Maidan Massacre Ukraine documentary

English version of documentary investigation into the shootings which occurred February 20, 2014 in Kiev's Independence Square, also known as "Maidan". Directed by John Beck-Hofmann.
http://acabpolicestate.weebly.com/fascism-in-europe-ukraine.html

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

U.S. May Position for a War Against Russia

Posted on June 16, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.

Russia Says It Will Respond If U.S. Does So

Eric Zuesse

On Saturday, June 13th, The New York Times bannered, “U.S. Is Poised to Put Heavy Weaponry in Eastern Europe,” and Russia’s response to the announcement wasn’t long in coming.

The Russian equivalent of America’s Wall Street Journal and Britain’s Financial Times, which is Kommersant (or Businessperson), headlined on June 15th, “US may redeploy heavy weapons to the borders of the Russian Federation,” and reported that, “According to sources in the Russian Government, the implementation of this plan will force Moscow to post on the border with the Baltic countries Russia’s own offensive military capability that can destroy US facilities in the event of a hypothetical conflict.”

The report in the Times had noted that, “The proposal, if approved, would represent the first time since the end of the Cold War that the United States has stationed heavy military equipment in the newer NATO member nations in Eastern Europe that had once been part of the Soviet sphere of influence.” 

The Soviet Union (and its communism, which the U.S. always said was the basis for the Cold War) ended in 1991. That was the same year when the Warsaw Pact — Russia’s equivalent of NATO — also ended. In Russia, the expectation was that that would be that — there would be no more hostility between the governments of the U.S.A. and Russia. Russian leaders had assumed this, but it turned out not to be the case. (Perhaps this explains part of the reason why it turned out not to be so: Dick Cheney’s Halliburton Corporation in the 1990s estimated that Russia has enormous oil deposits.)

The U.S. has thus been expanding NATO right up to the very borders of Russia, after the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact ended in 1991. (Russia did no such thing to the United States; Russia hasn’t been trying to surround the U.S. with enemy nations.) The NATO expansion started in 1999, when U.S. President Bill Clinton brought into NATO the former Warsaw Pact member-nations of Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary. Then, this threatening (if not aggressive) U.S. move, expanded even further in 2004, when U.S. President George W. Bush brought into NATO other former Warsaw Pact members: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. 

Next, in 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama brought into NATO two more former Warsaw Pact nations, Albania and Croatia. 

Finally, President Obama, in a 2014 very bloody coup d’etat, overthrew the neutralist government of Ukraine, and replaced it with a government which is filled with politicians whose political heritage goes back to the pro-Hitler and rabidly anti-Russian political movements in Ukraine during World War II, and these fascist U.S.-client politicians have many times spoken of their aim being to join NATO and — with NATO’s help — to destroy Russia. America’s threat to Russia is very real.

Russian intelligence had, even earlier than Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision on 20 November 2013 to decline membership in the EU, gotten wind of the Obama Administration’s preparations ever since the Spring of 2013, to overthrow the neutralist Yanukovych and replace him with a racist-fascist anti-Russian regime in next-door Ukraine: a bunch of nazis who are Russian-hating fascists even more than they are Jew-hating fascists. They hate the Russian people. What nation wants a rabidly hostile regime like that on its doorstep? Consequently, within even less than a month after the American coup, Russia prevented America’s planned follow-on takeover of Russia’s main naval base, which is on the then-Ukrainian island of Crimea. The Soviet dictator Nikita Khruschev had donated Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, though Crimea had always been part of Russia; and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin provided, immediately after the coup, Russian protection to Crimeans, so that they could hold their own vote on whether to rejoin with Russia. Even the hard-like anti-Russian Forbes magazine commentator, Kenneth Rapoza, headlined on 20 March 2015, “One Year After Russia Annexed Crimea, Locals Prefer Moscow To Kiev,” and he reviewed several polls, some taken by U.S.-owned polling organizations, all showing almost 100% support among Crimeans for the switch back to being Russians again and no longer being subject to rule from Kiev — especially not this Russia-hating Kiev regime. Rapoza concluded simply, “At some point, the West will have to recognize Crimea’s right to self rule.” But U.S. President Obama, and his followers within the European Union, still refuse to do that. The people of Scotland are allowed to vote on whether to secede from the UK, but the people of Crimea (who never self-identified as Ukrainians nearly to the extent they self-identified as Russians) cannot do likewise? That’s what the West’s hypocritical leaders are saying — and now a World War III could result from it.

So, Obama and the EU slapped economic sanctions on Russia (for what are actually the consequences of America’s coup); and, when the new Ukrainian Government started a bombing campaign to eliminate the inhabitants in the Donbass region of Ukraine, which had voted over 90% for Viktor Yanukovych (which is the only way to get Obama’s regime-change in Ukraine to survive future elections — i.e., to get rid of the voters there) the West then blamed Russia for assisting the residents in the Donbass region to defend themselves against the exterminationist invasion from Kiev. And President Obama still insists that Ukraine seize back both Donbass and Crimea.

And this brings us to today, and, perhaps, to the brink of a U.S.-Russian war.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of  Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/u-s-may-position-for-a-war-against-russia.html

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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.

5. 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.

7. Provide secure access, delivery, storage and distribution of humanitarian assistance to those in need on the basis of an international mechanism.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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].

12. 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.

13. 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/

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

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

Civilian killed in intense Ukrainian army shelling of Donetsk despite ceasefire

At least one civilian has been killed in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk after an army shell hit an apartment building amid intense fire on rebel positions. An RT correspondent says the city has seen one of its worst shellings in months.
“There was fire, shelling for about two hours and it was almost non-stop…blast after blast, you could feel the vibrations from the explosions, kilometers away from the frontline,” RT’s Murad Gazdiev said over the phone from Donetsk.

According to Gazdiev, the attack centered on northern Donetsk, where the previously contested airport is located, but at least one shell landed on a civilian building. RT’s crew rushed to the area to find out if the report was true.
“We found the residents who survived sitting outside, obviously in shock, covered in dust. One elderly man who lived on the top floor…the shell landed in his apartment. The place was almost torn apart, the walls were blasted out,” Gazdiev said, describing the scene.
 Rescue workers were still trying to find the man’s remains in the rubble, he added.

The rise in violence in eastern Ukraine comes just days after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko vowed to “fight to the last drop of blood” against what he called “Russian aggressors” and called the internationally-recognized Minsk peace roadmap a “pseudo-peace” deal in an interview with the German TV channel ZDF. Earlier, Poroshenko’s official website quoted him as saying: “I have no doubt – we will free the [Donetsk] airport, because it is our land. And we will rebuild the airport.”
READ MORE: Poroshenko says Minsk deal ‘pseudo-peace’, vows to fight to the last drop of blood
The Donetsk Airport had been the last strategic spot occupied by Ukrainian troops in the rebel-held city before anti-government forces overran the area after eight months of siege.
Poroshenko’s statement prompted reaction from both Moscow and Washington. While the Kremlin said it “clearly violated the Minsk agreements,” US Secretary of State John Kerry advised Poroshenko to “think twice” before reigniting the conflict.
The Ukrainian president later backpedaled on his remarks about the airport, accusing the Russian press of overblowing the quote.
READ MORE: Ukrainian Parliament approves law allowing forced relocation of Russian citizens
The latest attack comes despite US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who is currently in Moscow on a Ukraine-centered visit, saying that “there is no indication from our own information or from my consultations in Kiev that anybody on the Ukrainian side, anybody in leadership…has any intention of launching new hostilities.”

 However, Daniel McAdams, the Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, believes the latest spate of violence has clearly been coordinated with Kiev’s supporters in Washington.

“I think it would be very naïve to think that Poroshenko was doing that on his own. Even though we heard Kerry last week saying that Poroshenko’s vow to retake eastern Ukraine, that he should shut up about it, the US has been training Ukrainian troops, it’s been sending in dozens if not more Humvees and other equipment. They’re providing the capability of the Ukrainian National Guard and Army to attack eastern Ukraine – why should there be any surprise they’ve been emboldened by this US assistance?”
According to McAdams, there is no indication the US government has demanded that Kiev cooled down its stance on rebel-controlled areas in eastern Ukraine, while the military training and support have continued.

The shelling of Donetsk also comes on the heels of Nuland’s visit to Kiev, which is no coincidence, according to the former foreign affairs advisor to Ron Paul.

“Any time a major US official has gone to the region, some attack has happened afterward – remember the CIA [director John Brennan] was there a couple of times and attacks immediately followed. This just seems to be another of those patterns,” McAdams argued.

http://rt.com/news/259825-civilian-killed-ukraine-shelling-donetsk/

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e38_1432628134

http://slavyangrad.org/2015/05/19/donetsk-under-massive-ukrainian-shelling-may-18-19-2015/

http://rusvesna.su/english/1431912512

Questions Raised Over Poroshenko's Role In Valuable Kyiv Land Deal

By Maksym Savchuk and Daisy Sindelar

May 13, 2015

KYIV -- An investigation by RFE/RL shows that Ukrainian leader Petro Poroshenko may have used his presidential influence to shut down investigations into damage of a protected historic site caused by unauthorized construction on his private property in central Kyiv.

Two reports broadcast on RFE/RL's Ukrainian-language television program, Schemes, reveal that over the course of seven years, Poroshenko quietly a plot of protected land in Kyiv's elite Pechera district and recently quashed an inquiry into the damage of an 18th-century structure caused by construction work on his plot.

The revelations come as Poroshenko, soon to mark his first year in office, faces growing criticism for failing to divest his billion-dollar business holdings and diminish the political influence of Ukrainian oligarchs like Dmytro Firtash, who last week claimed he personally orchestrated Poroshenko's rise to the presidency.

Supporters of Poroshenko -- still one of Ukraine's richest men, with an estimated fortune of $750 million -- defend him as a "president of de-oligarchization." But his failure to honor his campaign pledge to divest himself of his assets, as well as new findings about his property holdings, may add to questions about his commitment to separating politics from property and money.

Good Neighborhood

Radialna Street is short, but it runs through some of the prettiest land in Kyiv. Located in the forested neighborhood known as Tsar's Village, it is part of the protected Pechera district that runs along the western bank of the winding Dnipro River.

The district is home to two of the city's best-known historical attractions, the St. Sophia Cathedral and the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, also known as the Monastery of the Caves. Both are recognized by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site and are protected under Kyiv city law, together with a 220-hectare buffer zone.

Within Tsar's Village, two plots share the address Radialna 5. One, undeveloped and strewn with debris, belongs to Poroshenko. The other, across the street, already boasts a fenced-in mansion and tennis court. It belongs to one of Poroshenko's closest friends and business partners, Ihor Kononenko.

Kononenko is a lawmaker who currently serves as deputy head of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc's faction in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament. Bald and solidly built, he is sometimes referred to as the bloc's "gray cardinal." But in 2009, he was a member of the Kyiv government and an ally of then-Mayor Leonid Chernovetskyy, who presided over a city vote handing the Radialna 5 plots to a company co-founded by Kononenko -- for free.

Long-Term Plan?

How does protected state land with a market value of more than $25 million get handed free of charge to a little-known company run by a city lawmaker?

Documents suggest that Kononenko had his eye on the Tsar's Village land as early as 2003. That was when he helped create Zelenbudservis-K, a private limited company that gradually laid claim to the grounds, which until then had housed the state landscaping service responsible for the St. Sophia and Pechersk grounds.

Within five years, the landscapers had been moved to their new location, far from the Pechera district in a dreary section of industrial Kyiv. Olha Krystovnikova, the facility's head agronomist, confirmed to Schemes that the landscapers had moved to the new greenhouse complex in 2008, and that they had previously been based at Radialna 5.

Google Earth images from 2008 show the landscapers' former greenhouses and storage units still standing on the Radialna plots. Now they're gone, replaced by Kononenko's mansion and Poroshenko's still-empty lot.

'Biggest' Land Scheme

In an interview with Schemes, Kononenko openly acknowledged his role in the transfer.
"I've really been dealing with this issue since 2004," he said, adding that he had acted at the behest of Chernovetskyy's mayoral predecessor, Oleksandr Omelchenko, in finding a new location for the landscapers.

With the Radialna grounds in the process of being vacated, Zelenbudservis-K -- which still held operating rights to the Tsar's Village plots -- quietly dropped its private status in 2007, reregistering as a housing cooperative society. That switch, under Ukraine's land code, allowed Zelenbudservis-K to receive ownership of the Radialna 5 land for free -- the transaction that was approved by a voting majority of Kyiv city lawmakers in April 2009.

Rights activist Oleksandr Dyadyuk says such land-acquisition schemes reached their peak under the notorious mayoralty of Chernovetskyy, a quirky millionaire who was nicknamed "Kosmos" after announcing plans to travel to space with his cat.

"Large lots of valuable land were transferred in precisely this way, through fake housing cooperative societies," Dyaduk says. Such acquisitions, including the plots at Radialna 5, were all conducted according to what he called "the biggest and most important free-appropriation land scheme in Kyiv."

Inconsistencies

There are numerous irregularities in Radialna 5's path from state greenhouse to luxury-home turf. None of the 12 members of the Zelenbudservis-K cooperative society was on the housing register, a legal step meant to ensure that free land is going to those in need. Of the 12, at least six have close ties to Poroshenko and Kononenko, including Kononenko's sister and a Poroshenko political adviser.

In addition, Oles Dovhy, the city council secretary who agreed to initiate the process of transferring the land to Zelenbudservis-K, has close ties to Poroshenko. And Ukrsel, the company that officially purchased the Radialna land from Zelenbudservis-K before selling it to Poroshenko and Kononenko, was an Odesa-based shell company liquidated shortly after the final transfer of the land in late 2009.

Most worrying to critics, however, are suggestions that Poroshenko may have since used his presidential imprimatur to shut down a probe into damage caused to a neighboring structure by unauthorized construction on his plot.

Destruction Of Relics

In 2012, employees at the Kyiv-Pechersk reserve were alarmed to see construction machinery begin excavation work at the Radialna 5 plot belonging to Poroshenko. In a letter to the Culture Ministry, the reserve's director Lubomyr Mykhaylyna expressed concern that the digging was taking place inside a UNESCO buffer zone and within meters of an early 18th-century earthen fortification that is part of the site's historic properties.

Construction is not prohibited on protected land, but it is strictly regulated. Building projects can only proceed after receiving two separate sets of approvals -- one from the Culture Ministry's cultural-heritage department, and one from archaeological experts at the National Academy of Sciences.
Preservation experts wrote directly to Poroshenko, informing him of the threat to the fortress. Construction work was finally suspended in early 2013, but not before one of the fortress's lunettes -- structural walls in the shape of a half-moon -- was partially destroyed.

At the time construction started, Poroshenko had not received permission from either the Culture Ministry or the National Academy of Science. (He ultimately received NAS approval, but only in December 2012, a month after excavation began.)
A Pechera district prosecutor quickly opened a criminal case into the lunette's destruction, citing national laws protecting monuments of cultural heritage. But on November 6, 2014 -- five months after Poroshenko's presidential inauguration -- the proceedings were closed. Olena Yakhno, a spokesperson for the Kyiv prosecutor's office, said no criminal violations were found. Eighteen days later, on November 24, Poroshenko signed off on a new declaration to resume construction at the Tsar's Village plot. (As of May, there has been no sign of work at the site.)

Poroshenko and his spokesman Svyatoslav Tseholko declined to speak to Schemes. Oleksandr Lutskyy, a former deputy mayor of Kyiv and Chernovetskyy ally authorized to speak on the president's behalf, provided RFE/RL with a copy of Poroshenko's construction declaration but later told a correspondent, "You're digging where there's nothing to dig."
* This article was corrected to clarify that the investigation into Poroshenko's actions was tied to construction-related damage to the neighboring historic structure, not his acquisition of the land. Changes were also made in order to properly describe the 18th-century structure and the relationship between Zelenbudservis-K and the landscaping group that previously occupied the plot at Radialna 5. Finally, Poroshenko's plot was incorrectly described as a hectare of land. It is 0.63 hectares; Kononenko's plot is 0.46. 

Written in Prague by Daisy Sindelar based on reporting in Kyiv by Maksym Savchuk

http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-poroshenko-land-deal-questions-tsars-village/27013945.html

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

The list of the major war criminals of Ukraine includes 65 people – first for breaking news – LIFE

Russian specialists have compiled a list of senior officials as well as members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the National Guard and the Interior Troops involved in participation in punitive operations on the border of Ukraine. The list of those who directly or indirectly involved in the destruction of civilian population, 65 surname.

At the same time, representatives of the Russian Investigative Committee confirmed that the Ukrainian politicians and the military, trapped in a list, is under scrutiny investigation. The names of war criminals known investigator of Ukraine.
– Can clarify that for some of this on your list prosecuted. Some people have been indicted – for example, Hope Savchenko, Igor Kolomoisky, Arsen Avakov, Andrew and Igor Levus Mosiychuk – said the representative of IC Vladimir Markin.


According to him, the other names of the Investigative Committee are also known, and against them being actively pursued. It is possible that in the near future, they also charged.
– Many of the representatives of this list, sooner or later have to answer for their actions. It is obvious that the current Ukrainian government is not eternal, because the power that gives orders to kill civilians in fact a criminal, as well as the actions of the perpetrators of such orders, – said Vladimir Markin.
Also by a representative of the RF IC noted that the problem of Russian investigator carefully, carefully collect and record all the evidence for future ships.

– What specifically – time will tell. Someone like Savchenko and Litvinov, has just brought before the Russian justice, waiting for someone to international courts, and someone may be lucky enough to be in the dock in the Ukraine or what remains of it – said Markin .
List of major war criminals of Ukraine:
first Dmitry Yarosh – the leader of the party “Right Sector”;
2. Bratsyun Stepan – leader of the party “Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists”;
3. Valentin Nalyvaychenko – Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine
4. Yuri Pavlov – Colonel-General, Chief of the Intelligence Ministry of Defense of Ukraine;
5. Michael Koval – former acting Minister of Defense of Ukraine;
6. Baidak Yuri – Colonel General, Commander of the Air Force of Ukraine;
7. Gennady Vorobyev – Army Chief of Ukraine;
8. Poltorak Stepan – Lieutenant General, Commander of the National Guard of Ukraine
9. Alexander Krivenko – Lieutenant General, Deputy Commander of the National Guard of Ukraine;
tenth Nicholas Balan – Major General, Deputy Commander of the National Guard of Ukraine;
eleventh Rudnicki Valery – Colonel, Deputy Commander of the National Guard of Ukraine;
twelfth Spodar Jaroslav – Colonel, Deputy Commander of the National Guard of Ukraine;
thirteenth Oleg V. butchers – Colonel, Deputy Commander of the National Guard of Ukraine;
fourteenth Biletsky Andrew – leader of the “Patriot of Ukraine” battalion commander “Azov” The National Guard of Ukraine;
fifteenth Odnorozhenko Oleg – deputy commander of the “Azov” for educational work;
sixteenth Linko Dmitry – the commander of the battalion 5 companies “Azov” the National Guard of Ukraine;
seventeenth Vitaly Komar – the commander of the battalion 5 Territorial Defence National Guard of Ukraine;
eighteenth Zherebetskyi Taras – commander of 1st Battalion, 3rd Company of the National Guard of Ukraine;
19. Plakhotnyuk Oleg – Colonel, commander of a separate regiment of special purpose Ukraine National Guard under “Jaguar” (St. Kalynivka Vinntskaya region.)
twentieth Puhnarevich Denis – separate regiment of special purpose “Jaguar”;
21. Baylema Alexander – separate regiment of special purpose “Jaguar”;
22. Alenin Alexander – lieutenant colonel, commander in / h 3059 the National Guard of Ukraine (Kremenchug)
twenty-three Smolova Valery – colonel, commander of the in / hr 4114 Rymniksky flag National Guard under Ukraine
24. Yatskov Vladimir – Colonel, Commander of the 51st mechanized brigade;
25. Yuri Ivanuschenko – colonel, deputy commander of the 51th mechanized brigade;
twenty-sixth Androschuk Nicholas – colonel, deputy commander of the 51th mechanized brigade;
twenty-seventh Podoprigora Ivan – colonel, deputy commander of the 51th mechanized brigade;
twenty-eighth Kuhtin Nicholas – a lieutenant colonel, deputy commander of the 51th mechanized brigade;
29. Yuri Kurachik – lieutenant colonel, deputy commander of the 51th mechanized brigade;
thirties Papchenko Ruslan – a lieutenant colonel, commander of the artillery group 51th mechanized brigade;
3-1. Medvedskii Vladimir – Major, commander of a tank battalion
32. Zelenskiy Dmitry – lieutenant, deputy commander of a tank battalion
33. Demidyuk Vladimir – Major, deputy commander of a tank battalion
thirty-fourth Coast Victor – Major, deputy commander of a tank battalion
thirty-fifth Todorenko Vadim – captain, commander of the 3rd Tank Company;
thirty-sixth Mosul Andrew – a senior lieutenant, a platoon commander, amphibious assault battalion in / h A1126;
thirty-seventh Kemin Victor – separate brigade of special purpose Ukraine National Guard under “Bars” in / hr 3027, Kiev;
thirty-eighth Small Nicholas – colonel, commander of anti-aircraft missile division;
Thirty-ninth Mamchur Julius – Air Force Colonel Ukrainian military pilot;
fortieth Pogorelyi Yuri – Air Force Colonel Ukrainian military pilot;
forty-one Savchenko Hope – navigator-operator of the military unit A 2595 Armed Forces of Ukraine (battalion gunner “Aydar”)
forty-second Sergey Litvinov – soldier battalion “Dnepr”;
forty-third Voytenko Ivan – the commander of the first battalion of 72 mechanized brigade Armed Forces of Ukraine;
forty-fourth Dubinyak Vitaly – deputy commander of the first battalion of 72 mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine;
forty-fifth Okhrimenko Alexander – Chief of Staff of the 1st Battalion Brigade 72 Armed Forces of Ukraine, in / h A2167;
forty-sixth Poles Alexander – / h A2167 commander of a tank battalion
47. Ustilko Dmitry – the commander of the first company of the first battalion of 72 mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine;
forty-eighth Arsen Avakov – Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine;
forty-ninth Igor Kolomoisky – governor of Dnepropetrovsk region;
fifties Valery Geleta – Minister of Defence of Ukraine;
Fifty-One Muzhenko Victor – from 3 July 2014 was appointed Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine;
fifty-second Yuri Birch – November 2014 to battalion commander of special purpose “Dnepr-1″ Research Affairs of Ukraine;
fifty-three Semenchenko seed to November 2014, the battalion commander “Donbass”;
fifty-fourth Sergei Melnychuk – until November 2014, the battalion commander “Aydar”;
fifty-fifth MIKAS Oleg – Commander 25 Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine;
fifty-sixth Alexander Razumov;
57. Shirobokov Artem;
58. Andrew Biletsky battalion commander “Azov” from November 2014 People’s Deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine;
fifty-ninth Zheleznova Roma
Sixties Levus Andrew – November 2014 with the People’s Deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine VIII convocation
sixty-first Mosiychuk Igor – Ukrainian journalist, a leading anti-Russian activities, member of council members in 2014, the former deputy commander of the battalion “Azov”;
sixty-second Sergey Miroshnikov – right-wing member of the organization “Right Sector”;
sixty-third Oleg Tyagnibok – Chairman of the nationalist party “Svoboda”;
sixty-fourth Tyagnibok Andrew – a member of the nationalist party “Svoboda”;
sixty-fifth Gennady Balashov.

http://v7news.com/the-list-of-the-major-war-criminals-of-ukraine-includes-65-people-first-for-breaking-news-life/

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.

The Federation Council wants to reverse the decision of the Political Bureau of the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954

Valentina Matvienko has proposed to invalidate the decision of the Political Bureau of the transfer of the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.
23.12.2014
http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/37710561/po-stopam-luzhkova

Address by President of the Russian Federation

March 18, 2014, 15:50 The Kremlin, Moscow

Sevastopol, Crimea Republic

http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/6889

Vladimir Putin addressed State Duma deputies, Federation Council members, heads of Russian regions and civil society representatives in the Kremlin.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Federation Council members, State Duma deputies, good afternoon.  Representatives of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol are here among us, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol!
Dear friends, we have gathered here today in connection with an issue that is of vital, historic significance to all of us. A referendum was held in Crimea on March 16 in full compliance with democratic procedures and international norms.
More than 82 percent of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96 percent of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia. These numbers speak for themselves.
To understand the reason behind such a choice it is enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.
Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea. This is also Sevastopol – a legendary city with an outstanding history, a fortress that serves as the birthplace of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Crimea is Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan and Sapun Ridge. Each one of these places is dear to our hearts, symbolising Russian military glory and outstanding valour.
Crimea is a unique blend of different peoples’ cultures and traditions. This makes it similar to Russia as a whole, where not a single ethnic group has been lost over the centuries. Russians and Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and people of other ethnic groups have lived side by side in Crimea, retaining their own identity, traditions, languages and faith.
Incidentally, the total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about 290,000-300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown, also lean towards Russia.
True, there was a time when Crimean Tatars were treated unfairly, just as a number of other peoples in the USSR. There is only one thing I can say here: millions of people of various ethnicities suffered during those repressions, and primarily Russians.
Crimean Tatars returned to their homeland. I believe we should make all the necessary political and legislative decisions to finalise the rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars, restore them in their rights and clear their good name.
We have great respect for people of all the ethnic groups living in Crimea. This is their common home, their motherland, and it would be right – I know the local population supports this – for Crimea to have three equal national languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar.
Colleagues,
In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was passed from generation to generation, over time, under any circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through during the entire 20^th century.
After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer Crimean Region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a federal city. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev. What stood behind this decision of his – a desire to win the support of the Ukrainian political establishment or to atone for the mass repressions of the 1930’s in Ukraine – is for historians to figure out.
What matters now is that this decision was made in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then. The decision was made behind the scenes. Naturally, in a totalitarian state nobody bothered to ask the citizens of Crimea and Sevastopol. They were faced with the fact. People, of course, wondered why all of a sudden Crimea became part of Ukraine. But on the whole – and we must state this clearly, we all know it – this decision was treated as a formality of sorts because the territory was transferred within the boundaries of a single state. Back then, it was impossible to imagine that Ukraine and Russia may split up and become two separate states. However, this has happened.
Unfortunately, what seemed impossible became a reality. The USSR fell apart. Things developed so swiftly that few people realised how truly dramatic those events and their consequences would be. Many people both in Russia and in Ukraine, as well as in other republics hoped that the Commonwealth of Independent States that was created at the time would become the new common form of statehood. They were told that there would be a single currency, a single economic space, joint armed forces; however, all this remained empty promises, while the big country was gone. It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered.
At the same time, we have to admit that by launching the sovereignty parade Russia itself aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as this collapse was legalised, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol ­– the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.
Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city. Yes, we all knew this in our hearts and minds, but we had to proceed from the existing reality and build our good-neighbourly relations with independent Ukraine on a new basis. Meanwhile, our relations with Ukraine, with the fraternal Ukrainian people have always been and will remain of foremost importance for us.
Today we can speak about it openly, and I would like to share with you some details of the negotiations that took place in the early 2000s. The then President of Ukraine Mr Kuchma asked me to expedite the process of delimiting the Russian-Ukrainian border. At that time, the process was practically at a standstill.  Russia seemed to have recognised Crimea as part of Ukraine, but there were no negotiations on delimiting the borders. Despite the complexity of the situation, I immediately issued instructions to Russian government agencies to speed up their work to document the borders, so that everyone had a clear understanding that by agreeing to delimit the border we admitted de facto and de jure that Crimea was Ukrainian territory, thereby closing the issue.
We accommodated Ukraine not only regarding Crimea, but also on such a complicated matter as the maritime boundary in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. What we proceeded from back then was that good relations with Ukraine matter most for us and they should not fall hostage to deadlock territorial disputes. However, we expected Ukraine to remain our good neighbour, we hoped that Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Ukraine, especially its southeast and Crimea, would live in a friendly, democratic and civilised state that would protect their rights in line with the norms of international law.
However, this is not how the situation developed. Time and time again attempts were made to deprive Russians of their historical memory, even of their language and to subject them to forced assimilation. Moreover, Russians, just as other citizens of Ukraine are suffering from the constant political and state crisis that has been rocking the country for over 20 years.
I understand why Ukrainian people wanted change. They have had enough of the authorities in power during the years of Ukraine’s independence. Presidents, prime ministers and parliamentarians changed, but their attitude to the country and its people remained the same. They milked the country, fought among themselves for power, assets and cash flows and did not care much about the ordinary people. They did not wonder why it was that millions of Ukrainian citizens saw no prospects at home and went to other countries to work as day labourers. I would like to stress this: it was not some Silicon Valley they fled to, but to become day labourers. Last year alone almost 3 million people found such jobs in Russia. According to some sources, in 2013 their earnings in Russia totalled over $20 billion, which is about 12% of Ukraine’s GDP.
I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.
The new so-called authorities began by introducing a draft law to revise the language policy, which was a direct infringement on the rights of ethnic minorities. However, they were immediately ‘disciplined’ by the foreign sponsors of these so-called politicians. One has to admit that the mentors of these current authorities are smart and know well what such attempts to build a purely Ukrainian state may lead to. The draft law was set aside, but clearly reserved for the future. Hardly any mention is made of this attempt now, probably on the presumption that people have a short memory. Nevertheless, we can all clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s accomplice during World War II.
It is also obvious that there is no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine now, nobody to talk to. Many government agencies have been taken over by the impostors, but they do not have any control in the country, while they themselves – and I would like to stress this – are often controlled by radicals. In some cases, you need a special permit from the militants on Maidan to meet with certain ministers of the current government. This is not a joke – this is reality.
Those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.
Naturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.
First, we had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law.  Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.
Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating? True, the President of the Russian Federation received permission from the Upper House of Parliament to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine.  However, strictly speaking, nobody has acted on this permission yet.  Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with an international agreement.  True, we did enhance our forces there; however – this is something I would like everyone to hear and know – we did not exceed the personnel limit of our Armed Forces in Crimea, which is set at 25,000, because there was no need to do so.
Next. As it declared independence and decided to hold a referendum, the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. Incidentally, I would like to remind you that when Ukraine seceded from the USSR it did exactly the same thing, almost word for word. Ukraine used this right, yet the residents of Crimea are denied it.  Why is that?
Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” Crystal clear, as they say.
I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote.  They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.
We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties.  Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.
I will state clearly - if the Crimean local self-defence units had not taken the situation under control, there could have been casualties as well. Fortunately this did not happen. There was not a single armed confrontation in Crimea and no casualties. Why do you think this was so? The answer is simple: because it is very difficult, practically impossible to fight against the will of the people. Here I would like to thank the Ukrainian military – and this is 22,000 fully armed servicemen. I would like to thank those Ukrainian service members who refrained from bloodshed and did not smear their uniforms in blood.
Other thoughts come to mind in this connection. They keep talking of some Russian intervention in Crimea, some sort of aggression. This is strange to hear. I cannot recall a single case in history of an intervention without a single shot being fired and with no human casualties.
Colleagues,
Like a mirror, the situation in Ukraine reflects what is going on and what has been happening in the world over the past several decades. After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organisations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.
This happened in Yugoslavia; we remember 1999 very well. It was hard to believe, even seeing it with my own eyes, that at the end of the 20^th century, one of Europe’s capitals, Belgrade, was under missile attack for several weeks, and then came the real intervention. Was there a UN Security Council resolution on this matter, allowing for these actions? Nothing of the sort. And then, they hit Afghanistan, Iraq, and frankly violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of imposing the so-called no-fly zone over it they started bombing it too.
There was a whole series of controlled “colour” revolutions. Clearly, the people in those nations, where these events took place, were sick of tyranny and poverty, of their lack of prospects; but these feelings were taken advantage of cynically. Standards were imposed on these nations that did not in any way correspond to their way of life, traditions, or these peoples’ cultures. As a result, instead of democracy and freedom, there was chaos, outbreaks in violence and a series of upheavals. The Arab Spring turned into the Arab Winter.
A similar situation unfolded in Ukraine. In 2004, to push the necessary candidate through at the presidential elections, they thought up some sort of third round that was not stipulated by the law. It was absurd and a mockery of the constitution. And now, they have thrown in an organised and well-equipped army of militants.
We understand what is happening; we understand that these actions were aimed against Ukraine and Russia and against Eurasian integration. And all this while Russia strived to engage in dialogue with our colleagues in the West. We are constantly proposing cooperation on all key issues; we want to strengthen our level of trust and for our relations to be equal, open and fair. But we saw no reciprocal steps.
On the contrary, they have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact. This happened with NATO’s expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They kept telling us the same thing: “Well, this does not concern you.” That’s easy to say.
It happened with the deployment of a missile defence system. In spite of all our apprehensions, the project is working and moving forward. It happened with the endless foot-dragging in the talks on visa issues, promises of fair competition and free access to global markets.
Today, we are being threatened with sanctions, but we already experience many limitations, ones that are quite significant for us, our economy and our nation. For example, still during the times of the Cold War, the US and subsequently other nations restricted a large list of technologies and equipment from being sold to the USSR, creating the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls list. Today, they have formally been eliminated, but only formally; and in reality, many limitations are still in effect.
In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18^th, 19^th and 20^th centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy. But there is a limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.
After all, they were fully aware that there are millions of Russians living in Ukraine and in Crimea. They must have really lacked political instinct and common sense not to foresee all the consequences of their actions. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this.
Today, it is imperative to end this hysteria, to refute the rhetoric of the cold war and to accept the obvious fact: Russia is an independent, active participant in international affairs; like other countries, it has its own national interests that need to be taken into account and respected.
At the same time, we are grateful to all those who understood our actions in Crimea; we are grateful to the people of China, whose leaders have always considered the situation in Ukraine and Crimea taking into account the full historical and political context, and greatly appreciate India’s reserve and objectivity.
Today, I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all else. Isn’t the desire of Crimea’s residents to freely choose their fate such a value? Please understand us.
I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, at the expert, though very high level, some nations that were then and are now Germany’s allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.
I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed Ukraine’s unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about Ukraine’s greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide the nation. Today’s civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.
I repeat, just as it has been for centuries, it will be a home to all the peoples living there. What it will never be and do is follow in Bandera’s footsteps!
Crimea is our common historical legacy and a very important factor in regional stability. And this strategic territory should be part of a strong and stable sovereignty, which today can only be Russian. Otherwise, dear friends (I am addressing both Ukraine and Russia), you and we – the Russians and the Ukrainians – could lose Crimea completely, and that could happen in the near historical perspective. Please think about it.
Let me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you to them for this.
But let me say too that we are not opposed to cooperation with NATO, for this is certainly not the case. For all the internal processes within the organisation, NATO remains a military alliance, and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors. Of course, most of them are wonderful guys, but it would be better to have them come and visit us, be our guests, rather than the other way round.
Let me say quite frankly that it pains our hearts to see what is happening in Ukraine at the moment, see the people’s suffering and their uncertainty about how to get through today and what awaits them tomorrow. Our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbours but, as I have said many times already, we are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other.
Let me say one other thing too. Millions of Russians and Russian-speaking people live in Ukraine and will continue to do so. Russia will always defend their interests using political, diplomatic and legal means. But it should be above all in Ukraine’s own interest to ensure that these people’s rights and interests are fully protected. This is the guarantee of Ukraine’s state stability and territorial integrity.
We want to be friends with Ukraine and we want Ukraine to be a strong, sovereign and self-sufficient country. Ukraine is one of our biggest partners after all. We have many joint projects and I believe in their success no matter what the current difficulties. Most importantly, we want peace and harmony to reign in Ukraine, and we are ready to work together with other countries to do everything possible to facilitate and support this. But as I said, only Ukraine’s own people can put their own house in order.
Residents of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, the whole of Russia admired your courage, dignity and bravery. It was you who decided Crimea’s future. We were closer than ever over these days, supporting each other. These were sincere feelings of solidarity. It is at historic turning points such as these that a nation demonstrates its maturity and strength of spirit. The Russian people showed this maturity and strength through their united support for their compatriots.
Russia’s foreign policy position on this matter drew its firmness from the will of millions of our people, our national unity and the support of our country’s main political and public forces. I want to thank everyone for this patriotic spirit, everyone without exception. Now, we need to continue and maintain this kind of consolidation so as to resolve the tasks our country faces on its road ahead. 
Obviously, we will encounter external opposition, but this is a decision that we need to make for ourselves. Are we ready to consistently defend our national interests, or will we forever give in, retreat to who knows where? Some Western politicians are already threatening us with not just sanctions but also the prospect of increasingly serious problems on the domestic front. I would like to know what it is they have in mind exactly: action by a fifth column, this disparate bunch of ‘national traitors’, or are they hoping to put us in a worsening social and economic situation so as to provoke public discontent? We consider such statements irresponsible and clearly aggressive in tone, and we will respond to them accordingly. At the same time, we will never seek confrontation with our partners, whether in the East or the West, but on the contrary, will do everything we can to build civilised and good-neighbourly relations as one is supposed to in the modern world.
Colleagues,
I understand the people of Crimea, who put the question in the clearest possible terms in the referendum: should Crimea be with Ukraine or with Russia? We can be sure in saying that the authorities in Crimea and Sevastopol, the legislative authorities, when they formulated the question, set aside group and political interests and made the people’s fundamental interests alone the cornerstone of their work. The particular historic, population, political and economic circumstances of Crimea would have made any other proposed option - however tempting it could be at the first glance - only temporary and fragile and would have inevitably led to further worsening of the situation there, which would have had disastrous effects on people’s lives. The people of Crimea thus decided to put the question in firm and uncompromising form, with no grey areas. The referendum was fair and transparent, and the people of Crimea clearly and convincingly expressed their will and stated that they want to be with Russia.
Russia will also have to make a difficult decision now, taking into account the various domestic and external considerations. What do people here in Russia think? Here, like in any democratic country, people have different points of view, but I want to make the point that the absolute majority of our people clearly do support what is happening.
The most recent public opinion surveys conducted here in Russia show that 95 percent of people think that Russia should protect the interests of Russians and members of other ethnic groups living in Crimea – 95 percent of our citizens. More than 83 percent think that Russia should do this even if it will complicate our relations with some other countries. A total of 86 percent of our people see Crimea as still being Russian territory and part of our country’s lands. And one particularly important figure, which corresponds exactly with the result in Crimea’s referendum: almost 92 percent of our people support Crimea’s reunification with Russia.
Thus we see that the overwhelming majority of people in Crimea and the absolute majority of the Russian Federation’s people support the reunification of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol with Russia.
Now this is a matter for Russia’s own political decision, and any decision here can be based only on the people’s will, because the people is the ultimate source of all authority.
Members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, today, in accordance with the people’s will, I submit to the Federal Assembly a request to consider a Constitutional Law on the creation of two new constituent entities within the Russian Federation: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and to ratify the treaty on admitting to the Russian Federation Crimea and Sevastopol, which is already ready for signing. I stand assured of your support.