Posts
Russia
has no intention to send troops into Ukraine – Lavrov
28
March, 2014
There
is no intention in Moscow to send its troops into eastern Ukraine,
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said. Hopefully, the growing
understanding in the West of Russia’s position will allow for a
de-escalation of the tension, he added.
In an interview with Rossiya 24 TV channel, Lavrov spoke on the futile western attempts to isolate Russia diplomatically, the growing acceptance of the need for constitutional reform, which Moscow proposes, the prospects of NATO’s expansion into Ukraine and the potential for global presence of the Russian Navy.
‘No isolation of Russia in UN Assembly vote on Crimea’
Question: After
the G7 countries announced their decision to withdraw from the G8, it
was said that now Russia is isolated in the international arena. In
the UN General Assembly 100 countries voted against Russia. The claim
of Russia being isolated is true, then?
Sergey
Lavrov: “Isolation”
is a term invented by our Western partners who act with nostalgic
neo-imperial ambitions in mind. The instant something isn’t to
their liking they draw out this sanctions stick. The times when such
strategy could be employed are long gone. They should think about
getting everyone, with no exceptions, to work together, not about
isolating their partners.
I’m
surprised at how obsessively they’re trying to – create rather
than find – proof of Russia’s isolation. I’ve seen a lot in my
time, but for major countries to use all their diplomatic resources
to twist the arms of the entire world, including our closest
partners, in order for them to agree with the argument about
Ukraine’s territorial integrity while ignoring the rest of the
principles outlined in the UN Charter? I was astonished with the
alacrity. Key government institutions expend so much effort on this.
It’s
the case with the UN General Assembly vote. Such results are achieved
by a combination of several means. First, our Ukrainian neighbors
were advised to keep the tone of their draft resolution
non-confrontational and level-headed, to send a positive message of
the need to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Who would
oppose that? But that’s not even half of the truth, it’s just a
sliver of it. You and our viewers understand what I’m talking
about.
Diplomats watch electronic monitors
showing a vote count, as the U.N. General Assembly voted and
approved a draft resolution on the territorial integrity of the
Ukraine at the U.N. headquarters in New York March 27, 2014.
(Reuters / Eduardo Munoz)
Then,
some countries that are naïve enough for it are told, “Look, it’s
such a great resolution, why don’t you sign it and become a
co-sponsor.” The more experienced ones who realize what’s really
going on are approached with, “If you don’t support this
resolution, there will be consequences.” And then they describe
these consequences. We know about that. Our colleagues come to us and
confide why this or that relatively small country has to cave in. For
example, they were told contracts would not be signed or political
dividends would be withheld. If we take into consideration that the
West in the broad sense, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan
etc., amounts to about 40-something countries, basically 50 states
were forced or somehow persuaded to do it.
We
hold no grudge against these delegations. It will not affect our
relations with them. I can’t but point out another number: about 70
countries refused to support this resolution.
Q: And
if we count the countries who didn’t cast a vote that would make it
93.
SL: So
basically it’s a tie. The Western propaganda machine – there’s
really no other way to call it – will hail it as a great victory in
the media, but we know the value of this victory.
Q: 100
countries voted against Russia. The number of countries that voted
for Russia abstained or didn’t cast a vote comes up to 93. This
includes the brave countries that, despite the pressure, made this
choice.
SL: This
is no doubt a brave thing to do. It’s not anti-Western or
anti-Ukrainian. It reflects a deep understanding of what’s going on
the part of the countries who didn’t vote in favor and especially
those who voted against. This wasn’t about territorial integrity or
Ukraine at all.
‘China understands legitimate Russian interests and concerns in Ukraine’
Q: Three
weeks ago, on our program, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly
Churkin said that Russia expects to see moral support from China.
China abstained from voting on the resolution. After that President
Obama and President of China Xi Jinping held a meeting, during which,
as my Western colleagues told me, the Americans were trying to
persuade China to scrap gas supply contracts with Russia. And then
you met with Xi Jinping. So what is China to Russia?
SL: China
is a very close partner of Russia. In our joint documents our
relations are defined as comprehensive strategic partnership of
cooperation. All of China’s actions reaffirm its commitment to the
principles we agreed on. If, as you say, the Americans did try to
convince China to review its economic agreements with Russia on the
highest level, it’s an off-the-scale naïve or brazen attitude. I
would even say that not understanding the essence of Chinese politics
and mentality is just inexcusable for the officials in charge of such
negotiations.
At
the very beginning China said that it takes into consideration the
combination of historical and political factors. China strongly
opposed using non-diplomatic measures and threats of sanctions to
resolve this problem. Our contacts with our Chinese partners show
that they not only understand Russia’s rightful interests in this
case, but are also hand-in-hand with us in the understanding of the
initial causes of the current crisis in Ukraine. There is no doubt
about it. President Putin and President Xi Jinping spoke on the
phone. On March 24, I met with President Xi Jinping on the sidelines
of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague. BRICS foreign ministers
held talks as well.
Q: Did
BRICS work out the joint statement in The Hague?
SL: It’s
the chairperson’s statement, which the Foreign Minister of South
Africa delivered after our meeting.
Ukraine, not Russia hampered OSCE mission deployment
Q: Last Saturday we informed our viewers that the OSCE agreed on the mandate of a mission to be sent to Ukraine. Why did Russia object to it initially? What’s the mission going to work on?
SL: I
would say that it was our Western and Ukrainian partners that
initially objected to this mission.
Q: But
as usual it was presented the other way around – Russia against the
rest of Europe.
SL: We’re
used to that. Orwellian talents are still widely used. Russia was
willing to send the OSCE mission a week before the decision was
finally made. Even though everything was clear by then, our partners
demanded with inexplicable determination for Crimea to be included in
the mandate as part of Ukraine.
One
can completely disagree with our take on the situation, one can
refuse to recognize the decisions made by Russia based on the will of
the Crimean people and supported by an overwhelming majority. We
understand that, it happens. But it’s just diplomatic impudence or
complete diplomatic incompetence to fail to comprehend the real
political situation and the utter uselessness of their demands after
we said we would recognize any outcome of the referendum in Crimea,
telling us that despite what the President said the mandate of the
mission should include Crimea as part of Ukraine.
Q: Moscow
was insisting that the mission should go to western regions of
Ukraine as well as eastern. Was that achieved?
SL: Taking
into consideration our Western colleagues’ well-proven talents to
twist words and interpret provisions, we were insisting that cities
and regions be listed in the mandate instead of it just saying
“mission to Ukraine.” Of course the list includes cities situated
both in western and eastern parts of Ukraine, but none situated on
the territory of the Republic of Crimea of the Russian Federation.
‘Denunciations of Right Sector were long overdue’
Q: Maybe
then what we see is some progress not only in terms of sending an
OSCE mission to Ukraine, but also new Ukrainian authorities, their
legitimacy aside, dealing with the Right Sector problem, as evidenced
by the last 36-48 hours.
SL: It’s
taken them too long, though it’s true that [it’s] better late
than never. Over a month ago I raised the issue of the Right Sector
and the necessity to dissociate from the radical forces with our
Western partners. I asked them a very simple question: “If you
agree that we need to defuse the situation, why won’t you publicly
say what the Right Sector really is?” Same to a degree goes for the
Svoboda party, whose platform references The Declaration of June 30,
1941, which expressed support of Nazi Germany and its efforts to
establish a new world order. According to the party’s charter, it’s
still committed to this principle.
Our
colleagues reacted quite strangely to our requests to at least
publicly express their opinion on these forces and exert their
influence on the people in Kiev who claim they’re the new
authorities so that they do the same. At first they avoided the
issue, and then at one of the recent meetings, I think it was in
London, US Secretary of State John Kerry told me that after close
scrutiny they concluded that the Right Sector was trying to become a
political movement. The subtext was that it’s a good thing, and
Svoboda is moving towards [the] mainstream. That’s a quote. A lot
of people were present at the meeting, so I’m not revealing a
secret here. I was giving examples of the opposite trend concerning
these groups, starting with their urging the public to shoot Russians
in the head and kill them, calling Russians names, and all the way up
to the beatings that take place even in the eastern parts of Ukraine
where the members of these groups consider themselves at home.
As for what’s been happening in the last few days, let’s hope that the Ukrainian government’s statements and steps are the result of some awareness campaign conducted by our Western partners. Like I said, better late than never.
Let’s
see what comes out of it and whether those in power manage to bring
to heel the people they relied on to get their current positions. The
recent events, that is, when the Right Sector surrounded the
Verkhovna Rada [Ukrainian Parliament] building again and demanded for
the Interior Minister to be sacked because of [Right Sector leader]
Sashko Bilyi’s death, are very telling. Whatever one might think
about the circumstances of his death, which, like in any such case,
should be investigated thoroughly, one can’t fail to notice the
moral boost his death gave to the people wearing Right Sector colors
who follow the principles we all know about. It’s a very alarming
signal.
It
surprised me that while Russian television, including your channel,
showed the siege of the Verkhovna Rada and commented comprehensively
on the events unfolding between the Right Sector and the members of
parliament, on their possible ramifications, Euronews hasn’t said a
word about it, with Ukraine mentioned in the context of the IMF deal
in the third or fourth news piece.
Sadly,
this kind of coverage is also telling. We’ll try to establish the
truth through channels alternative to mainstream Western media. I
hope that your alternative channels become the mainstream.
‘Sad to see OSCE justify censorship of media in Ukraine’
Q: Alternative channels – that’s another matter, since Ukrainian cable providers were banned from transmitting Russian TV channels. At first, the OSCE condemned it. As far as I understand, this issue was raised even at your talks with the Western partners. Then it was slowly moved towards the bottom of the priorities list. As the OSCE representative said, there are national interests that allow for TV censorship.
SL: Yes,
Dunja Mijatović said that. Let’s just say that being the OSCE
Representative on Freedom of Media, she should show more freedom in
her judgments. It’s lamentable that excuses are made for banning
Russian channels. Who could imagine that channels can be banned if
it’s done for protecting fundamental values? However, Ms. Mijatović
dismissed in the past our numerous appeals that demonstrations with
fascist and neo-Nazi slogans held in a number of the OSCE countries
were unacceptable, citing freedom of speech. So in Ms. Mijatović’s
opinion four channels are more dangerous than neo-Nazi demonstrations
in the Baltic states and a number of other countries, including
Germany.
‘Idea of Ukrainian Federation no longer taboo for western diplomats’
Q: What
kind of a compromise with the West is possible? Russia is on one side
of the line, and the US and the West are on the other, so which
points can you agree on with your colleagues?
SL: I
don’t believe we’re divided by that strict a line. We’re
working on aligning our positions. Based on my latest meeting with
Secretary of State John Kerry in The Hague and my contacts with
Germany, France and a number of other countries,
I can say that there’s a possibility of drafting a joint initiative that we could offer to our Ukrainian colleagues.
I can say that there’s a possibility of drafting a joint initiative that we could offer to our Ukrainian colleagues.
It’s
a very important consideration, because up until now our partners
have been offering to set up a contact group within the framework of
which Russia and the people who seized power in Kiev would negotiate
under their supervision. Such a platform is absolutely unacceptable,
and that’s not even the issue. What’s happening in Ukraine now is
the result of the deep crisis in the political system, triggered by
the inability – I wouldn’t want to accuse anyone of deliberately
avoiding it – of each successive leader to reconcile the interests
of the western and southeastern regions of Ukraine. It can’t go on
like this.
We
are convinced that Ukraine needs a fundamental constitutional reform.
To be honest, we see no other way that would ensure Ukraine’s
sustainable development except becoming a federation. Maybe someone
knows better, and there’s a magic formula that would make a unitary
system of government work in a state where in western, eastern and
southern regions people celebrate different holidays, honor different
heroes, have economic structure, speak different languages and think
differently and gravitate towards different European cultures. It’s
tough to live in a unitary state like that.
That’s
why on March 10 we gave an unofficial document outlining our vision
to our American, European and Chinese partners and other colleagues,
including BRICS countries.
Q: So,
a constitutional reform, elections...
SL: No.
First of all, it states that the most urgent task is to stop the
violence of armed groups, disarm militants and free all illegally
seized buildings – which hasn’t been done yet – as well as
squares, streets, cities, towns and villages.
First
and foremost we mean Maidan. It’s just a disgrace for a European
country and one of the most beautiful cities in Europe to have this
kind of thing for half a year, and in front of Western visitors
besides. We’re told Maidan will stay until presidential election
take place, with the outcome that satisfies Maidan. It’s a disgrace
for all who put up with it.
We
proposed to start with sorting out these issues, especially since it
was a responsibility Mr Klichko, Mr Yatsenyuk, and Mr Tyagnibok
assumed when they signed the document along with the German, French
and Polish foreign ministers.
Another thing we proposed was to begin a comprehensive constitutional reform right away, with all political forces and regions having an equal say in it, to discuss establishing a federation, which would grant every region wide powers in the spheres of economy, culture, language, education, economic and cultural ties with neighboring countries or regions and guarantee minority rights.
Taking
into consideration the number of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine,
we propose and we’re convinced that there’s no other option –
and a few presidential candidates said so on numerous occasions –
but to make Russian language the second official language of Ukraine,
and ensure the rights of minorities in every constituent entity in
accordance with the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages.
Q: There
are Hungarians and Romanians living there as well.
SL: Hungarians,
Czechs, Germans – they are all complaining to the governments of
their countries that they are no longer comfortable living in
Ukraine. Czechs even wanted to go back home but the Czech government
said, “No, we looked at the conditions you live in and we think you
are fine.” This indicates that they care more about geopolitical
matters and political expediency than about human rights.
A
constitutional reform should be approved by a referendum. It should
take into account the interests of all the regions. And once this
constitution is approved by a nationwide vote, there should be a
presidential and parliamentary election; new legislative assemblies
should be elected in all the regions; and there should be new
governors. Governors should be elected, not appointed. Eastern and
southern regions insist on that.
We
strongly believe this is the right way to go. In response, we are
told through the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry that Russian proposals
are a provocation and that we are meddling in Ukraine’s internal
affairs, because our ideas are inconsistent with the foundations of
the Ukrainian state. Which ideas? First, federalization, and, second,
Russian as the second official language. I don’t see how this is
inconsistent with the foundations of the Ukrainian state.
Q: Do
Western partners hear these proposals?
SL: They
do. I can tell you that “federalization” is definitely no longer
a taboo word in our talks. I really believe we should insist on it –
not because it is our whim but because southern and eastern regions
want that.
Q: Do
you expect that these ideas will eventually reach Kiev, at least
through Western capitals?
SL: That’s
what I count on, because the current Ukrainian government can hardly
be suspected of being independent.
‘Ukraine’s military neutrality must be stated unambiguously’
Q: Do
Moscow and, say, Washington talk about Ukraine’s non-bloc status?
SL: This
idea is present in our proposals. We definitely think that the new
constitution should clearly say that Ukraine cannot be part of any
bloc.
Q: Do
Americans hear that?
SL: They
hear that and you can tell whether they understand it or not by
listening to their public statements. Speaking in Brussels last week,
President Obama said that neither Ukraine nor NATO were ready and
that there was no point talking about that.
Q: By
the way, Yatsenyuk says he is not considering this option at this
point.
SL: “At
this point.” We are convinced there can be no ambiguity on this
issue. There are too many of those caveats – “at this point”
and “no intention.” Intentions can change, and you end up facing
new facts on the ground.
Q: Especially in the last couple of months.
SL: Not
just in the last couple of months – in the last 25 years. We are
told that the West keeps extending a hand of friendship, and Russia
keeps choosing a zero-sum game. A few days ago, my colleague, British
Foreign Secretary William Hague, published an article, in which he
writes that Russia faces global isolation again, because, he says,
you come to Russia with open arms and it turns away and pursues
zero-sum mentality. But that’s totally unfair. On the contrary, we
are always eager to engage in fair partnership. This is reflected in
our proposals on indivisible security, which should be the same for
everybody. It is wrong for NATO members to be protected with
indivisible security and for everybody else to be treated as
second-rate nations, so NATO can act as a magnet to attract new
members and keep pushing the dividing line further to the east.
We
were promised that this would not happen – and we were cheated. We
were promised that NATO would not bring its military infrastructure
closer to our borders – and we were cheated. We were promised there
would be no military installations on the territory of the new NATO
members. At first, we just listened to those promises and believed
them. Then we started putting them on paper as political obligations,
and serious people, Western leaders, signed those documents. But when
we asked them how come those political obligations were ignored and
whether we can make them legally binding, they told us, “No,
political obligations are enough, and anyway, don’t worry, whatever
we do is not against you.”
‘West plays ‘either-or’ game with Eastern Partnership’
SL: Speaking
of zero-sum games we are being accused of, the EU Eastern Partnership
project from the very beginning was based on the “either-or”
concept: either you’re with us or you’re against us. Actually,
our Western partners have been talking about this since the 2004
election in Ukraine. Back then, there was no Customs Union and no
Eastern Partnership; there was an unconstitutional, artificially
invented third round of the presidential election. Karel de Gucht,
who then was the foreign minister of Belgium and who is now, by the
way, the EU Trade Commissioner, publicly demanded that Ukrainians
should vote and decide whether they want to be with Europe or with
Russia. This is where such mentality comes from.
Eastern
Partnership – as well as NATO expansion – was simply an
instrument used to quickly take control over geopolitical territory.
The EU was ready to push this project through at any cost. It
completely ignored legitimate economic interests of both Ukraine’s
neighbors, like Russia and other countries, and even the nations that
were part of this program. There have been many studies on this
issue. No wonder even Yatsenyuk says that Ukraine needs to take a
closer look at the economic section of this agreement.
The
same will happen with Moldova. They are doing their best to sign a
similar agreement with Moldova this summer, before the upcoming
election. And this agreement they intend to sign with Moldova – it
completely ignores the issue of Transnistria. It ignores the 1997
agreement between Chisinau and Tiraspol which entitled Transnistria
to international trade. It ignores what is happening with
Transnistria today: Chisinau and the new Ukrainian authorities have
basically blockaded the territory. But our European partners keep mum
about that. In fact, the European Union and, I think, the United
States approve of this policy.
We
want to talk to them very seriously about that, because they are
escalating tensions over Transnistria, almost claiming that it will
be next. This is outrageous, provocative rhetoric. Actually, they
want to create unbearable conditions for Tiraspol in violation, I
repeat, of the agreements which entitled Transnistrians to certain
travel, transit and trade rights. This is outrageous. They never
learn. Once again, they seek to create a sore point in our relations.
‘Russia has no intention to send troops across Ukrainian border’
Q: Almost
all the statements regarding sanctions, including those made by the
EU and the US official political institutions, contain the phrase
“further escalation.” By “further escalation” my Western
colleagues mean that Russian military forces may cross the borders of
the mainland Ukraine and move toward Kharkov, for example. Will this
happen or not?
SL: President
of Russia Vladimir Putin in his address given on March 18 in the
Georgievsky Hall said clearly that we are very concerned with the
situation with Russians and Russian speakers in eastern and southern
Ukraine, especially after various Right Sector groups, a certain
Beletsky and the Eastern Front rushed there. Those are absolutely
odious people. You don’t need to be a physiognomist to be able to
tell what their intentions are. They speak openly about that. Many
leaked phone calls indicate how
Russians will be treated in Ukraine not just by the Right Sector
members.
The
Russian president demanded that Ukrainian authorities and their
Western patrons take immediate action to stop the violence. He said
we are going to protect the rights of Russians and Russian speakers
in Ukraine using all the political, diplomatic and legal methods. I
have nothing to add to that.
We need to be honest. You cannot just say like many times before – regarding Syria, Iran, etc. – that we have come to a crisis and that we just need to accept the reality. Russia is to settle the Syrian crisis, to solve the Iranian problem and to resolve the situation in Ukraine through direct talks with the Ukrainian authorities. The West is consistently trying to avoid the responsibility of dealing with those whom they nurtured and continue to support for their geopolitical purposes.
We
have absolutely no intentions of crossing Ukrainian borders. This is
not in our interests. We simply want everybody to work together; we
want the violence to stop and we want the Western countries who are
trying to sweep under the rug those cases of violence and to portray
the situation in Ukraine in a positive light to realize they need to
bear the responsibility.
According
to Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, the Ukrainian
authorities lately have been trying to disarm all those who possess
firearms illegally – that is, the criminals. If this is the result
of our Western partners’ efforts, then, I repeat, we are satisfied
with that. We are ready to continue to work out joint recommendations
for the Ukrainians to stop all the lawlessness and to start a deep
constitutional process to reform their country.
‘No US-style naval bases build-up planned’
Q: There
are speculations that Russia may respond to all these events by
setting up its military bases in the Seychelles, Vietnam, Nicaragua,
Cuba and even in Argentina.
SL: This
is a complete lie. We have no plans whatsoever to build naval and
military bases abroad in the sense which you put into the term. The
Russian Navy is now much stronger than before. I believe after Crimea
joined Russia, it will have much more opportunities for development.
Along with the Black Sea Fleet, we also have the Pacific, the
Northern Fleet, etc.
It’s
very important for a country to have highly trained Navy, especially
because today the Navy has not just to plough the ocean for training
purposes but also to complete specific tasks like counter-piracy
operations in the Gulf of Aden and elsewhere. Ships have to travel to
remote places. We have agreements with some countries allowing our
vessels and warships to use their existing infrastructure for
servicing, minor repairs, water and food replenishments and for the
crew to rest.
We
are absolutely not considering building bases similar to how America
does it. And of course, unlike the US, we will not have any
agreements, which would make our personnel immune to criminal
prosecution in the countries where they are deployed.
By
the way, I recently saw an interesting picture on the Internet: a map
of the Russian Federation and US military bases around it. It looks
very impressive. There are over a hundred of them. And there is a
quote from a US soldier: “How dare Russians be so close to our
bases?”
Q: Are
you talking to the countries I mentioned about the possibility of our
warships entering their seaports?
SL: There
are a few countries we are talking to but these issues are handled by
defense ministries
Even
Zero Hedge seems to be following the western narrative
Meanwhile, Tens Of Thousands Of Russian Troops Continue Piling Up At Ukraine's Borders - The Full Update
28
March,2014
With
Russia continuing to diplomatically assure the world that no invasion
is pending, and rather comically asking for President Obama's
benevolent aid in policing the treatment of Russians in non-Crimean
Ukraine; it seems from all actions (as opposed to words) that Putin
is pressing ahead with building his forces (up
to 60,000) around the divided nation and as Dmitry
Tymchuk notes, planning
for invasion from Chernihiv to Donetsk.
Internal politics continue to roil as Klitschko pulls out of the
Presidential election (just as the US wanted) but we suspect the
Ukrainians will be confused to discover their USA
saviors have been spying on the future Premier Tymoshenko for years.
The people of Ukraine are likely a little upset at We are sure Kerry
and Lavrov will have plenty to discuss tomorrow in Paris and perhaps
the following map will be a good starting point.
*KERRY,
LAVROV TO MEET IN PARIS TOMORROW, INTERFAX SAYS
Kerry canceled plans to return to the United States from Saudi Arabia on Saturday and instead was headed to Paris for a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Sunday evening, Psaki said from a refueling stop here. The goal is to reach agreement on what happens next over Ukraine, following up on a phone call Friday between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Obama.
Klitschko
pulls out of Presidential election...
Leading Ukrainian politician Vitaly Klitschko has pulled out of presidential elections planned in May.
The former boxing world champion said instead he would back tycoon Petro Poroshenko.
Both men played a key role in months of street protests that led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Mr Klitschko's withdrawal means the race is likely to be between Mr Poroshenko and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
Which is exactly what the US had been hoping for (judging by Victoria Nuland's conversation). However, as Spiegel reports, the Ukrainians may look on their bailout-funding corruption-beating saviors - The USA - a little differently when they find out the NSA has been spying on Tymoshenko for years...
But
it is the troop build up that is creating the most anxiety around the
world...
As Dmitry Tymchuk - a widely read Ukrainian so clearly he has his own bias but is instrumental in understanding the Ukraine perspective which currently the most irrational and thus unpredictable, explains on his blog, there is "good news and bad news."
The bad news:
1. The Russian military forces accumulated at our borders are increasing in number, due to the arrival of new units and detachments to the Bryansk oblast [region] of the Russian Federation. Earlier, we saw a build-up of troops in Rostov oblast, while the numbers were considerably lower in the north.
This means that Putin is preparing an invasion across our whole “eastern front” – from Chernihiv to Donetsk.
The interesting thing is, on March 23, international observers carried out a survey flight over the borderland areas of the Russian Federation. At that time, Moscow pulled some of its troops in Rostov oblast back from the border; while in Bryansk oblast, there weren’t that many to begin with. As soon as the inspectors left, the troops crawled back to the border, like cockroaches with the lights out. In short, one would have to be a complete sucker to trust the Kremlin.
The only encouraging detail is the fact that by now, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have successfully regrouped. Our border guards keep the border under strict control, while our intelligence services are actively neutralizing Russia’s “fifth column” in our eastern oblasts. All of these things can serve to seriously meddle with the Kremlin’s plans.
2. Ukraine, essentially, has no Navy. Earlier today, we presented a full breakdown of the situation: 10 ships are flying the Ukrainian flag, and 51 have been captured by the occupiers.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense is currently negotiating to reclaim at least some of the property stolen by the aggressor. But we know how this works – if Putin says “I didn’t take it,” he’s not going to give it back. Nevertheless, we have to try, at least to make ourselves look better.
The good news:
1. Aggression against Ukraine is already becoming too costly for Russia. The outflow of capital from the Russian Federation has reached USD 70 billion, since the beginning of this year. Today, the World Bank announced a forecast (as reported by the Wall Street Journal): if Putin continues to escalate the situation, Russian GDP will drop by 1.8% in 2014. Compared to the 1.3% growth in the previous year, that’s quite a difference.
Today, the President of the EU Council [Herman] van Rompuy, the US President [Barack] Obama and the President of the European Commission [José Manuel] Barroso made a solemn vow: if Putin continues messing about, the EU and the US are prepared to unleash the full extent of sanctions.
It’s obvious that getting through that nut’s [Putin's] thick skull is not an easy task. But noticeable [financial] losses are definitely a good sign. Let’s see which force is stronger in the Kremlin – aggression or greed.
2. As I was writing this, reports came in that six of our commanding officers, previously kidnapped in Crimea by terrorists calling themselves “Russian military,” have been set free. Today, they are heading to Henichesk through Chonhar, and from there, to Kyiv.
I can only breathe with relief. Our heroes are free – and that is excellent.
I’m not a vicious person myself. But I’d like to wish, from the bottom of my heart, that our Russian friends find themselves on the receiving end of the same low and despicable treatment that they’ve been giving our servicemen in Crimea this whole time. Let them drink that in full and choke on it.
3. The Armed Forces of Ukraine will conduct ”Spring Rain” military exercises in Kharkiv oblast.
The military, and the political importance of military exercises, in eastern Ukraine cannot be overestimated right now. Our army – slowly and gradually, with moans and groans, with exploding tanks and crashing planes – is waking up from its 20-year-long lethargy. For the first time since the years of Ukrainian independence, it [the army] is starting to understand why it even exists. The same can be said for our entire country.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.