve outlined and explained factually, carries real risks for the Russian nuclear deterrence.

Any action that undermines strategic stability, inevitably entails response measures. Thereby a long-term damage is inflicted to the entire system of international treaties in the field of arms control, the viability of which directly depends on factors of missile defense.

We don’t even understand, what could be the reason for the American obsession of creating a global missile defense system? The desire for unquestionable military superiority? The faith in the possibility to technologically solve the problems that are essentially political? Anyway, the missile threats have not decreased, but in the Euro-Atlantic area emerged a strong irritant, which will take a long time to get rid of. But we are ready for it. Another destabilizing factor was the refusal of the United States and other NATO members to ratify the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which buried this agreement.

Each difficult situation, created by themselves, our American colleagues are trying to blame on Russia. Take the revived in recent conversations The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Specialists are well aware of the actions of the United States, contrary to the spirit and letter of this document. For example, in the framework of the creation of a global missile defense, Washington began a large-scale program of creating missile-targets with characteristics similar to or close to the forbidden ground-based ballistic missiles. Under a contractual definition of ground-based medium-range cruise missiles fall the widely used by the U.S. shock drones. Expressly prohibited by the treaty are the anti-missile interceptors, which will soon be deployed in Romania and Poland, as they can be used to launch medium-range cruise missiles.

Refusing to acknowledge these facts, the American colleagues claim they have some “reasonable” claims towards Russia in relation to INF, but carefully avoid specifics.

Taking into account these and many other factors, to try to narrow this crisis to the events of the past year, in our opinion, is to fall into a dangerous self-deception.

It is the culmination of the course of our Western colleagues over the last quarter-century to capture by any means their dominance in world affairs, to capture the geopolitical space in Europe. The CIS countries, our closest neighbors, connected with us by centuries of economic, humanitarian, historical, cultural, and even family ties, are demanded to make a choice – either with the West or against the West. Is a logic of zero sum game, which everyone wanted to leave in the past.

The strategic partnership between Russia and the European Union could not stand the test of strength, because the EU chose a confrontational path of development of the mechanisms for mutually beneficial interaction. How can one not remember the missed opportunity to implement nominated by the Chancellor A. Merkel in June 2010 in Meseberg initiative to establish a Committee of the Russia-EU Foreign and Security Policy at the level of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Russia supported this idea, but the EU rejected it. But such a mechanism of permanent dialogue (if it was created) would allow to more quickly and effectively solve problems and to remove mutual concerns in advance.

As for the Ukraine, unfortunately, at each stage of the development of the crisis our American colleagues, and under their influence – the European Union, took steps leading to escalation. This happened when the EU refused to discuss with Russia the consequences of activating the economic bloc of the association agreement with Ukraine, and then directly supported the coup, and before that – the anti-government riots. This happened when our Western partners have repeatedly issued indulgences to Kiev authorities, who instead of fulfilling the promises of starting a national dialogue, began a large-scale military operation, declaring their own citizens “terrorists” for disagreeing with the unconstitutional change of government and a rampage of ultra-nationalists.

It is very difficult to explain why, in the minds of many of our colleagues, the universal principles of settlement of internal conflicts do not apply to Ukraine, involving, primarily, the inclusive political dialogue between the protagonists. Why in cases such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Mali, South Sudan, our partners urge the government to negotiate with the opposition, the insurgents, in some cases even with extremists, and in relation to the Ukrainian crisis act differently, actually supporting the military operation in Kiev, up to attempts to justify the use of cluster munitions.

Unfortunately, our Western colleagues are apt to close their eyes to everything that is said and done by the Kiev authorities, including inciting xenophobic sentiments. Let me quote: “Ukrainian social-nationalism considers the Ukrainian nation a blood-racial community”. And further: “The question of total Ukranization in the future social-nationalist state will be resolved within three to six months with strict and prudent state policy.” The author is a deputy of the Ukrainian Verkhovnaya Rada, Andrey Biletsky, the commander of the regiment “Azov”, which actively participates in the fighting in Donbass. For ethnically pure Ukraine, the annihilation of Russians and Jews was repeatedly publicly called by the other figures, who broke into politics and power in Ukraine, including Yarosh,  Tiagnybok, and leaders of the Radical Party of Lyashko, represented in Verkhovna Rada. These statements did not cause any reaction in Western capitals. I do not think that today’s Europe can afford to ignore the danger of the spread of the neo-Nazi virus.

The Ukrainian crisis cannot be resolved by military force. This was confirmed last summer, when the situation on the battlefield forced to sign the Minsk agreements. It is confirmed now, when another attempt to win a military victory is drowning. But despite this, in some Western countries increasingly there are calls to strengthen support for the course of the Kiev authorities for militarization of society and the state, to “pump” Ukraine with deadly weapons and pull it into NATO. The growing opposition in Europe to such plans gives hope, as it may only exacerbate the tragedy of the Ukrainian people.

Russia will continue to seek to establish peace. We consistently advocate for the cessation of hostilities, the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the beginning of direct negotiations of Kiev with Donetsk and Lugansk about specific ways to restore the common economic, social and political space within the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This was the subject of numerous initiatives of Vladimir Putin within the “Normandy” format, which allowed to start the Minsk process, our subsequent efforts for its development, including yesterday’s talks in the Kremlin by leaders of Russia, Germany and France. As you know, these negotiations will continue. We believe that there is every opportunity to achieve results and to agree on recommendations that will allow the parties to really untangle this conflict web.

It is important that everyone realizes the real extent of risks. It’s time to get rid of the habit to consider each issue separately, not seeing “the forest behind the trees”. It is time to assess the situation comprehensively. The world today is on a steep fault associated with changing of historical periods. “Birth pains” of the new world order are manifested through the increase of conflicts in international relations. If instead of strategic global vision, prevail the tactical decisions made by politicians with an eye on the coming elections at home, there is a danger of a loss of control over the levers of global governance.

Let me remind you that at the initial stage of the Syrian conflict, many in the West urged not to exaggerate the threat of extremism and terrorism, claiming that it will somehow dissolve on its own, and that the main thing – is to bring about regime change in Damascus. We see what happened. The vast territory in the Middle East, Africa, the Afghanistan-Pakistan area became uncontrollable by legitimate authorities. Extremism overflows to other regions, including Europe, aggravating risks of proliferation of WMDs. The situation in the Middle East settlement, in other areas of regional conflicts is gaining an explosive nature. An adequate strategy for containment of these challenges is still not developed.

I would hope that today’s and tomorrow’s discussions here in Munich will bring us closer to estimating the level of the efforts to find collective answers to common threats. The conversation, if you count on significant results, can only be equal, without ultimatums and threats.

We remain convinced that the whole complex of problems would be much easier to solve if the major players have agreed on strategic orientations of their relationship. Recently, the permanent Secretary of the French Academy, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, said that “the real Europe may not exist without Russia”. We would like to understand if our partners share this view, or do they plan to continue the course of deepening the division of the European space and setting its fragments against each another? If they want to create a security architecture with Russia, without Russia or against Russia? Of course, our American partners should answer this question.

We have long proposed to start building a common economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, a space based on the principles of equal and indivisible security, which would include the members of integrated unions, and other countries which are not part of those unions. Of particular relevance is the establishment of robust mechanisms for interaction between the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and the EU. We welcome the emerging support of this idea of responsible European leaders.

In the year of the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki act and the 25th anniversary of the Paris Charter, Russia would like to infuse these documents with real life, to prevent replacing of the principles, enshrined there, to ensure the stability and prosperity throughout the entire Euro-Atlantic space on the basis of genuine equality, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests. We wish success to the “group of the wise”, formed in the framework of the OSCE, which must reach a consensus in their recommendations.

Marking the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we should be aware of responsibility that rests on all of us.

Thank you for your attention.

Q&A

Question: I understand all the above-mentioned problems in relation to the United States and missile defense. Besides the fact that according to the INF, Russia equals drones to cruise missiles, I would like to note that the US President B. Obama had significantly reduced European missile defense. If there are problems in relation to the United States, why should Ukraine pay for it? Referring to the annexation of Crimea and attempts to divide Ukraine. What did the poor Ukrainians do that you punish them for the sins of the Americans?

Lavrov: I understand that you have, of course, a twisted perception. Don’t confuse apples and oranges. Now they say “we will resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and the whole system of security and stability will start working on its own.” On the contrary. The crisis needs to be resolved, it is the first priority, but we cannot ignore the fact that all the agreements concluded by the end of the “cold war” are not followed.

We have no desire to seek revenge, especially at someone else’s expense. We want to have normal relations with the United States. It was not us, who destroyed the deployed mechanisms which have been established in recent years and which provided daily contact and mutual clearing of concerns. It was not us who pulled out of the Missile Defense Treaty. It was not us who refused to ratify the adapted CFE Treaty. Now we need to collect bit by bit what we still have left and somehow based on the reconfirmation of the Helsinki principles to negotiate a new security system, which would be comfortable for everyone, including Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova – all whom our American colleagues had put before a choice: to go towards the West and to reduce cooperation with Russia. It is a fact.

I am aware that American ambassadors around the world receive such instructions. I see here A. Vershbow, who recently gave an interview, calling NATO “the most peaceful bloc in the world” and “the hope of the European stability and security.” And who bombed Yugoslavia, Libya, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions? The achievements brought by unilateral actions we are seeing now in the Middle East. We want NATO to not be just an exemplary organization, which it is presented as, but a participant in equal dialogue for stability. What’s wrong with that? Everyone wants us to recognize a subordinate role of all others in relation to the United States and NATO. I don’t think it is in the interests of world peace and stability.

With regard to the events in Ukraine, the U.S. President Barack Obama recently said openly that the United States was the broker in the process of transition (transit) of power in Ukraine. Modest formulation, but we know very well how it happened, who openly discussed on the phone the composition of personalities that should be represented in the new Ukrainian government, and much more. We know what happens now, who routinely monitored events on Maidan. There were no our military specialists and experts.

We want very much for the Ukrainian nation to regain its unity, but it must be done on the basis of real national dialogue. When the central government decided to celebrate as national holidays the birthdays of Stephan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, the date of formation of the “Ukrainian Insurgent Army”, the question arises – how can these holidays be celebrated in the East of Ukraine? There is no way. And the West does not want to celebrate May 9th [Victory over Hitler in the Great Patriotic War -tr.]. Without mentioning other specific features of the Ukrainian society, just this requires some political arrangements.

They are probably embarrassed to say it here, but now Ukraine is undergoing mobilization, which is running into serious difficulties. Representatives of the Hungarian, Romanian minorities feel “positive” discrimination, because they are called up in much larger proportions than ethnic Ukrainians. Why not talk about it? Or that in Ukraine reside not only Ukrainians and Russians, but there are other nationalities which by fate ended up in this country and want to live in it. Why not provide them with equal rights and take into account their interests? During the elections to the Verkhovnaya Rada the Hungarian minority asked to organize constituencies in such a way that at least one ethnic Hungarian would make it to the Rada. The constituencies were “sliced” so that none of the Hungarians made it. All this suggests that there is something to discuss. There are real problems that don’t allow the Ukrainian state to get out of this severe crisis, but they are ignored in the West. I have talked to many, including those sitting here, when they introduced a law on lustration. One-on-one I was told that this is a terrible law, which urgently needs to be cancelled. I asked why this is not talked about publicly, and heard that there is an understanding that it is necessary to support the Ukrainian government, and not to criticize it. What else is there to say?

I hope that yesterday’s efforts made by the presidents of France, Russia and the Chancellor of Germany, will produce a result that will be supported by the parties of the conflict and will actually calm down the situation, starting the much-needed national dialogue on ways to solve all the problems – social, economic and political.

Question: Going Back to the results of yesterday’s talks in Moscow and the day before yesterday in Kiev, the good news is that the Minsk agreement is still on the agenda, but the bad news is that not all the signatories of these agreements agree to comply with them. Meaning the representatives from DPR and LPR are leading an offensive, artillery fire, etc. The Russian Federation also signed the Minsk agreement. Now there are attempts to revise the line of contact. There is no pressure on the militia, although Russia recognized that it can exert such pressure. Do you actually plan to implement the Minsk agreement? What guarantees of the implementation of all 12 points of the Minsk agreements and pressure on DPR and LPR can you give, as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation?

Lavrov: As soon as the main participants of the Minsk process – the Ukrainian authorities and representatives of the proclaimed republics of DPR and LPR – will reach an agreement on all practical aspects of implementation of each of Minsk points, I am convinced that Russia will be among those who will provide such guarantees – whether in the OSCE, or in the UN Security Council. I am convinced that Germany, France and other countries will also be able to provide such guarantees. But you can guarantee only what has been done and achieved. You have to agree directly. We should not pretend that these people will obey [Russia] unequivocally. They live on their own land and are fighting for it. When people say that they would not be able to provide superiority on the battlefield, I will say that theirs is a just cause. And Ukrainian soldiers don’t understand why they are thrown to battle. I repeat, direct negotiations are needed.

Once the US Administration was criticized for the fact that it actively maintained contacts with the Taliban via Doha (Qatar). In response to criticism the administration asked, why criticize: “Yes, they are enemies, but one does not negotiate with friends. Negotiations are held with the enemies”. If the Ukrainian authorities consider their citizens – enemies, they will have to negotiate in any case. Our Ukrainian colleagues should not hope that the blind support, they receive from the outside, will solve all the problems. Such support without any critical analysis of the events is spinning some heads. Just as in 2008, it spun the head of Mikhail Saakashvili. Everyone knows what came of it.

[Editor: Additional questions and answers translated below]

Kristina Rus: 

When Lavrov says, Russia supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine, it doesn’t mean that it wants Ukraine to remain in it’s current boundaries. What it means, is that it is not up to Russia, but up to the citizens of Ukraine to decide, whether to remain united or not. He also brings up the differences in the mentality and culture of Eastern and the Western Ukraine, which need to be addressed. “To be addressed,” does not mean “to be resolved”, especially when they are irreconcilable

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/lavrovs-munich-speech-full-transcript.html

Editor: What follows are additional questions and answers not translated on Fort Russ from the text on

http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/5E26BDE162FEC0E643257DE5004B5FE0

This is a rough translation via Google — I hope to update with a better translation soon.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We have an extensive network existed bilateral arrangements between Russia and NATO in the NATO-Russia Council, where the military daily contact with each other, had a special meeting of experts from capitals, there were many joint projects to combat terrorism, collective project to develop explosives a detector «STANDEX».

Additional area points of, and was a project on training for Afghanistan’s security services, equipment this service helicopters. There was also a project «Common airspace initiative» (joint initiative on the safety of air space). Now all this is “frozen”, although under these arrangements was quite possible to agree on how to avoid dangerous military activities.

With specific regard to the theme of activity of the Air Force, we have the relevant statistics, which shows that the activity on the NATO side has increased immeasurably more than on the side of Russia. In my opinion, at the end of Jan. our Permanent Representative to NATO Alexander Grushko met with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the subject and gave him «fact-sheet» outlining ongoing contact statistics. We are open to reconstruct the mechanisms of interaction, but for the time being, they are all frozen. There was only the Permanent Representatives Council (the Council of Ambassadors) meetings which are held infrequently. Everything else is closed.

Now even the following problems arise. Apparently, our NATO colleagues want to reduce the physical presence of Russian diplomats in Russia’s permanent mission to NATO. To us restricted access to headquarters, where there is our premises. Perhaps this will promote additional the appearance of “dark spots” in our relationship and will not help to clarify each other’s intentions.

Question: You said that you want to define the general principles of European security. I am afraid that the principles of the EU are based on self-determination and does not correspond to the Russian principles. Do you believe in the sphere of influence, as he said Dzh.Kennon about 60 years ago, many of Russia’s neighbors must choose between being enemies and satellites. In view of the incompatibility of our values what the general rules are possible? Five years ago, Medvedev proposed the concept of a new European security architecture. It did not work, because Russia has a strong influence on its neighbors. Do you see a way out of this situation? Is it possible a compromise between Russian and European approaches to building security in Europe?

Lavrov: Perhaps you did not listen very closely. It was not that the necessary to develop new principles. I said that it is necessary retraining the principles contained in the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, in the documents of the NRC, but this time to confirm with honesty/integrity. And most importantly – give them a binding form.

Mentioned by you, European Security Treaty also did not offer anything new. He only offered in a legally binding form enshrine the principle of the indivisibility of security, which is proclaimed in the OSCE and the NRC. Our NATO colleagues said that the legal guarantees of security have to remain the prerogative of NATO in order to it everyone strove to keep this visual line grew and deepened. Why give up that security was equal? It was proclaimed, and this obligation is have undertaken presidents and prime ministers of the Euro-Atlantic area, the OSCE. It turns out that NATO wants to make safety unequal. Wrote Dzh.Oruell [George Orwell, 1984] that someone was “more equal than others.”

You quoted Dzh.Kennon [George Kennan? Footnote 1 belw]. I can quote another of his statement that the “cold war” was a colossal mistake which the made the West.

No need to invent anything new. You just have to sit down and honestly and then faithfully fulfill what agreed a couple of decades ago.

Question: I agree with you that in the last 25 years, not everything was perfect. We had a lot of disagreements with Russia. We almost signed a partnership agreement aimed at modernizing Russia’s economy – and this is just one example. I believe that we have created such a scheme in Europe, which ensures the territorial integrity and sovereignty of States. Both of these principles have been violated, and we must recognize that Russia is a party to the conflict in Ukraine. We can overcome this crisis only if we properly analyze the political situation in the country. Your description of the situation in Ukraine is unacceptable.

There was an agreement with Viktor Yanukovych, approved by the parliamentary majority. Elections were held, in which 80% voted for the European course. Nationalists, communists and fascists received 2-3% of the vote. That’s what the real situation from which to draw on. In the twenty-first century there should not be grounds for a violation of the principles of sovereignty and territorial values enshrined in Helsinki. The principle of sovereignty is that every nation, including Ukraine, has the right to decide which country to enter into trade agreements. If the next state is trying to control this choice, it is a return to the old policy, and violation of the principle of sovereignty, which currently takes place in Ukraine.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I am sure that your performance will be a good story on television.

There are international rules that, in fact, sometimes treated differently, different actions receive the opposite interpretation. In Crimea, something happened that is provided by the UN Charter – self-determination. In this document, there are several principles and the right of nations to self-determination stands on a key point. Read the Charter! Territorial integrity, sovereignty is obliged to respect. The UN General Assembly adopted a declaration in which they clarified the ratio of basic principles of international law. There it was confirmed that the sovereignty and territorial integrity inviolable and the countries that pretend to respect their sovereignty, have to respect the right of living in these countries and nations do not allow the prevention of self-determination by the use of brute force.

According to you, in Kiev, there was just something for the entire implementation of the agreement, which was signed by President Viktor Yanukovych, as there are elections were held. Firstly, the day after the signing of the agreement, regardless of the location of Viktor Yanukovych (he was in the Ukraine), were attacked his residence, the building of the presidential administration, government buildings, in addition to how many buildings and people burned at “Maidan” in the previous period. But in such a way trampled an agreement that witnessed the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland (by the way, in the hall there Sikorski, who probably can tell your story), in its first paragraph implied the creation of a national unity government. These are the key words. The goal of national unity can not depend on the fate of a single Viktor Yanukovych. If he is gone, now what – you can seize power by force of arms, and do not care about national unity? But you do not agree with this and rightly so, because it is not permissible. So, it happened instead of a national unity government, which by September had to prepare a new constitution, on which must have been a general election. Here are the sequence of actions. But the starting point -National unity. That’s where you need to build a constitution with the views of the entire country.

Instead, when the said agreement has already been consigned to oblivion, Yatsenyuk went to the “Maidan” and announced the creation of a “government of winners.” Then the regions of Ukraine, who have rebelled and began to protest, to organize events, to say that do not accept the results of the coup – they simply began to suppress. First began to arrest the leaders who opposed the coup, and then began to use force. Who attacked whom? Did Donetsk and Lugansk go to storm Kiev? Not at all. In the South-East was sent military groupings by means of which began to try to establish the rule force.

Occurs in Ukraine have seen in the Crimea. In the very early stages of the crisis there was an attempt by “Right Sector” to break through and seize administrative buildings. Thank God, there is an isthmus, and people’s guards stood up and did not let them. In Crimea, held a referendum on independence, and later on joining Russia. In Kosovo, there was no referendum, although US President Barack Obama recently stated that Kosovo – is an exemplary case because there people voted in a referendum. The referendum was not there, as well as many other “referendum”. The unification of Germany took place without a referendum, and we were the active supporters of this.

When World War II ended, if you remember, the Soviet Union opposed the division of Germany. Speaking about the methods that are used instead of direct dialogue, the trouble is that the current President of Ukraine has lost its monopoly on the use of force. The Ukraine created private battalions paid better than the regular army. These battalions under different names (including “Azov” that I quoted) from the regular army deserted the people.

Among those who lead them, there are frankly ultranationalists. We are with you, Mr. E. Brok have long communicate. You even came to Moscow. So my answer to you is very simple. If you want to say angry speeches that will reinforce your position in politics in the European Parliament is one thing, but if you want to talk, let’s sit down and in honesty all Helsinki principles, see why in some cases you do not think that they are violated, and in others – think that it was so.

By the way, recently based in Nuremberg Ukrainian credit rating agency «GFK Ukraine» conducted a survey in the Crimea. According to the results of more than 90% said that they supported the annexation of Crimea to Russia, were against 2%, and 3% said they still do not really understand (what is happening). This statistic is people. Here’s a colleague said that the main principle of the EU – is self-respect. Once you have talked about the country, and in this case there was determination of the people, while it was based on centuries history. We can discuss all this, if you really want to understand our position, and we were guided by. About this many times told Russian President Vladimir Putin. You can, of course, to laugh. If just someone from this to have fun. Laughter is also said to prolong life!

 

Footnote 1

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-blueprint-for-global-domination-from-containment-to-pre-emptive-war-the-1948-truman-doctrine/5400067
America’s Blueprint for Global Domination: From “Containment” to “Pre-emptive War”. The 1948 Truman Doctrine; ANNEX: Archive of (Declassified) Top Secret Policy Planning Document drafted by George F. Kennan

Anti-population budget devours the safety net as Ukraine nears the economic abyss

January 1, 2015
Anatoly Shariy
Translated from Russian by J. Hawk
Posted on Fort Russ

When discussing last week’s actions by Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers, one naturally has to mention the budget. However, the budget has been adopted, so it is too late to really discuss it. It’s like talking about a death sentence once it has been carried out. You can argue it was an unacceptable mistake a hundred times, but cannot reverse it.

On the night of December 23, the government of Ukraine proposed to the Verkhovna Rada the so-called “budget packet”, which included about 50 legislative projects which would make radical changes to many legal codes of Ukraine, including concerning the budget, taxation, customs, and others.
The harsh, and in some places an openly anti-population budget caused not only discussion and disagreement, but also open resistance by the majority of people’s deputies. And we are not even talking about members of the opposition, but the governing parties.
What the government has proposed is an increase (and this during a raging crisis) of the tax burden, the introduction of new taxes on “little Ukrainians”, while at the same time radically cutting budget expenses, including the elimination of practically the entire “welfare state.”
The increase in excise taxes, the refusal to compensate grain traders for the VAT tax, the legalization of gambling, the introduction of estate tax, of housing tax, of retirement income tax, the complete elimination of all tax benefits and discounts to teachers, instructors, the disabled, children with birth defects, Chernobyl victims, and veterans of the Maidan.
Consequently on December 26 the Budget Committee of the Verkhovna Rada received over 300 amendments. In the view of the people’s deputies, such a budget could not be adopted.
But two days later they adopted it anyway. By a hand vote, after a reading of Yatsenyuk’s promises to lighten the impact of the budget in the course of its implementation, the budget for the entire year was adopted.
Incidentally, many of these radical changes were introduced by Yatsenyuk after his “consultations with international financial organizations.”
And there is a lot to consult about.
Ukraine’s foreign debt as of December 1, 2014, reached 1 trillion 33 billion 898 million 479 thousand hryvnia. The rapid devaluation of the hryvnia means the debt has become unmanageable.
Yatsenyuk’s government has been asking the West for money since March, and it has not been especially choosy when it comes to creditors. We’ll take any money, from anyone, on any conditions.
As a result Ukraine’s foreign debt has increased by 3.833 billion USD and its growth is not about to stop. The declarations that Ukraine cannot survive 2015 without another 15 billion USD merely confirms it.
The Cabinet of Ministers is also entering the New year with huge salary arrears. It is increasingly difficult to dismiss the discontent as the product of “Kremlin-paid provocateurs”, because the level of arrears is so huge.
As of December 1, the arrears had reached its 2003 level. The arrears in education were 192.2 million hryvnia, health care—184.4 million, science—123 million, and in art—18 million. To be sure, one can assume that 60% of the arrears concern territory no longer controlled by Kiev, where the Ukrainian government, in its infinite wisdom, had stopped paying salaries altogether.
But what about wage arrears on the wholly controlled regions, such as the Kiev region (124.3 million), the Kharkov region (123.7 million), the Dnepropetrovsk region (101.5 million), or the Lvov region (73 million)?
And the wage arrears are showing an interesting dynamic. In Kiev the arrears increased over the course of 2014 by a factor of three, on the Donbass by 9 times, but in the Dnepropetrovsk region by a factor of 14.5? What is the reason for that? Is the war an excuse on which everything is blamed?
Will the situation improve? No doubt it will, but not in Ukraine. And the Cabinet of Ministers itself is confirming it.
On December 22 the government adopted resolution no. 709, which amends the resolution no. 404 adopted on August 27, 2014.
On that date the wise Arseniy Yatsenyuk adopted forecast of Ukraine’s socioeconomic development for 2015. They adopted two scenarios: a pessimistic one and an optimistic one.
We wrote about them earlier, while noting at the time such forecasts are not worth the paper they are written on. And, by way of confirmation, the Cabinet of Ministers has “corrected” its own predictions.
Thus the best-case scenario GDP growth was supposed to be +0.3%, while the worst case scenario was +0.2%. Now the worst case scenario is -4.3%, while the BEST is -2.0%.
The optimistic inflation estimate in August was 10.9%, and the pessimistic one—13%. Now the optimistic estimate predicts inflation of 17.2%, while the pessimistic estimate predicts 17.9%.
This really speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
These numbers are clearly rigged and are entirely meaningless. They mean nothing at all, they are taken out of thin air.
And, even though the December forecast is actually the more realistic one, it won’t make things better for Ukrainians. If anything, it will only get worse.
Happy New Year!
Translator’s Note: 

What Shariy hints at but does not fully explain is that such forecasts are important when determining Ukraine’s eligibility for foreign loans, by both public (IMF, EU, US) and private lenders. But to secure loans and credits, and to secure them on non-usurious terms, one has to create the impression Ukraine is not doing all that badly, so as to persuade the creditors Ukraine is capable of actually repaying! Which creates a tremendous incentive for the Ukrainian government to “gild the lily”, so to speak. Consequently, even the pessimistic scenarios from December are actually wildly optimistic, because it’s hard to see exactly what the sources of growth for Ukraine’s economy are going to be. Ukraine has lost the bulk of its Russian markets (both due to the Russian government sanctions and the ruble devaluation, both of which are components of Russia’s import substitution strategy), while at the same time failing to secure European or US markets for its products. Yatsenyuk even went as far as boasting about the drop in Russian trade by half as his accomplishment. As to the Western creditors, they are facing the unenviable choice of letting Ukraine default now or continue propping it up, though even the $15 billion that Yatsenyuk is asking for is no guarantee Ukraine will not default later. And this while Greece is once again teetering on the brink of default and exiting the Eurozone.

Original link:

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.

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/national-guard-takes-over-odessa-in.html

Original post
http://varjag-2007.livejournal.com/7485531.html

[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

Saker: End of 2014 report and a look at what 2015 might bring

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/12/2014-end-of-year-report-and-look-into.html

Introduction:
By any measure 2014 has been a truly historic year which saw huge, I would say, even tectonic developments. This year ends in very high instability, and the future looks hard to guess. I don’t think that anybody can confidently predict what might happen next year. So what I propose to do today is something far more modest. I want to look into some of the key events of 2014 and think of them as vectors with a specific direction and magnitude. I want to look in which direction a number of key actors (countries) “moved” this year and with what degree of intensity. Then I want to see whether it is likely that they will change course or determination. Then adding up all the “vectors” of these key actors (countries) I want to make a calculation and see what resulting vector we will obtain for the next year. Considering the large number of “unknown unknowns” (to quote Rumsfeld) this exercise will not result in any kind of real prediction, but my hope is that it will prove a useful analytical reference.

The main event and the main actors
A comprehensive analysis of 2014 should include most major countries on the planet, but this would be too complicated and, ultimately, useless. I think that it is indisputable that the main event of 2014 has been the war in the Ukraine. This crisis not only overshadowed the still ongoing Anglo-Zionist attack on Syria, but it pitted the world’s only two nuclear superpowers (Russia and the USA) directly against each other. And while some faraway countries did have a minor impact on the Ukrainian crisis, especially the BRICS, I don’t think that a detailed discussion of South African or Brazilian politics would contribute much. There is a short list of key actors whose role warrants a full analysis. They are:

  1. The USA
  2. The Ukrainian Junta
  3. The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)
  4. Russia
  5. The EU
  6. NATO
  7. China

I submit that these seven actors account for 99.99% of the events in the Ukraine and that an analysis of the stance of each one of them is crucial.  So let’s take them one by one:

1 – The USA

Of all the actors in this crisis, the USA is by far the most consistent and coherent one.  Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland were very clear about US objectives in the Ukraine:

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine – bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire…(…)  the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.

Hillary Clinton: There is a move to re-Sovietise the region (…) It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, (…) But let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.

Victoria Nuland: F**k the EU!

Between the three, these senior US “deep-staters” have clearly and unambiguously defined the primary goal of the USA: to take control of the Ukraine to prevent Russia from becoming a new Soviet Union, regardless of what the EU might have to say about that.  Of course, there were other secondary goals which I listed in June of this year (see here):

As a reminder, what were the US goals in the Ukraine: (in no particular order) [Editor: I’ve substituted Saker’s colors for words]

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine [Still possible ]
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev [Still possible ]
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea [Failed ]
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier [Failed ]
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe [Compromised ]
  6. Further devastate the EU economies [Still possible ]
  7. Secure the EU’s status as “US protectorate/colony” [Still possible ]
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies [Still possible ]
  9. Politically isolate Russia [Failed ]
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar [Compromised ]
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets [Achieved ]

I have color-coded these objectives into the following categories:
Achieved – black 
Still possible – too early to call – blue
Compromised – pink
Failed – red

Current “score card”: 1 “achieved”, 5 “possible, 2 “compromised” and 3 “failed”.

Here is how I would re-score the same goals at the end of the year:

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine [Achieved ]
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev [Achieved ]
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea [Failed ]
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier [Failed ]
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe [Still possible ]
  6. Further devastate the EU economies [Achieved ]
  7. Secure the EU’s status as “US protectorate/colony” [Achieved ]
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies [Achieved ]
  9. Politically isolate Russia [Failed ]
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar [Compromised ]
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets [Achieved ]

New score card: 6 “achieved”, 1 “possible”, 1 “compromised” and 3 “failed”

At first glance, this is a clear success for the USA: from 1 achieved to 6 with the same number of “failed” is very good for such a short period of time.  However, a closer look will reveal something crucial: all the successes of the USA were achieved at the expense of the EU and none against Russia.  Not only that, but the USA has failed in its main goal: to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower, primarily because the US policy was based on a hugely mistaken assumption: that Russia needed the Ukraine to become a superpower again.  This monumental miscalculation also resulted in another very bad fact for the USA: the dollar is still very much threatened, more so than a year ago in fact.

This is so important that I will repeat it again: the AngloZionist Empire predicated its entire Ukrainian strategy on a completely wrong assumption: that Russia “needed” the Ukraine.  Russia does not, and she knows that.  As we shall see later, a lot of the key events of this year are a direct result of this huge miscalculation.

The US is now facing a paradox: “victory” in the Ukraine, “victory” in Europe, but failure to stop a rapidly rising Russia.  Worse, these “victories” came at a very high price which included creating tensions inside the EU, threatening the future of the US shale gas industry, alienating many countries at the UN, being deeply involved with a Nazi regime, becoming the prime suspect in the shooting down of MH17 and paying the costs for an artificially low price of gold.  But the single worst consequence of the US foreign policy in the Ukraine has been the establishment of a joint Russian-Chinese strategic alliance clearly directed against the United States (more about that later). Continue reading