Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts

Thursday, October 1, 2015

In Ukraine, Corruption Concerns Linger a Year After a Revolution

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

KIEV, Ukraine — The country is on the cliff of bankruptcy. A spate of politically motivated killings and mysterious suicides of former government officials has sown fear in the capital. Infighting has begun to splinter the pro-European majority coalition in Parliament. And a constant threat of war lingers along the Russian border.

A year after the election of Petro O. Poroshenko as president to replace the ousted Viktor F. Yanukovych, and six months after the swearing in of a new legislature, Ukraine remains deeply mired in political and economic chaos.

“Poroshenko, whether you like him or not, he’s not delivering,” said Bruce P. Jackson, the president of the Project on Transitional Democracies, an American nonprofit group. “The Ukrainian government is so weak and fragile that it is too weak to do the necessary things to build a unified and independent state.”

Efforts to forge a political settlement between the government in Kiev and Russian-backed separatists who control much of the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk have hit a deadlock over procedural disputes, despite a cease-fire in February calling for decentralization of power and greater local autonomy as the linchpins of a long-term accord.

The shattered economy keeps sinking, with the G.D.P. plummeting 17.6 percent in the first quarter of 2015. Hoping to avoid default, senior officials have been in protracted negotiations with creditors, but they have failed so far to secure a deal. Officials also now fret openly that more than $40 billion pledged by the International Monetary Fund and allies, including the United States and the European Union, will not be enough to keep the country afloat.

In perhaps the greatest disappointment to the protesters who seized the center of Kiev last year, the new government led by Mr. Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk has so far failed to deliver on promises to root out endemic corruption. Instead, it has become ensnared in new allegations of misconduct and charges of political score-settling.

The Parliament, in which pro-European parties control a huge majority, voted last month to create a special committee to investigate accusations that Mr. Yatsenyuk, a suave English speaker admired in the West, and his cabinet have presided over the embezzlement of more than $325 million from the state.

The government and its supporters deny any wrongdoing and say it has gone further than any of its predecessors in trying to shake off Ukraine’s post-Soviet legacy of mismanagement and malfeasance. They point out that Parliament has adopted a slew of reform initiatives, notably an overhaul of the notoriously crooked natural gas industry and installing new leadership at the national bank.

The continuing disarray is becoming a source of friction between the Ukrainian government and its European allies, especially Germany and France, whose leaders helped broker the cease-fire and are increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of change.

“We don’t have simply Russian aggression against the victim Ukraine,” Mr. Jackson said. “We have a predictably aggressive Russia against an unpredictable and unreliable Ukraine. Ukraine is now seen as not to be trusted. What the E.U. is saying is: Where is the decentralization? Where is the commitment? Where are the reforms?”



Not surprisingly, public confidence in the government has slumped, as well.

Adding to the tumult, Mr. Poroshenko recently declared a crackdown on the country’s richest and most powerful businessmen, known as oligarchs, in a bid to curtail their influence and to win back popular support. Yet the assault risks making enemies of the country’s biggest employers, who until now have backed the government.

“When you don’t want to do anything and you don’t have anything to report on what you have already done, you need an enemy,” said Dmitry V. Firtash, a former patron of Mr. Yanukovych who is a major target in the so-called de-oligarchization campaign. “It’s very convenient to use rich people as scapegoats.”

For Kiev, there is no greater problem, and no greater test, than the as-yet futile fight against corruption. Even officials on the forefront of the effort say it has so far largely gone nowhere.

David Sakvarelidze, the deputy prosecutor general, who helped carry out sweeping changes to the judicial system in his native Georgia, has been given Ukrainian citizenship and a mandate to overhaul the prosecutor’s office.

“They are still corrupted, and no systemic changes have been made in law enforcement agencies and in courts,” Mr. Sakvarelidze said in an interview in his office in Kiev.

He described a criminal justice system that needs to be rebuilt nearly from scratch. For example, he said, there was no effective system of plea bargaining to allow prosecutors to resolve cases swiftly, and no clear goals that set national priorities in law enforcement.

“We do not have any criminal policy,” he said. “None of the prosecutors have clear guidelines.”

Instead of existing government agencies taking action, Mr. Sakvarelidze said, the Parliament has been overly focused on adopting legislation that creates even more bureaucracy.

One of the major promises to come out of the Maidan revolution was a new anticorruption bureau, which is expected to employ 700 enforcement officers. On April 16, after long delays, Mr. Poroshenko finally selected the bureau’s first director, Artem Sytnyk, a former Kiev city prosecutor.

Because of the delays, the government has been unable to deliver on pledges of swift restitution. Most notably, it has failed to recover any of the billions of dollars believed to have been stolen by the former president, Mr. Yanukovych, his family and closest associates.

Nor have Mr. Yanukovych or any of the senior officials who fled with him been arrested, with many now in Russia. Corruption investigations against other former officials and executives of state-owned companies have largely stalled.

Egor Sobolev, an organizer of last year’s protests who is now a member of Parliament and chairman of its Committee on Corruption Prevention and Counteraction, said his panel was flooded with complaints.

“The biggest problem in the country is we do not have a real system of justice, we do not have judges, most of them are people from Yanukovych’s time, very corrupted,” he said. “The same situation with prosecutors.”

“And another problem, a very big problem,” he added, was that “Mr. Poroshenko as the president is not ready to fire them.”


Mr. Sobolev is not alone in his lack of trust in the new government. Many of the Maidan demonstrators who are now in government posts say they are uncomfortable with Mr. Poroshenko and Mr. Yatsenyuk, who were opponents of Mr. Yanukovych but also longtime veterans of the Ukrainian political system that the demonstrators wanted to dismantle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/world/europe/in-ukraine-corruption-concerns-linger-a-year-after-a-revolution.html?ref=world&_r=3



Tuesday, July 14, 2015

The genocide in Ukraine 2014-2015

This article by investigative reporter Olga Luzanova provides photographic and video evidence of the impacts of Kiev regime bombings directed against residential areas and schools in Donbass.
Civilians have been deliberately targeted.  
These war crimes have  been ignored by the mainstream media. They been not been acknowledged by  the UN Human Rights Commission. 
The fundamental rights of children have been blatantly violated by the US sponsored Kiev regime in derogation of international law.  

Photos and video footage by Olga Luzanova
We recall that last October, President Petro Poroshenko contrasted the prospects for Ukrainians with those of the people from the Donbass region during a speech in Odessa. In particular, the President promised:
“Our children will go to schools and kindergartens, while theirs will be holed up in basements!”
Thus far, the Ukrainian government has been doing its best to keep its word. Here is one of the children sitting in a basement in accordance with the Ukrainian President’s will.
Photos and video footage by Olga Luzanova
Article edited by @GBabeuf
The Acting Commander of the Perevalsk Command offered me a short tour of a little town which just happened to be in the immediate vicinity of the front-line. The Ukrainian forces had been firing towards the residential district of the town right up until the day when the Militia had mopped up Debaltsevo. We took the road which I knew very well. We drove through the town where I could see the consequences of the shelling all around. We approached the school from its rear and saw there a football pitch with a huge crater in the middle of it. Then we saw another crater from an Uragan missile near the school.


 http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-ukraine-president-poroshenko-keeps-his-word-weve-bombed-the-schools-donbass-children-dont-go-to-school/5439926

 Forty three people were reported dead officially by Kiev. According to the witnesses, and even some politicians the real data concealed by Ukrainian government reaches over a hundred people burnt alive and murdered, and two hundred forty-seven people injured on that day. R.I.P.
http://slavyangrad.org/2015/05/05/r-i-p-ukraine-may-2-2014/

<--------------------------------------------------------->
By Melissa Jones —
In February 2015, millions of peaceful people are living in hell in eastern Ukraine while the national government starves, freezes and murders them because it benefits the New World Order. The Kiev government and United Nations investigators have been hiding reports of genocide, claiming that between April 2014 and February 4, 2015 the overall death toll in the bloody civil war in Ukraine stands at 5,358.
A source from German intelligence, however, told the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that “Germany’s special services estimate the probable number of deceased Ukrainian servicemen and civilians at up to 50,000 people. This figure is about 10 times higher than official data. Official figures are clearly too low and not credible.”
To hear the truth, this writer talked to people living within the “anti-terrorist operation,” or ATO Zone.
One person from Donetsk, which is home to more than 1 million, told AMERICAN FREE PRESS:
“Everybody has faced tragedy from this war. Among my friends and acquaintances and their friends and acquaintances, there is nobody unaffected by it. People have lost parents. Somebody lost a house. Somebody was injured and lost a leg or an eye. Neighbors of my friends have been killed in bombings. The whole family—a couple with two children. It is awful. . . . The scariest thing is that nobody is willing to stop it.”
Human rights groups and the media aren’t telling the truth, so most people don’t know about the genocide being documented live on the Internet by people trapped in the ATO Zone.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=22798#sthash.MutjKumW.dpuf
By Melissa Jones —
In February 2015, millions of peaceful people are living in hell in eastern Ukraine while the national government starves, freezes and murders them because it benefits the New World Order. The Kiev government and United Nations investigators have been hiding reports of genocide, claiming that between April 2014 and February 4, 2015 the overall death toll in the bloody civil war in Ukraine stands at 5,358.
A source from German intelligence, however, told the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that “Germany’s special services estimate the probable number of deceased Ukrainian servicemen and civilians at up to 50,000 people. This figure is about 10 times higher than official data. Official figures are clearly too low and not credible.”
To hear the truth, this writer talked to people living within the “anti-terrorist operation,” or ATO Zone.
One person from Donetsk, which is home to more than 1 million, told AMERICAN FREE PRESS:
“Everybody has faced tragedy from this war. Among my friends and acquaintances and their friends and acquaintances, there is nobody unaffected by it. People have lost parents. Somebody lost a house. Somebody was injured and lost a leg or an eye. Neighbors of my friends have been killed in bombings. The whole family—a couple with two children. It is awful. . . . The scariest thing is that nobody is willing to stop it.”
Human rights groups and the media aren’t telling the truth, so most people don’t know about the genocide being documented live on the Internet by people trapped in the ATO Zone.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=22798#sthash.MutjKumW.dpuf

By Melissa Jones —

In February 2015, millions of peaceful people are living in hell in eastern Ukraine while the national government starves, freezes and murders them because it benefits the New World Order. The Kiev government and United Nations investigators have been hiding reports of genocide, claiming that between April 2014 and February 4, 2015 the overall death toll in the bloody civil war in Ukraine stands at 5,358.

A source from German intelligence, however, told the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that “Germany’s special services estimate the probable number of deceased Ukrainian servicemen and civilians at up to 50,000 people. This figure is about 10 times higher than official data. Official figures are clearly too low and not credible.”

To hear the truth, this writer talked to people living within the “anti-terrorist operation,” or ATO Zone.

One person from Donetsk, which is home to more than 1 million, told AMERICAN FREE PRESS:

“Everybody has faced tragedy from this war. Among my friends and acquaintances and their friends and acquaintances, there is nobody unaffected by it. People have lost parents. Somebody lost a house. Somebody was injured and lost a leg or an eye. Neighbors of my friends have been killed in bombings. The whole family—a couple with two children. It is awful. . . . The scariest thing is that nobody is willing to stop it.”

Human rights groups and the media aren’t telling the truth, so most people don’t know about the genocide being documented live on the Internet by people trapped in the ATO Zone.

By Melissa Jones —
In February 2015, millions of peaceful people are living in hell in eastern Ukraine while the national government starves, freezes and murders them because it benefits the New World Order. The Kiev government and United Nations investigators have been hiding reports of genocide, claiming that between April 2014 and February 4, 2015 the overall death toll in the bloody civil war in Ukraine stands at 5,358.
A source from German intelligence, however, told the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that “Germany’s special services estimate the probable number of deceased Ukrainian servicemen and civilians at up to 50,000 people. This figure is about 10 times higher than official data. Official figures are clearly too low and not credible.”
To hear the truth, this writer talked to people living within the “anti-terrorist operation,” or ATO Zone.
One person from Donetsk, which is home to more than 1 million, told AMERICAN FREE PRESS:
“Everybody has faced tragedy from this war. Among my friends and acquaintances and their friends and acquaintances, there is nobody unaffected by it. People have lost parents. Somebody lost a house. Somebody was injured and lost a leg or an eye. Neighbors of my friends have been killed in bombings. The whole family—a couple with two children. It is awful. . . . The scariest thing is that nobody is willing to stop it.”
Human rights groups and the media aren’t telling the truth, so most people don’t know about the genocide being documented live on the Internet by people trapped in the ATO Zone.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=22798#sthash.MutjKumW.dpuf
By Melissa Jones —
In February 2015, millions of peaceful people are living in hell in eastern Ukraine while the national government starves, freezes and murders them because it benefits the New World Order. The Kiev government and United Nations investigators have been hiding reports of genocide, claiming that between April 2014 and February 4, 2015 the overall death toll in the bloody civil war in Ukraine stands at 5,358.
A source from German intelligence, however, told the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that “Germany’s special services estimate the probable number of deceased Ukrainian servicemen and civilians at up to 50,000 people. This figure is about 10 times higher than official data. Official figures are clearly too low and not credible.”
To hear the truth, this writer talked to people living within the “anti-terrorist operation,” or ATO Zone.
One person from Donetsk, which is home to more than 1 million, told AMERICAN FREE PRESS:
“Everybody has faced tragedy from this war. Among my friends and acquaintances and their friends and acquaintances, there is nobody unaffected by it. People have lost parents. Somebody lost a house. Somebody was injured and lost a leg or an eye. Neighbors of my friends have been killed in bombings. The whole family—a couple with two children. It is awful. . . . The scariest thing is that nobody is willing to stop it.”
Human rights groups and the media aren’t telling the truth, so most people don’t know about the genocide being documented live on the Internet by people trapped in the ATO Zone.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=22798#sthash.MutjKumW.dpuf
 To mislead the public, experts and reporters call the catastrophe “a conflict” between the Ukrainian army and “pro-Russian separatists.” Residents assert that the region’s peaceful population is being murdered on purpose, with hundreds killed or injured daily.

A 34-year-old mother wrote on February 3:

“I badly want everyone to know that the Ukrainian government wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth. They are demolishing our homes and killing our children and old folks at bus stops, in buses, in hospitals, in homes. Our children sit at home and in shelters. And they don’t show this on TV. You can only see this on the Internet. And if now America gives Ukraine lethal weapons, we will cease to exist. Ukraine is killing us with America’s help.”

If Washington’s new puppet government in Ukraine doesn’t want to wipe out the Russian Donbass people in eastern Ukraine, then why did they make the controversial decision to starve millions by cutting off access to personal money with which to buy food and essentials?

If the Ukrainian government doesn’t want to murder as many civilians as possible, then why deny entry to charitable organizations, which can bring aid to hundreds of thousands who are at risk of starvation or injuries?

Why would the U.S. send Ukraine $1 billion in weapons when on January 29 Ukraine’s top general said that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine?

A 21-year-old with a baby born in October 2014 told AFP:

“If America sends weapons, we will be exterminated—not rebel ‘separatists’ as they consider us, but peaceful and ordinary residents of the city of Donetsk. What are we guilty of? I want to live, to raise my child and to celebrate every new quiet and peaceful day, not to cry every day and pray for survival.”

Lifesaving donations marked “For Ukraine” can be sent to the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist at 4001 17th St NW, Washington, D.C. 20011.

Melissa Jones is an independent journalist based in Virginia. She is also an activist for sound money policy and alternative health issues.

 http://americanfreepress.net/?p=22798


Friday, July 3, 2015

Minsk Agreement 2.0 – February 12, 2015 (English)

A Set of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements

  1. Immediate and comprehensive ceasefire in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions of Ukraine and its strict implementation commencing at 00 h. 00 min. (Kiev), on February 15, 2015.
  1. Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides to equal distances in order to create a security zone with a width of at least 50 km between them for artillery systems with a calibre of 100 mm and more, and a security zone with a width of 70 km for MLRS and with a width of 140 km for MLRS “Tornado-S” “Uragan,” “Smerch” and tactical missile systems “Tochka” (“Tochka-U”):
– for the Ukrainian troops: from the actual line of contact;
– for the armed formations of certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions of Ukraine: from the line of contact in accordance with the Minsk Memorandum of September 19, 2014.
The withdrawal of heavy weapons set out above shall begin no later than the second day after the cease-fire and end within 14 days.
This process will be assisted by the OSCE, with the support of the Trilateral Contact Group.
  1. On the part of the OSCE, to ensure effective monitoring and verification of the ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the first day of the withdrawal, with the use of all necessary means, including satellites, drones, radar systems and so forth.
  1. On the first day following the withdrawal to begin a dialogue with respect to the modalities of the local elections in accordance with Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine “On the temporary order of local government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions,” as well as with respect to the future operation of these areas on the basis of the Law.
Immediately, and not later than 30 days from the date of signing of this document, to adopt a resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine with the specification of the territory covered by the special regime provided for in the Law of Ukraine “On the temporary order of local government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions”, [such territory] to be based on the line set out in the Minsk Memorandum of September 19, 2014
  1. Provide pardons and amnesties by means of enacting a law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions of Ukraine.
  1. Facilitate the release and exchange of all hostages and illegally detained persons, based on the principle of “all for all”. This process must be completed no later than the fifth day following the withdrawal.
  1. Provide secure access, delivery, storage and distribution of humanitarian assistance to those in need on the basis of an international mechanism.
  1. Determination of the modalities of the full restoration of the socio-economic relations, including social transfers, such as pensions and other payments (receipts and income, timely payment of all utility bills, renewal of taxation within the legal framework of Ukraine).
To this end, Ukraine shall re-establish control over the segment of its banking system in the areas affected by conflict, and it is possible that an international mechanism to facilitate such transfers will be created.
  1. Restoration of full control by the government of Ukraine over the state border throughout the conflict zone, which shall begin on the first day following the local elections and be completed following a comprehensive political settlement ([to wit:] [1] local elections in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions on the basis of the Law of Ukraine and [2] a constitutional reform) by the end of 2015, subject to the fulfilment of Paragraph 11—in consultation and by agreement with the representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions within the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group.
  1. Withdrawal of all foreign armed units, military equipment, as well as mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under the supervision of the OSCE. The disarmament of all illegal groups.
  1. Passing of a constitutional reform in Ukraine with the entry into force by the end of 2015 of a new constitution, which shall incorporate decentralization as a key element (taking into account the characteristics of certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions, to be agreed upon with the representatives of these areas), as well as, before the end of 2015, adoption of permanent legislation with respect to the special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions in accordance with the measures specified in Note [1].
  1. On the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On the temporary order of local government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions”, all questions regarding local elections shall be discussed and agreed upon with the representatives of these areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions within the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group. Elections shall be held in compliance with the relevant standards of the OSCE and shall be monitored by the OSCE ODIHR.
  1. To intensify the activities of the Trilateral Contact Group, including through the establishment of working groups to implement the relevant aspects of the Minsk Agreements. [These working groups] shall reflect the composition of the Trilateral Contact Group.

Note 1:
Such measures in accordance with the Law “On the special order of local government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions” shall include the following:
  • exemption from punishment, harassment and discrimination of individuals associated with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions;
  • the right to linguistic self-determination;
  • participation of local governments in the appointment of the heads of prosecutorial bodies and the courts in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions;
  • ability for the central executive authorities to enter into agreements regarding economic, social and cultural development of certain regions of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions with the relevant local authorities;
  • the State shall support the socio-economic development of individual regions of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions;
  • facilitation by the central government of cross-border cooperation between certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions and the regions of the Russian Federation;
  • establishment of units of People’s Militia by order of local councils with the goal of maintaining public order in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions;
  • the powers of local council deputies and officers elected in early elections, to be set by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in accordance with this law, may not be terminated.
 http://slavyangrad.org/2015/02/12/minsk-agreement-2-0-february-12-2015/




Thursday, June 11, 2015

Der Spiegel Apologizes to Readers over Coverage of Bellingcat MH17 Report

Under the headline "What we learn from the coverage of the Bellingcat report," Der Spiegel's online edition has published an apology for taking it at face value.

"Among our journalistic principles is the fact that we do not assess explosive news as reliable until we have received it from two trustworthy sources independent from each other."

"If we rate news so explosive that we do not want to withhold it from you, dear readers, even if we could not verify it, then we choose a careful formulation."

But this, the choosing of a careful formulation for yet to be verified explosive news, is exactly what Der Spiegel failed to do at least twice during the initial coverage of the Bellingcat MH17 report.

MORE:
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150609/1023137858.html
http://love-anarchy.clan.su/others/DerSpiegel.pdf



Monday, June 8, 2015

Obama’s ‘G-1-plus-6′

Exclusive: As much as President Obama needs President Putin’s help on Syria, Iran and other global hotspots, he has fallen in line behind U.S. hardliners in seeking to ratchet up the confrontation over Ukraine and now is trying to bring the Europeans along at the G-7, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
By Ray McGovern
The “G-7 summit” at a resort in Germany’s picturesque Bavaria region is likely to show whether “G-7” should be called “G-1-plus-6” – number “one” being what President Barack Obama continues to call the “only indispensable country in the world”; the “six” being those countries that Russian President Vladimir Putin has labeled Washington’s “junior partners.”
The “G-7” – consisting of Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Japan, Canada and the U.S. – formerly was known as the “G-8” until Russia was booted last year after being blamed for the violent aftermath of the U.S.-sponsored coup d’etat in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014.
Last year, the West was in high dudgeon over what it deemed “Russian aggression” and what Secretary of State John Kerry termed Russia’s “Nineteenth Century behavior.” After all, the U.S. and its allies are well known for always respecting the territorial integrity of other countries regardless of the circumstances. Okay, well, maybe not.
However, at the Bavarian summit, the U.S. is hoping to rekindle some of that old outrage to get the European Union to extend economic sanctions on Russia, though they are hurting the EU’s struggling economies, too.
The main question is whether German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, who have witnessed up-front-and-personal the behavior of Washington’s neocon policymakers and their Ukrainian puppets, will summon the courage to act like adults.
Will the leaders of Germany and France continue to bend to the U.S. diktat? Or are they more likely, this time, to stand up on their own feet and resist pressure from the U.S. and its UK lackey for continued punitive sanctions against Russia?
Merkel and Hollande have had the chance personally to take the measure of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his client relationship with the U.S. At a very different kind of summit on Feb. 11-12 in Belorussia, with U.S. representatives pointedly not invited and only Poroshenko reflecting U.S. objectives, Merkel and Hollande worked out with him and Putin the so-called “Minsk II” package agreement that included a ceasefire – which pretty much held until just recently – and a mechanism for resolving the political confrontation between the post-coup regime in Kiev and the ethnic Russian resistance in the east.
Merkel and Hollande are no political novices. And, if they know their history, they know what a Pétain or a Quisling looks like. In any case, they cannot have failed to recognize what Poroshenko looks like and how he continues to do the bidding of the neocons running U.S. policy on Ukraine, who are hell-bent on demonizing Putin and ostracizing Russia – all with little heed to the economic and longer-term security damage inflicted on “junior partners” like Germany and France.
Shortly after Minsk II was signed, the hard-line Ukrainian parliament, led by U.S. favorite Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, approved implementing legislation that was designed not to implement the political side of the agreement. A “poison pill” was inserted that, in effect, required the ethnic Russian rebels in the east to surrender before negotiations proceeded. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine’s Poison Pill for Peace Talks.”]
Sinking Peace
Poroshenko signed the law to the delight of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, the neocon operative who had hand-picked Yatsenyuk before the coup, telling U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt that “Yats is the guy” while also repudiating the European Union’s more cautious approach back then with the pithy remark, “Fuck the EU.”
Yatsenyuk remains Nuland’s go-to guy when it comes to not resolving the Ukraine crisis — and surely not restoring the pre-crisis working relationship that Obama had with Putin, a tandem that had undermined neocon dreams of more “regime change” in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iran, by instead working on diplomatic solutions to those difficult problems.
Now, with many EU economic sanctions against Russia due to expire this month, the neocons and their clients in Ukraine understood the need to again kick-start the Putin bashing – and almost on cue there was a pre-summit uptick in ceasefire violations in southeastern Ukraine that the West’s mainstream news media predictably blamed on Putin.
However, the German and French leaders – and of course Putin – are acutely aware of which side sees advantage in wielding outrage over the increased fighting as a transparently convenient cudgel to pound Russia and demand that the U.S. “junior partners” renew the economic sanctions.
Europeans have a giant economic stake in what happens at the “G1-plus-6” summit in Bavaria. Trouble is, European press coverage of Ukraine is almost as poor as what you read in the U.S. media. Odd as it strikes me, having analyzed Soviet propaganda for decades, the U.S. fawning corporate media has recently proven to be at least as adept at spreading half-truth and lies as Pravda and Izvestia in the old Soviet days.
Because of my previous professional experience, it is hard for me to accept that President Putin’s account of what went down in Kiev since early 2014 is far more factually based than what we hear from President Obama or read in the New York Times, but it is. For instance, here are excerpts from an interview Putin gave on June 6 to the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera:
“What sparked the [Ukraine] crisis? Former President Viktor Yanukovych said that he needed to think about signing Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the EU, possibly make some changes and hold consultations with Russia, Ukraine’s major trade and economic partner. In this connection and under this pretext riots broke out in Kiev. They were actively supported by both our European and American partners.
“Then a coup d’état followed – a totally anti-constitutional act. … The question is: what was the coup d’état for?  Why did they need to escalate the situation to a civil war? … The result that we have – a coup d’état, a civil war, hundreds of lives lost, a devastated economy and social sphere, a four-year $17.5 billion loan promised to Ukraine by the IMF and complete disintegration of economic ties with Russia…
“I would like to tell you and your readers one thing. Last year, on Feb. 21, President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian opposition signed an agreement on how to proceed, how to organize political life in the country, and on the need to hold early elections.
“They should have worked to implement this agreement, especially since three European foreign ministers signed this agreement as guarantors of its implementation. If they were used merely for the sake of appearances … they should have said [after the coup the next day], ‘You know, we did not agree to a coup d’état, so we will not support you; you should go and hold elections instead.’”
However, instead of upholding the Feb. 21, 2014 agreement, the EU – under strong pressure from Nuland and the Obama administration – hastened to recognize the “legitimacy” of the coup regime in Kiev. The Feb.21 agreement was quickly forgotten and the new Ukrainian authorities, with Yatsenyuk elevated to prime minister and right-wing extremists given key ministries, moved to crack down on the ethnic Russians in the south and east, citizens who had been Yanukovych’s political base and who resisted the unconstitutional coup.
Perhaps now is the time for Merkel and Hollande to remember that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, in addition to Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, mediated the Feb. 21, 2014 agreement and signed it as official witnesses. An envoy from Russian President Putin, Vladimir Lukin, was also involved but did not sign as a witness.
There may be no such thing as a guilty conscience in high-stakes diplomacy. Still, what happened just one day before the Feb. 22 coup in Kiev is a matter of record.
Would it be too much to expect of Steinmeier and Fabius to remind their bosses of this shameless piece of failed diplomacy, before Merkel and Holland cave in once again to Washington’s diktat – and to the neocons who could then rush off to a Bavarian Beirgarten to celebrate the escalation of Cold War II?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27 years as a CIA analyst, he was chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy branch in the 60s, and Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Western Europe in the 70s. McGovern now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/07/obamas-g-1-plus-6/
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/07/g16-opens-bavaria-will-junior-members-act-adults


VIDEO: http://armakhno.narod.ru/muzon/Gorlovka.mp4

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Canada refuses to extradite alleged Khatyn massacre accomplice to Russia

SAINT-PETERSBURG, May 27 (RAPSI) - Canadian officials have refused to extradite Vladimir Katryuk who allegedly participated in the massacre in the Belarusian village of Khatyn during World War II, Deputy Prosecutor General Alexander Zvyagintsev announced at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum on Wednesday.
Zvyagintsev added that Katryuk was exonerated from all charges by Canada. Therefore, the country has ignored the principle “extradite or prosecute.”
Earlier, the official spokesman for the Investigative committee, Vladimir Markin, announced that Russian investigators opened a case against Katryuk. Russia, as a successor of the Soviet Union, took up the obligation to prosecute Nazi war criminals and will continue to insist on Katryuk’s extradition, Markin said.
In March 1943, Nazi collaborators massacred the entire population of Khatyn, or 149 civilians, including 75 children and minors. They also destroyed all residential buildings. The Investigative Committee representative specified that there is no statute of limitation for war crimes, according to the Charter of the Nurnberg international Military Tribunal of August 8, 1945.

http://bignews2day.com/en/news/kanada-ne-vydast-rossii-93-letnego-uchastnika-ubijstv-v-hatyni

http://rapsinews.com/judicial_news/20150527/273811025.html

http://tass.ru/en/world/797022



Saturday, April 18, 2015

Crimeans Keep Saying No to Ukraine


A few days ago an interesting study, “The Socio-Political Sentiments in Crimea,” was released by the Ukrainian branch of GfK, the well-known German social research organization, as part of the Free Crimea initiative. Intriguingly, the primary objectives of this project, launched with the support of the governmental Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, were to “debunk aggressive Russian propaganda” and to “reintegrate Crimea into Ukraine.” Thus the researchers can hardly be suspected of being Russian sympathizers. So let’s take a look at the results.
The attitudes of Crimeans were studied in January 2015. This representative sample included 800 respondents living on the peninsula, from all age and social categories. The poll had an error margin of 3.5%.
In answer to the most important question: “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% – “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% gave an unambiguously negative response, and another 2% offered a relatively negative assessment. Three percent did not specify their position.
We feel that this study fully validates the results of the referendum on reunification with Russia that was held on March 16, 2014. At that time 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support for reunification.
Ukrainians continue to question whether this was a credible outcome, but it is now backed up by the data obtained by the Germans. The 82% of the respondents who expressed their full confidence in the results of the Russian election make up the core of the electorate who turned up at the ballot boxes on March 16, 2014.
These figures are also relevant in terms of another important question. The former chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars, Mustafa Dzhemilev, has repeatedly stated that all Tatars on the peninsula are opposed to reunification with Russia. Dzhemilev’s statements have been widely quoted by the media, which present them as entirely authoritative and undisputed.
But let’s think about that – Crimean Tatars make up 12% of the Crimean population, yet only 4% of those polled conveyed disapproval of Crimea’s reunification with Russia. And that 4% very likely includes not only Tatars, but also Ukrainians and citizens of other ethnicities. There’s an inconsistency here. Of course further study is needed on this issue, but the results obtained by GFK cast doubt on whether Mustafa Dzhemilev or the entire Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars is an accurate barometer of the feelings of the Crimean Tatar community.
Those few respondents who disapproved reunification were then asked “Why do you fully or mostly disapprove annexation?Only 20% of them (i.e., less than 1% of the total sample) claimed that they preferred to live in the state of Ukraine. The most common response, offered by 55% of those who opposed reunification, was “Annexations was not fully legitimate, it should be brought into accord with the international law.” Which means that, in theory, they do not object to the idea of living in Russia, but rather question the legitimacy of the transition.

No doubt it would be a good idea to hold such a referendum under the auspices of international legislation and in accordance with Ukrainian law. But would laws ever be passed that would grant Ukrainian regions the right to secede? Back in the totalitarian Soviet Union, Ukraine exercised its right to a referendum without a single shot being fired, while in “democratic Ukraine,” separatists are either burned alive as in Odessa, or are shot along with the elderly and children as is happening in the Donbass.
In answer to a question about their financial circumstances, 21% of Crimeans said that in the last year their position had “improved significantly,” while another 30% claimed it had “somewhat improved.” Only 13% of that population has experienced a setback, to a greater or lesser extent. This suggests that, despite EU sanctions on the peninsula’s economy, and despite Ukraine’s partial blockade on communication from Crimea, the reunification with Russia has provided most Crimeans with material gains. But even among those who have not reaped those sorts of benefits, there are few signs of nostalgia for their old Ukrainian citizenship: although 13% of citizens have seen their financial well-being decline, only 4% disapprove of the reunification with Russia. These figures suggest that economic sanctions are an ineffective means of persuading the residents of the Crimea to view Ukraine more favorably.
The results of the survey indicate that 28% of the residents of the peninsula regularly watch Ukrainian TV, and another 20% regularly consult Ukrainian news websites. This proves that no steps have been taken in Crimea to restrict access to Ukrainian sources of information, such as Ukraine has done in relation to Russian media.
And now the moment of truth: “What is your opinion of what is being written by the Ukrainian media about Crimea?” Who could be a more objective judge on this issue than the residents of the peninsula themselves? Who else but they – who have been fated to experience all the pros and cons of both Ukrainian and Russian citizenship – could better evaluate the accuracy of the information being published? Perhaps no one.
However, only 1% of those surveyed reported that the Ukrainian media “provides entirely truthful information” and 4% said it was “more often truthful than deceitful.” But 45% of respondents see “completely untrue information” on Ukrainian TV, and another 35% claim those broadcasts are “more often deceitful than truthful.” The rest either do not watch Ukrainian news programs or do not pay attention to information in those programs about Crimea.

This is the verdict on the contemporary Ukrainian press, as handed down by an impartial panel of eight hundred jurors.
But if those who shape the media coverage in Ukraine today are so biased in regard to Crimea, how can we expect them to report objectively on other critical problems associated with this country? Can we trust Kiev’s official stance on the tragedy of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17? Or on the causes of the humanitarian crisis in the Donbass? Or on the presence of Russian troops inside Ukraine? Or on the human fatalities in Odessa or the victims of the “Heavenly Hundred”?
GfK’s study demands a clear answer to these questions.
By Konstantin KOSARETSKY (Ukraine)

http://orientalreview.org/2015/02/10/german-sociologists-on-crimeas-choice/


Additional links:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-annexation-of-crimea-to-russia-opinion-poll/5430781

Crimeans Keep Saying No to Ukraine

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/22/crimeans-keep-saying-no-to-ukraine/

http://www.tbrnews.org/?p=980

Monday, December 29, 2014

Ukraine as Non-existing a State

We are talking about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which was put on the agenda at the UN Security Council. The consideration of case revealed of the following: since the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in December 1991, Ukraine has not registered its borders to the UN.
http://www.cisstat.com/eng/cis.htm

In other words, the borders of Ukraine, as a sovereign state, have not been declared and registered with the United Nations.
Consequently, any of offenses of Russia concerning of Ukraine could not exist in principle. Under the agreement of the CIS, Ukraine is the administrative district of the USSR.

Accordingly, it is impossible (not correct) to blame Russia for the violent of change of the integrity of the borders of Ukraine. Boundaries, as well as the State Ukraine itself does not yet exist.

To solve this problem, Ukraine needs to spend works of demarcation on the border and to get agreement with the neighboring countries.
The European Union has already agreed and expressed a desire to provide technical assistance.

Despite the best efforts of Kiev semi-legitimate rulers, Russia may declare territory of Ukraine as part of RF. Ukraine was part of the USSR. Russian Federation is the successor of the USSR (in accordance with the contract CIS). - Boleslaw A. Boczek. International law : a dictionary.  Lanham, Md. : Scarecrow Press, 2005. Series: Dictionaries of international law, no. 2. (see Page131):

http://www.worldcat.org/title/international-law-a-dictionary/oclc/56111661


http://www.worldcat.org/title/international-law-a-dictionary/oclc/56111661/viewport

https://books.google.ru/books?id=NR7mFXCB-wgC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=Russian+Federation+is+the+successor+of+the+USSR+Boleslaw+A.+Boczek&source=bl&ots=Q76ymINnd-&sig=nRbHw9Nni1RnL6q9cjy70lSFwXA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D3ChVKWoHKOxygPVpoHQCw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Russian%20Federation%20is%20the%20successor%20of%20the%20USSR%20Boleslaw%20A.%20Boczek&f=false

In accordance with the laws of the USSR and the CIS all what is happening in Ukraine, there is an internal affair of the Russian Federation and the CIS. Any attempt by the US and EU intervention may be regarded by Russia as aggression.

Ukraine even joined of the UN in 1945, as part of the Soviet Union, and not as the sovereign State.
http://northhistories.blogspot.ru/2014/12/ukraine-became-member-of-un-in-1945.html

Thus, the sovereign State of Ukraine does not exist and never been existed.



Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The Importance Of The Cancellation Of South Stream

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

by Alexander Mercouris

The reaction to the cancellation of the Sound Stream project has been a wonder to behold and needs to be explained very carefully.

In order to understand what has happened it is first necessary to go back to the way Russian-European relations were developing in the 1990s.

Briefly, at that period, the assumption was that Russia would become the great supplier of energy and raw materials to Europe. This was the period of Europe's great “rush for gas” as the Europeans looked forward to unlimited and unending Russian supplies. It was the increase in the role of Russian gas in the European energy mix which made it possible for Europe to run down its coal industry and cut its carbon emissions and bully and lecture everyone else to do the same.

However the Europeans did not envisage that Russia would just supply them with energy. Rather they always supposed this energy would be extracted for them in Russia by Western energy companies. This after all is the pattern in most of the developing world. The EU calls this “energy security” - a euphemism for the extraction of energy in other countries by its own companies under its own control.

It never happened that way. Though the Russian oil industry was privatised it mostly remained in Russian hands. After Putin came to power in 2000 the trend towards privatisation in the oil industry was reversed. One of the major reasons for western anger at the arrest of Khodorkovsky and the closure of Yukos and the transfer of its assets to the state oil company Rosneft was precisely because is reversed this trend of privatisation in the oil industry.

In the gas industry the process of privatisation never really got started. Gas export continued to be controlled by Gazprom, maintaining its position as a state owned monopoly gas exporter. Since Putin came to power Gazprom’s position as a state owned Russian monopoly has been made fully secure.

Much of the anger that exists in the west towards Putin can be explained by European and western resentment at his refusal and that of the Russian government to the break up of Russia's energy monopolies and to the “opening up” (as it is euphemistically called) of the Russian energy industry to the advantage of western companies. Many of the allegations of corruption that are routinely made against Putin personally are intended to insinuate that he opposes the “opening up” of the Russian energy industry and the break up and privatisation of Gazprom and Rosneft because he has a personal stake in them (in the case of Gazprom, that he is actually its owner). If one examines in detail the specific allegations of corruption made against Putin (as I have done) this quickly becomes obvious.

His agenda of forcing Russia to privatise and break up its energy monopolies has never gone away. This is why Gazprom, despite the vital and reliable service it provides to its European customers, comes in for so much criticism. When Europeans complain about Europe's energy dependence upon Russia, they express their resentment at having to buy gas from a single Russian state owned company (Gazprom) as opposed to their own western companies operating in Russia.

This resentment exists simultaneously with a belief, very entrenched in Europe, that Russia is somehow dependent upon Europe as a customer for its gas and as a supplier of finance and technology.

This combination of resentment and overconfidence is what lies behind the repeated European attempts to legislate in Europe on energy questions in a way that is intended to force Russia to “open up” its the energy industry there.

The first attempt was the so-called Energy Charter, which Russia signed but ultimately refused to ratify. The latest attempt is the EU's so-called Third Energy Package.

This is presented as a development of EU anti-competition and anti-monopoly law. In reality, as everyone knows, it is targeted at Gazprom, which is a monopoly, though obviously not a European one.

This is the background to the conflict over South Stream. The EU authorities have insisted that South Stream must comply with the Third Energy Package even though the Third Energy Package came into existence only after the outline agreements for South Stream had been already reached.

Compliance with the Third Energy Package would have meant that though Gazprom supplied the gas it could not own or control the pipeline through which gas was supplied.

Were Gazprom to agree to this, it would acknowledge the EU’s authority over its operations. It would in that case undoubtedly face down the line more demands for more changes to its operating methods. Ultimately this would lead to demands for changes in the structure of the energy industry in Russia itself.

What has just happened is that the Russians have said no. Rather than proceed with the project by submitting to European demands, which is what the Europeans expected, the Russians have to everyone’s astonishment instead pulled out of the whole project.

This decision was completely unexpected. As I write this, the air is of full of angry complaints from south-eastern Europe that they were not consulted or informed of this decision in advance. Several politicians in south-eastern Europe (Bulgaria especially) are desperately clinging to the idea that the Russian announcement is a bluff (it isn’t) and that the project can still be saved. Since the Europeans cling to the belief that the Russians have no alternative to them as a customer, they were unable to anticipate and cannot now explain this decision.

Here it is important to explain why South Stream is important to the countries of south-eastern Europe and to the European economy as a whole.

All the south eastern European economies are in bad shape. For these countries South Stream was a vital investment and infrastructure project, securing their energy future. Moreover the transit fees that it promised would have been a major foreign currency earner.

For the EU, the essential point is that it depends on Russian gas. There has been a vast amount of talk in Europe about seeking alternative supplies. Progress in that direction had been to put it mildly small. Quite simply alternative supplies do not exist in anything like the quantity needed to replace the gas Europe gets from Russia.

There has been some brave talk of supplies of US liquefied natural gas replacing gas supplied by pipeline from Russia. Not only is such US gas inherently more expensive than Russian pipeline gas, hitting European consumers hard and hurting European competitiveness. It is unlikely to be available in anything like the necessary quantity. Quite apart from the probable dampening effects of the recent oil price fall on the US shale industry, on past record the US as a voracious consumer of energy will consume most or all of the energy from shales it produces. It is unlikely to be in a position to export much to Europe. The facilities to do this anyway do not exist, and are unlikely to exist for some time if ever.

Other possible sources of gas are problematic to say the least. Production of North Sea gas is falling. Imports of gas from north Africa and the Arabian Gulf are unlikely to be available in anything like the necessary quantity. Gas from Iran is not available for political reasons. Whilst that might eventually change, the probability is when it does that the Iranians (like the Russians) will decide to direct their energy flow eastwards, towards India and China, rather than to Europe.

For obvious reasons of geography Russia is the logical and most economic source of Europe’s gas. All alternatives come with economic and political costs that make them in the end unattractive.

The EU's difficulties in finding alternative sources of gas were cruelly exposed by the debacle of the so-called another Nabucco pipeline project to bring Europe gas from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Though talked about for years in the end it never got off the ground because it never made economic sense.

Meanwhile, whilst Europe talks about diversifying its supplies, it is Russia which is actually cutting the deals.

Russia has sealed a key deal with Iran to swap Iranian oil for Russian industrial goods. Russia has also agreed to invest heavily in the Iranian nuclear industry. If and when sanctions on Iran are lifted the Europeans will find the Russians already there. Russia has just agreed a massive deal to supply gas to Turkey (about which more below). Overshadowing these deals are the two huge deals Russia has made this year to supply gas to China.

Russia's energy resources are enormous but they are not infinite. The second deal done with China and the deal just done with Turkey redirect to these two countries gas that had previously been earmarked for Europe. The gas volumes involved in the Turkish deal almost exactly match those previously intended for South Stream. The Turkish deal replaces South Stream.

These deals show that Russia had made a strategic decision this year to redirect its energy flow away from Europe. Though it will take time for the full effect to become clear, the consequences of that for Europe are grim. Europe is looking at a serious energy shortfall, which it will only be able to make up by buying energy at a much higher price.

These Russian deals with China and Turkey have been criticised or even ridiculed for providing Russia with a lower price for its gas than that paid by Europe.

The actual difference in price is not as great as some allege. Such criticism anyway overlooks the fact that price is only one part in a business relationship.

By redirecting gas to China, Russia cements economic links with the country that it now considers its key strategic ally and which has (or which soon will have) the world’s biggest and fastest growing economy. By redirecting gas to Turkey, Russia consolidates a burgeoning relationship with Turkey of which it is now the biggest trading partner.

Turkey is a key potential ally for Russia, consolidating Russia's position in the Caucasus and the Black Sea. It is also a country of 76 million people with a $1.5 trillion rapidly growing economy, which over the last two decades has become increasingly alienated and distanced from the EU and the West.

By redirecting gas away from Europe, Russia by contrast leaves behind a market for its gas which is economically stagnant and which (as the events of this year have shown) is irremediably hostile. No one should be surprised that Russia has given up on a relationship from which it gets from its erstwhile partner an endless stream of threats and abuse, combined with moralising lectures, political meddling and now sanctions. No relationship, business or otherwise, can work that way and the one between Russia and Europe is no exception.

I have said nothing about the Ukraine since in my opinion this has little bearing on this issue.

South Stream was first conceived because of the Ukraine's continuous abuse of its position as a transit state - something which is likely to continue. It is important to say that this fact was acknowledged in Europe as much as in Russia. It was because the Ukraine perennially abuses its position as a transit state that the South Stream project had the grudging formal endorsement of the EU. Basically, the EU needs to circumvent the Ukraine to secure its energy supplies every bit as much as Russia wanted a route around the Ukraine to avoid it.

The Ukraine’s friends in Washington and Brussels have never been happy about this, and have constantly lobbied against South Stream.

The point is it was Russia which pulled the plug on South Stream when it had the option of going ahead with it by accepting the Europeans’ conditions. In other words the Russians consider the problems posed by the Ukraine as a transit state to be a lesser evil than the conditions the EU was attaching to South Stream .

South Stream would take years to build and its cancellation therefore has no bearing on the current Ukrainian crisis. The Russians decided they could afford to cancel it is because they have decided Russia’s future is in selling its energy to China and Turkey and other states in Asia (more gas deals are pending with Korea and Japan and possibly also with Pakistan and India) than to Europe. Given that this is so, for Russia South Stream has lost its point. That is why in their characteristically direct way, rather than accept the Europeans’ conditions, the Russians pulled the plug on it.

In doing so the Russians have called the Europeans’ bluff. So far from Russia being dependent on Europe as its energy customer, it is Europe which has antagonised, probably irreparably, its key economic partner and energy supplier.

Before finishing I would however first say something about those who have come out worst of all from this affair. These are the corrupt and incompetent political pygmies who pretend to be the government of Bulgaria. Had these people had a modicum of dignity and self respect they would have told the EU Commission when it brought up the Third Energy Package to take a running jump. If Bulgaria had made clear its intention to press ahead with the South Stream project, there is no doubt it would have been built. There would of course have been an almighty row within the EU as Bulgaria openly flouted the Third Energy Package, but Bulgaria would have been acting in its national interests and would have had within the EU no shortage of friends. In the end it would have won through.

Instead, under pressure from individuals like Senator John McCain, the Bulgarian leadership behaved like the provincial politicians they are, and tried to run at the same time with both the EU hare and the Russian hounds. The result of this imbecile policy is to offend Russia, Bulgaria's historic ally, whilst ensuring that the Russian gas which might have flown to Bulgaria and transformed the country, will instead flow to Turkey, Bulgaria's historic enemy.

The Bulgarians are not the only ones to have acted in this craven fashion. All the EU countries, even those with historic ties to Russia, have supported the EU's various sanctions packages against Russia notwithstanding the doubts they have expressed about the policy. Last year Greece, another country with strong ties to Russia, pulled out of a deal to sell its natural gas company to Gazprom because the EU disapproved of it, even though it was Gazprom that offered the best price.

This points to a larger moral. Whenever the Russians act in the way they have just done, the Europeans respond bafflement and anger, of which there is plenty around at the moment. The EU politicians who make the decisions that provoke these Russian actions seem to have this strange assumption that whilst it is fine for the EU to sanction Russia as much as it wishes, Russia will never do the same to the EU. When Russia does, there is astonishment, accompanied always by a flood of mendacious commentary about how Russia is behaving “aggressively” or “contrary to its interests” or has “suffered a defeat”. None of this is true as the rage and recriminations currently sweeping through the EU’s corridors (of which I am well informed) bear witness.

In July the EU sought to cripple Russia’s oil industry by sanctioning the export of oil drilling technology to Russia. That attempt will certainly fail as Russia and the countries it trades with (including China and South Korea) are certainly capable of producing this technology themselves.

By contrast through the deals it has made this year with China, Turkey and Iran, Russia has dealt a devastating blow to the energy future of the EU. A few years down the line Europeans will start to discover that moralising and bluff comes with a price. Regardless, by cancelling South Stream, Russia has imposed upon Europe the most effective of the sanctions we have seen this year. 

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2014/12/the-importance-of-cancellation-of-south.html

The Saker Blog now also in French!


AMIS FRANCOPHONES!
Vous pouvez maintenant lire le blog du Saker en Français en cliquant sur ce lien:


http://www.vineyardsaker.fr/

The Saker Blog now also in German!

ALLE UNSERE DEUTSCHEN FREUNDE!
koennen jetzt den blog des Sakers auf Deutsch lesen - bitte hier anklicken:


http://www.vineyardsaker.de/

The Saker Blog now in Oceania

TO ALL THE SAKER FRIENDS IN OCEANIA!
you can now also visit the Oceania Vineyardsaker Blog by clicking on this link:


http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/

The Saker Blog now in Serbian

TO ALL THE SAKER FRIENDS IN SERBIA!
you can now also visit the Serbian Vineyardsaker Blog by clicking on this link:


http://www.thesakersrpski.rs/

The Saker Blog now in Italian

TO ALL THE SAKER FRIENDS IN ITALY!
ora potete anche visitare il Blog Italiano VineyardSaker cliccando su questo link:


http://www.vineyardsaker.it/





Monday, December 8, 2014

New York Times propagandists exposed: Finally, the truth about Ukraine and Putin emerges

 

NATO was the aggressor and got Ukraine wrong. Many months later, the media has eventually figured out the truth


Well, well, well. Gloating is unseemly, especially in public, but give me this one, will you?
It has been a long and lonely winter defending the true version of events in Ukraine, but here comes the sun. We now have open acknowledgment in high places that Washington is indeed responsible for this mess, the prime mover, the “aggressor,” and finally this term is applied where it belongs. NATO, once again, is revealed as causing vastly more trouble than it has ever prevented.
Washington, it is now openly stated, has been wrong, wrong, wrong all along. The commentaries to be noted do not take on the media, but I will, and in language I use advisedly. With a few exceptions they are proven liars, liars, liars — not only conveying the official version of events but willfully elaborating on it off their own bats.
Memo to the New York Times’ Moscow bureau: Vicky Nuland, infamous now for desiring sex with the European Union, has just FedExed little gold stars you can affix to your foreheads, one for each of you. Wear them with pride for you will surely fight another day, having learned nothing, and ignore all ridicule. If it gets too embarrassing, tell people they have something to do with the holidays.
O.K., gloat concluded. To the business at hand.
We have had, in the last little while, significant analyses of the Ukraine crisis, each employing that method the State Department finds deadly: historical perspective. In a lengthy interview with Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, none other than Henry Kissinger takes Washington carefully but mercilessly to task. “Does one achieve a world order through chaos or through insight?” Dr. K. asks.
Here is one pertinent bit:
KISSINGER. … But if the West is honest with itself, it has to admit that there were mistakes on its side. The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.
SPIEGEL. What was it then?
KISSINGER. One has to ask oneself this question: Putin spent tens of billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The theme of the Olympics was that Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its culture and, therefore, it presumably wants to be part of it. So it doesn’t make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics, Putin would take Crimea and start a war over Ukraine. So one has to ask oneself, Why did it happen?
SPIEGEL. What you’re saying is that the West has at least a kind of responsibility for the escalation?
KISSINGER. Yes, I am saying that. Europe and America did not understand the impact of these events, starting with the negotiations about Ukraine’s economic relations with the European Union and culminating in the demonstrations in Kiev. All these, and their impact, should have been the subject of a dialogue with Russia. This does not mean the Russian response was appropriate.
Interesting. Looking for either insight or honesty in Obama’s White House or in his State Department is a forlorn business, and Kissinger surely knows this. So he is, as always, a cagey critic. But there are numerous things here to consider, and I will come back to them.
First, let us note that Kissinger’s remarks follow an essay titled “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault.” The subhead is just as pithy: “The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin.”
Wow. As display language I would speak for that myself. And wow again for where the piece appears: In the September-October edition of Foreign Affairs, that radical rag published at East 68th Street and Park Avenue, the Manhattan home of the ever-subverting Council on Foreign Relations.
Finally and most recently, we have Katrina vanden Heuvel weighing in on the Washington Post’s opinion page the other day with “Rethinking the Cost of Western Intervention in Ukraine,” in which the Nation’s noted editor asserts, “One year after the United States and Europe celebrated the February coup that ousted the corrupt but constitutionally elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, liberal and neoconservative interventionists have much to answer for.”
Emphatically so. Here is one of vanden Heuvel’s more salient observations:
The U.S. government and the mainstream media present this calamity as a morality tale. Ukrainians demonstrated against Yanukovych because they wanted to align with the West and democracy. Putin, as portrayed by Hillary Rodham Clinton among others, is an expansionist Hitler who has trampled international law and must be made to “pay a big price” for his aggression. Isolation and escalating economic sanctions have been imposed. Next, if Senate hawks such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham have their way, Ukraine will be provided with arms to “deter” Putin’s “aggression.” But this perspective distorts reality.
I can anticipate with ease a thoughtful reader or two writing in the comment thread, “But we knew all this already. What’s the point?” We have known all this since the beginning, indeed, thanks to perspicacious writers such as Robert Parry and Steve Weissman. Parry, like your columnist, is a refugee from the mainstream who could take no more; Weissman, whose credentials go back to the Free Speech Movement, seems fed up with the whole nine and exiled himself to France.
Something I have wanted to say for months is now right: Thank you, colleagues. Keep on keeping on.
Also to be noted in this vein is Stephen Cohen, the distinguished Princeton Russianist, whose essay in the Nation last February gave superb and still useful perspective, a must-read if you propose to take Ukraine seriously and get beyond the propaganda. (Vanden Heuvel rightly noted him, too, wrongly omitting that she and Cohen are spouses. A report to the Ethics Police has been filed anonymously.)
These people’s reporting and analyses require no imprimatur from the mainstream press. Who could care? This is not the point. The points as I read them are two.
One, there is no shred of doubt in my mind that the work of the above-mentioned and a few others like them has been instrumental in forcing the truth of the Ukraine crisis to the surface. Miss this not. In a polity wherein the policy cliques have zero accountability to any constituency — unbelievable simply to type that phrase — getting accurate accounts and responsibly explanatory copy out — and then reading it, equally — is essential. Future historians will join me in expressing gratitude.
Two, we have indirect admissions of failure. It is highly significant that Foreign Affairs and the Washington Post, both bastions of the orthodoxy, are now willing to publish what amount to capitulations. It would be naive to think this does not reflect a turning of opinion among prominent members of the policy cliques.
I had thought for months as the crisis dragged on, this degree of disinformation cannot possibly hold. From the Nuland tape onward, too much of the underwear was visible as the trousers fell down, so to say. And now we have State and the media clerks with their pants bunched up at their ankles.
The Foreign Affairs piece is by a scholar at the University of Chicago named John Mearsheimer, whose publishing credits include “Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics” and “The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy,” the latter an especially gutsy undertaking. He is a soothsayer, and you find these people among the scholars every once in a while, believe it or not.
Mearsheimer was writing opinion in the Times with heads such as “Getting Ukraine Wrong” as far back as March, when the news pages were already busy doing so. In the Foreign Affairs piece, he vigorously attacks NATO expansion, citing George Kennan in his later years, when Dr. Containment was objecting strenuously to the post-Soviet push eastward and the overall perversion of his thinking by neoliberal know-nothings-read-nothings. Here is a little Mearsheimer:
… The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine—beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004—were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president—which he rightly labeled a “coup”—coup—was was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.
Drinks for Mearsheimer, for his plain-English use of “coup” alone, any time the professor may happen into my tiny Connecticut village. It is an extensive, thorough piece and worth the read even if Foreign Affairs is not your usual habit. His conclusion now that Ukraine is in pieces, its economy wrecked and its social fabric in shreds:
The United States and its European allies now face a choice on Ukraine. They can continue their current policy, which will exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process — a scenario in which everyone would come out a loser. Or they can switch gears and work to create a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia and allows the West to repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.
Mearsheimer has as much chance of seeing this shift in policy as Kissinger has finding honesty and insight anywhere in Washington. One hope he is busy in other matters.
As to Dr. K., he reminds me at 90 of the old survivors of the Maoist revolution in China, the last few Long Marchers. They enjoy a certain immunity in their sunset years, no matter what they may say, and for this reason I have always appreciated meeting the few I have. So it is with Henry.
Did Washington in any way authorize Kissinger’s interview, as it may have the Foreign Affairs piece, given the revolving door at East 68th Street? I doubt it. Did it know this was coming. Almost certainly. A nonagenarian, Henry still travels in high policy circles. His critique on Ukraine has been evident here and there for many months.
Interesting, first, that Kissinger gave the interview to a German magazine. Nobody in the American press would have dared touch such remarks as these — they cannot, having lied so long. And Kissinger understands, surely, that the Germans are ambivalent, to put it mildly, when it comes to Washington’s aggressions against Russia.
I have been mad at Kissinger since throwing rocks at the CRS, the French riot police, outside the American embassy in Paris in the spring of 1970, when the U.S started bombing Cambodia. And I am not with him now when he asserts “the Russian response was not appropriate.”
Why not? What was Putin supposed to do when faced with the prospect of NATO and the American Navy assuming privileges on the Black Sea? Was it appropriate when Kennedy threatened Khrushchev with nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis? Arming the contras? Deposing Arbenz? Allende? Let us not get started.
Here is the thing about Henry. European by background, he understands balance-of-power politics cannot be ignored. He understands that spheres of influence must be observed. (My view, explained in an earlier column, is that they are to be acknowledged but not honored — regrettable realities that our century, best outcome, will do away with.)
We reach a new moment in the Ukraine crisis with these new analyses from people inside the tent urinating out, as they say. I have hinted previously at the lesson to be drawn. Maybe now it will be clearer to those who object.
Whatever one may think of Russia under Vladimir Putin, it is secondary at this moment — and more the business of Russians than anyone else — to something larger. This is a non-Western nation drawing a line of resistance against the advance of Anglo-American neoliberalism across the planet. This counts big, in my view. It is an important thing to do.
Some readers argue that Putin oversees a neoliberal regime himself. It is an unappealing kind of capitalism, certainly, although the centralization of the economy almost certainly reflects Putin’s strategy when faced with the need to rebuild urgently from the ungodly mess left by the U.S-beloved Yeltsin. See the above-noted piece by Stephen Cohen on this point.
For the sake of argument, let us accept the assertion: Russia is a neoliberal variant. O.K., but again, this is a Russian problem and Russians, not Americans, will solve it one way or the other — as they like and eventually. Important for us is that Putin is not pushing the model around the world, chest-out insisting that all others conform to it. This distinction counts, too.
Joseph Brodsky wrote an open letter to Václav Havel back in 1994, by which time the neoliberal orthodoxy and its evangelists were well-ensconced in Washington. The piece was titled “The Post-Communist Nightmare.” In it Brodsky was highly critical of “the cowboys of the Western industrial democracies” who, he asserted, “derive enormous moral comfort from being regarded as cowboys—first of all, by the Indians.”
“Are all the Indians now to commence imitation of the cowboys,” the Russian émigré poet asked the new president of the (also new) Czech Republic.
I view the Ukraine crisis through this lens. A huge mistake has now been acknowledged. Now it is time: Instead of complaining about Putin and what he is doing to Russians every prompt given, like trained animals, now we must complain about what America proposes doing to the rest of the world, limitlessly.
Patrick Smith is the author of “Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century.” He was the International Herald Tribune’s bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote “Letter from Tokyo” for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist.

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/04/new_york_times_propagandists_exposed_finally_the_truth_about_ukraine_and_putin_emerges/