Ukraine civil war update - 10/14/2014

Geopoliticians discuss the Russian response to America's 'declaration of war'

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/geopoliticians-discuss-russian-response.html

Dear friends,

Today, thanks again to the absolutely fantastic work of the Russian and Oceania Saker Blog I can share with you a fully translated and subtitled video of a Russian talk show which I find particularly important. Let me explain.

The show in question called "Sunday evening with Vladimir Soloviev" is one of the most watched shows on Russian TV. It airs at prime time, right after the main Sunday evening news. The people invited to this show are typically very well-known public figures and the topics discussed are the hot topics of the day. What I am trying to say here is that this show is a very good reflection of the mood in Russia. I can hear the objection "this is state controlled TV!". Okay, let's say it is. But in this case, is it not interesting to see what kind of ideas the state is trying to sell to the general public? Same goes for the "oligarch controlled TV" argument. What are the oligarchs paying for? Finally, if this channel is trying to appeal to the general public, then it shows what the publics wants to hear. In reality, this is a state controlled TV channel, a very "mainstream" and "approved one", but also a very popular one. The host, Vladimir Soloviev, is a Russian Jew who is very patriotic and who regularly *blasts* Russian "liberals" (in Russia that means pro-US russophobes) and who makes no secret of his disgust for the Ukie junta.

Please watch this very mainstream "state approved" discussion and ask yourself the following questions:

a) If the Kremlin wanted to backstab Novorussia - would it allow such shows on prime time TV?

b) What will happen to Putin if he lets Novorussia be over-run by the Nazi death squads?

c) Do you detect any sign of fatigue, fear, demoralization, surrender or weakness which would indicated to you that "the sanctions are biting" and the Russian public opinion getting weary or otherwise willing to negotiate with the Ukraine, the EU or the USA?

Again, this is very "mainstream", I could *easily* have found far more "patriotic" or "anti-Nazi" shows. But I wanted to share with you something very "middle of the road", the tip of a much bigger iceberg. I hope that you will find this interesting.

Kind regards,

The Saker

Maidan Massacre (documentary)

from the Russia Insider YouTube channel

Mike Whitney interviews the Saker for Counterpunch

The Ukraine, As We Know It, Is Gone Forever 

by MIKE WHITNEY for Counterpunch

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/mike-whitney-interviews-saker-for.html

The Saker is an ex-military analyst who was born in Europe to a family of Russian refugees. He now lives in Florida where he writes the Vineyard of the Saker blog and is a regular contributor to Russia Insider. The international community of Saker Blogs includes, besides the original Saker blog, French, German, Russian, Oceania and Serbian members and will soon include a Latin American member. – Mike Whitney

Mike Whitney: Is the United States responsible for the troubles in Ukraine?

The Saker: Yes, absolutely, there’s no doubt about it. While it’s true that the Ukrainian people were unhappy with the corrupt Yanukovich regime, the coup itself was definitely CIA orchestrated. The EU was also involved, especially Germany, but they didn’t play nearly as big a role as the U.S. The taped phone messages of (US Undersecretary of State) Victoria Nuland show who was really calling the shots behind the scenes.

Mike Whitney: What role did the Obama administration play in Kiev’s decision to launch a war on its own people in the east of Ukraine?

The Saker: A central role. You have to understand that there is no “Ukrainian” power in Kiev. Poroshenko is 100% US-run as are the people around him. The head of the notorious Ukrainian secret police (the SBU), Valentin Nalivaichenko, is a known CIA agent. It’s also true that the US refers to Poroshenko “our Ukraine insider”. All of his so called “decisions” are actually made by U.S. officials in Kiev. As for Poroshenko’s speech to Congress a few weeks ago, that was obviously written by an American.

Mike Whitney: The separatists in the East have been very successful in repelling the Ukrainian army and their Neo Nazi counterparts in the security services. What role has Russia played in assisting the Novorussia militias?

The Saker: Russia’s role was critical. While Russian troops were not deployed across the border, Moscow did allow volunteers and weapons to flow in. And while the assistance was not provided directly by the FSB (Russia’s Federal Security Service) or the military, it was provided by various private groups. Clearly, the Kremlin has the power to help-out when it choses to do so. In one instance, there appears to have been direct artillery support from across the Russian border (in the so-called “southern cauldron”), but most of the aid has been covert. Besides the covert assistance, Russia has also provided intelligence, logistical and political support for the Novorussians. Without Russia’s support, the Novorussians never would have been able to turn the tide in the war.

Mike Whitney: Did Putin send Russian troops to Crimea and illegally seize the area or is that a fiction that’s been propagated in the western media?

The Saker: It’s actually a technicality. Yes, Putin did send Russian troops to Crimea, but no, they never exceeded the limits allowed under current agreements between Russia and the Ukraine. Remember that the Black Sea Fleet was already headquartered in Sevastopol, so there were plenty of troops available locally. Also, there was a large group of local volunteers who perform essential operations. Some of these volunteers were so convincing that they were mistaken for Russian Special Forces. But, yes, at the critical moment, Putin did send additional special forces to Crimea.

Was the operation legal? Well, technically it didn’t violate treaty agreements in terms of numbers, but did it violate Ukraine’s sovereignty. The reason Moscow did this was because there was solid evidence that Kiev was planning to move against Crimea. (possibly involving Turkey and Crimean Tatars) If Putin had not taken the initiative, the bloodbath in Crimea could have been worse than it’s been in Novorussia. Also, by the time Putin made the decision to protect Crimea, the democratically-elected President (Yanukovich) had already been removed from office, which created a legal vacuum in Kiev. So the question is: Should Putin have abided by the laws of a country that had been taken over by a gang of armed thugs or should he have tried to keep the peace by doing what he did?

What Putin chose to do was allow the people of Crimea to decide their own future by voting freely in a referendum. Yes, the AngloZionist propaganda says that they were forced to “vote at the barrel of a gun”, but that’s nonsense. Nobody disputes the fact that an overwhelming majority of Crimeans (95%) wanted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. All the “polite armed men in green” did was make it possible for the people to exercise their right of self-determination, something that the junta in Kiev never would have permitted.

Mike Whitney: What influence does Obama have on Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s decision-making? Is Washington actually running the show?

 The Saker: Yes, totally. Obama gives the orders and Poroshenko obeys.

Just as they do everywhere, the US uses local oligarchs to colonize a country. Take for example Russia between 1991 and 1999. It was run by oligarchs behind a drunken figurehead. (Boris Yeltsin) Everyone knew that Russia had become a American colony and that the US could do whatever it wanted. It’s the same today.

Yanukovich was no more pro-Russian than any other Ukrainian President. He’s just an oligarch who’s been replaced by another oligarch, Poroshenko. The latter is a very intelligent man who knows that his survival depends on his complete obedience to Uncle Sam.

I wouldn’t put it past the US to dump Poroshenko and install someone else if it suits their purposes. (Especially if the Right Sector takes power in Kiev.) For now, Poroshenko is Washington’s man, but that could change in the blink of an eye.

Mike Whitney: How close is the Obama administration to achieving its goal of establishing NATO bases (and, perhaps, missile sites) in Ukraine? What danger does this pose for Moscow?

The Saker: The only place where NATO bases really make sense is in Crimea, and that option is no longer available. But there’s more to this issue than meets the eye, that is, if the US continues to pursue this provocative policy of establishing NATO bases on the Russian border, then Russia will withdraw from the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) and deploy advanced versions of the SS-20 (Soviet Nuclear Ballistic Missile) closer to Europe. The point is, US meddling could lead to a confrontation between nuclear-armed adversaries.

Mike Whitney: The European Commission has created a number of obstacles to prevent Russia from building the Southstream pipeline which will diversify export routes for natural gas from Russia to central and southern Europe. Critics have said that the Obama administration is behind the move, and that powerful US energy giants want to either block or control the flow of energy from Russia to Europe. Is this the broader context of the troubles in Ukraine, that is, are we really seeing an energy war unfold in real time?

The Saker: This is an important part of the equation, but not the central one. The central one is the mistaken belief (put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski) that without the Ukraine Russia cannot be a superpower, and the equally mistaken belief (put forward by Hillary Clinton) that Putin wants to re-create the Soviet Union. For the AngloZionists, the Ukraine is a zero-sum game in which the US must either control the Ukraine or destroy it, but not allow Russia to have it. The problem with this theory is that Russia doesn’t really want or need the Ukraine. What Russia wants is a stable, dependable and neutral partner with which it can do business. Even now, while the Novorussians are demanding full independence, Russia has been pushing a different plan altogether. Moscow wants a unitary Ukraine in which each region would have de-facto autonomy but still be part of the same state.

Powerbrokers in the West are so maniacally obsessed with controlling the Ukraine, they can’t imagine that Russia doesn’t want the same thing. But Russia doesn’t want the Ukraine. It has no need for a broken, dysfunctional, failed state with massive social problems, that will require billions upon billions of dollars to rebuild.

Sure, there are cultural, historical, religious and even family ties between Russia and the Ukraine, but that does not mean they want to run the place. Russia already got what it wanted, Crimea. As for the rest, Moscow’s attitude is, “You broke it, you own it.”

Mike Whitney: What’s the endgame here? Will Poroshnko succeed in keeping Ukraine together and further isolate Russia from Europe or will Ukraine splinter along political lines? Or is there another scenario that you see as more likely?

The Saker: Crimea is gone forever. So is Novorussia. But in the case of the latter, there might be a transitional phase in which Kiev retains some degree of sovereignty over areas in the east.

In the near term, there could be more fighting, but eventually there will be a deal in which Novorussia will be given something close to independence. One thing is certain, that before reaching an agreement on final status, two issues will have to be settled:

1– There must be regime change in Kiev followed by de-Nazification.

Neither Russia nor Novorussia will ever be safe as long as the Nazis are in power in Kiev. That means that these russophobic, nationalist freaks will have to be removed before final status issues can be resolved. The Russians and the Novorussians are somewhat divided on this issue. While the Novorussians want their independence and say “To hell with the Nazis in Kiev”, the Kremlin wants regime change and sees it crucial for their national security. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out in the future.

2– There will have to be a conference of donors.

The Ukraine is basically dead, it’s been reduced to rubble. It will take years to rebuild, and immense sums of money. The US, EU and Russia will all have to contribute. If the AngloZionists persist in their maximalist position and continue to support the Nazi junta in Kiev, the Russians will not pay a single kopeck. Russian aid will go exclusively to Novorussia.

Sooner or later the US and EU will realize that they need Russia’s help. And when they finally figure that out, they’ll work together to reach a comprehensive political agreement. Right now, they’re more preoccupied with punishing Putin (through economic sanctions and political isolation) to prove that no one can defy the Empire. But that kind of bullying behavior won’t change the reality on the ground. The West needs Russia’s cooperation, but Russia isn’t going to cooperate without strings attached. The US will have to meet certain conditions before Moscow agrees to a deal.

UKRAINE: “Gone forever”

Though it’s too early to tell, I think the Ukraine as we know it, is gone forever. Crimea will remain part of Russia, while Novorussia will become independent and probably end up in some kind of association status with Russia. As for the rest of the Ukraine, there’s bound to be a confrontation between the various oligarchs and Nazis, after which the pragmatists will appear and lead the way to a settlement. Eventually, there will be some kind of accommodation and a new state will emerge, but I can’t imagine how long it will take for that to happen.

If you want a more systematic analysis of the points above, please see my analysis (here:http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-russian-response-to-double.html)

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion(AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

Is the US Getting Ready to Dump Poroshenko?

It looks like Poroshenko's days are numbered. His most likely replacement? The extreme right.
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/is-us-getting-ready-to-dump-poroshenko.html

originally written by The Saker for Russia Insider

Its getting hot in the kitchen

So the "great genius" of Ukrainian military strategy, the man who promised to organize a victory parade for the Ukrainian army in Sevastopol was fired.

Officially, of course, Ukrainian Defence Minister Valerii Geletei submitted his resignation which was accepted. But the truth of the matter is that Heletey was sacked for gross incompetence and for making idiotic claims that the Russian military had used two tactical nuclear weapons at the Lugansk airport. The question is, of course, whether that will solve Poroshenko's problem.

After all, if Geletei promised a victory parade in Sevastopol, Poroshenko promised one in Donetsk. He did get one, but not the one he hoped for: a parade of Ukrainian prisoners followed by street-cleaning trucks. Poroshenko also promised to liquidate the "terrorists" in a matter of days, but instead his military suffered a crushing and most humiliating defeat. Finally, Poroshenko did go to the US to get a special ally status for the Ukraine, a conference of "friends of the Ukraine", lethal aid and lots of money. In the end, he got nothing besides standing ovations and smiles. The critical question is, why did the US gave nothing meaningful to Poroshenko? Could it be that the US has decided that he is unable to deliver anything useful?

Most analysts agree that the Ukrainians are about to attack Novorussia again and that the only reason for the current "kind of" cease-fire (the Ukrainians are continuing to shell and kill people every day) is that the government in Kiev does not want to take the risk of yet another humiliating defeat right before the elections. But as soon as the elections are over the regime will resume the war. It is quite possible that the US has decided that Poroshenko cannot be trusted with this task again.

The rump-Ukraine is officially a parliamentary republic and president's powers are limited. The current prime minister, has in reality more power than the president, especially over budgetary decisions which is what really matters. Which leaves Poroshenko the title of Commander in Chief of the armed forces, no necessarily a safe title to hold in the current situation.

Things look very grim for Ukraine. There is a very real possibility that many deathsquad leaders (aka "volunteer battalion commanders") will make it into the Rada (parliament), that extreme right-winger Lyashko will become the next Rada Speaker and that the next Rada might be generally even more extremist than the last one. The cold season has barely started and already there are shortages and protests in many places. The economy is dead and in free fall.

What all this means is that Poroshenko is in a hopeless situation and that seems to be the conclusion in Washington too. The question now is who would the US appoint to replace him? Yatsenyuk or Turchinov are probably the best candidates, but just as the US lost control of al-Qaeda/ISIS in Syria and in Iraq, there are increasing signs that it is losing control of the situation in Kiev and it is by no means sure that a 3rd Maidan would leave these two men in power.

Will the US turn to the extreme-right next?

Ukraine SITREP October 14th, 00:45 UTC/Zulu: Dark clouds over Novorussia

Things decidedly do not look good right now.  Poroshenko has replaced that clown Geletei with a bona fide war criminal Col. Gen. Stepan Poltorak, a far more dangerous and evil character who used to be the commander in chief of the junta's death squads (aka "national guard").

Stepan Poltarak

The fact that Poroshenko would appoint such an odious figure indicates that he is trying to appease the neo-Nazis who are demanding a full resumption of hostilities.  Interestingly, just like Geletei, Poltorak is not a military man but a person who made his career in the Ministry of Internal Affairs from where he was picked to head the notorious "national guard".

On the same day, Pavel Gubarev, the "people's governor" of Donetsk was the victim of an attack on his vehicle.  Even though he was not hit by bullets, he has suffered very serious head trauma as a result of the crash of his car.  He is now in a hospital in Russia in very serious condition.

Pavel Gubarev

The list of potential candidates who had an interest in murdering Gubarev is long.  First and foremost, I would list the Ukrainian oligarchs whose assets Gubarev had promised to seize then, of course, the junta and various Neo-Nazis.  Next, I cannot exclude the possibilityt that Gubarev could have been targeted by his own, Novorussian, political enemies and, finally, I would not exclude that the attack could have come from those circles in Russia who would see him as an obstacle for their plans for Novorussia.  Needless to say, the hurray-patriots will blame Putin.  Regardless of who ordered this murder, the fact that Gubarev is in very serious condition in a Russian hospital is very bad news as this is bound to have an extremely polarizing and distruptive effect on the ungoing feud between various Novorussian leaders.

click here for high res

Finally, there are numerous reports of Ukrainian attack all along the line of demarcation, including artillery strikes on Donetsk.  The front has no moved much, but we are fare away from the "days of silence" which had been announced (see map).

Novorussian intelligence sources are constantly reporting large concentrations of Ukie armor in various locations and the arrival of more troops.  At the same time, the work for the the creation of the buffer zone seems to be continuing.  I am getting the sickening feeling that just like the Georgians who worked with the Russian peacekeepers right until Saakashvili ordered his troops to attack, the Ukies will contine working on the demarcation line right up until the moment of they will attack.

Victoria Nuland

Past experience shows that each time a top level US official visits Kiev, something very bad happens.  Victoria Nuland (aka "f**k the EU") has just concluded a visit to Kiev which received only very little coverage.   The purpose of her trip was never clearly explained and after she left, no official results of the trip were announced.

Things look decidedly bleak and the fact that there will soon be elections in Banderastan and Novorussia will not make things better.

There is also a very real possibility that the US are considering dumping Poroshenko for another figure.  I have an article on this tomorrow in Russia Insider and I will re-post it here.  If that happens, we can expect an ever worse and more ruthless commander in chief for the Junta Repression Forces.

How bad could it get?

Superior morale and training: he will win

The military map shows that the Novorussian Armed Forces are in a fundamentally sound posture and that they should be able to prevent any deep Ukie incursion (unless,of course, the will decide to pull the JRF in to better incircle it).  I have it from an excellent source (about which I will tell you in a couple of week), that the morale of the Novorussians is sky high, though I cannot imagine that the infighting inside the Novorussian leadership will not have negative impact.  The fact that Russia has, for the time being, decided to turn off the "aid-spigot" must also be demoralzing and no amout of guarantess given by the Kremlin can change that.  Still, the NAF are far better trained, often better equipped (in qualitative terms only), their current posture is sound and Russia will, I am sure and my sources fully concur with this, re-open the "aid spigot" should the JRF attack again.  The Ukies have their usual advantage in numbers (men, armor, artillery).  I therefore have no reasons to believe that they will be more successful the next time around.

Russian Airmobile attack

One more thing in conclusion: you have probably heard that western sources announced that the Russians had withdrawn (some vague) "forces" from the border; you might even have heard that the Russians confirmed it.  This is all a big smokescreen.  The Empire says "we scared the Russians" and the Russians reply "see how peace-loving a good we are?!".  In reality Russian forces are mobile enough that they don't need to be close to the border to intervene in Novorussia.  If a Russian intervention ever happens (say if Donetsk really risks being overrun by the Ukies), then this will mostly involved very mobile forces (special, airmobile and airborne), supported by fixed and rotary wing aircraft, which will give plenty of time for heavier forces to move in, if and when needed (which will not be very often).  Check out the image above of Russian Airborne Forces training in the Caucasus: this is what a Russian intervention in Novorussia would like.  Not long columns of tanks.

The Saker