Donetsk airport under full control of self-defense forces
Earlier media reports claimed the EU could impose additional sanctions on Russia if the Donetsk Airport and the city of Mariupol come under control of the militia
3 October, 2014
DONETSK, October 3. /TASS/. Self-defense forces of self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic have brought Donetsk airport under full control. However, there are still Ukrainian law enforcers in underground communication rooms of the airport, the information department of the Defense Ministry of the self-proclaimed republic told TASS.
"At present, communication facilities of the airport have been screened to establish if any explosive devices might have been planted," the source said.
Earlier media reports claimed the EU could impose additional sanctions on Russia if Donetsk Airport and the city of Mariupol came under control of the militia.
However an EU source in Brussels told TASS, that the issue of the European Union’s further sanctions against Russia is connected not with specific inhabited localities or control zones in embattled eastern Ukraine but with observation of the truce there.
Dispute on anti-Russian sanctions in the EU
Meanwhile, in line with reports from TASS' diplomatic sources in Brussels, there are still sharp differences among the 28 EU member states on what to do with anti-Russian sanctions. In such conditions, a decision of the EU summit due in Brussels October 22-23 will most likely be needed to change the sanctions regime to any extent.
The positions of supporters of new sanctions have also been weakened by general understanding in Europe that all restrictive measures against Russia have already proven totally ineffective. Although they have done certain harm to the Russian economy, including the ruble-dollar and ruble-euro exchange rate fall, they have not affected Russia’s policy in any way.
Fighting at Donetsk airport
Heavy fighting has been taking place in the area of Donetsk airport as of lately.
On October 1 at least nine people were killed and another 30 wounded after Donetsk was shelled by the government forces from the area of the airport.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon earlier urged the conflict parties in Ukraine to observe all ceasefire agreements reached last month in the Belarusian capital of Minsk.
Ceasefire agreements
The parties to the Ukrainian conflict agreed on a ceasefire and exchange of captives during the OSCE-mediated talks in Minsk on September 5 that came two days after Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed his seven-point plan to settle the situation in the east of Ukraine. The long hoped-for ceasefire took effect the same day, but reports said it had been repeatedly violated since then.
On September 19, the Contact Group consisting of representatives from Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE as well as representatives from the DPR and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) signed a memorandum outlining the parameters for the implementation of the ceasefire commitments.
Clashes between Ukrainian troops and local militias in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions have claimed some 3,500 lives, according to the UN, forced hundreds of thousands to flee Ukraine’s embattled southeast and caused massive destruction.
From Kristina Rus via Facebook on Donetsk airport
Earlier I posted a video, where Motorolla said a flag was raised over the airport, however it appears, some junta troops could still remain in the basements of the airport. Also it was reported, that Motorolla poured kerasin into the cellars and set it on fire in order to 'smoke' the gunmen out. He also said they told him they were from the Right Sector, and didn't obey anyone. The main problem with the airport is the shelling from junta positions from nearby villages, which intensified today. Cassad clarified today, why this remains a problem (hint: Minsk agreement). This also resulted in more losses for NAF.
Earlier I posted a video, where Motorolla said a flag was raised over the airport, however it appears, some junta troops could still remain in the basements of the airport. Also it was reported, that Motorolla poured kerasin into the cellars and set it on fire in order to 'smoke' the gunmen out. He also said they told him they were from the Right Sector, and didn't obey anyone. The main problem with the airport is the shelling from junta positions from nearby villages, which intensified today. Cassad clarified today, why this remains a problem (hint: Minsk agreement). This also resulted in more losses for NAF.
I
really don't know which reports are true or not, some of them are
conflicting, but my job is to pass the message, you make the
conclusions!
Latest
from Colonel Cassad:
"The
airport is not captured entirely. In reality NAF is finishing it off.
The junta was obliged to obide by the Minsk agreement, but did not
give up the airport, and surely it will be cleared shortly. However,
it is important to understand that the junta forced the army of
Novorossia to peck through a pretty strong defense, which led to
mutually serious losses, which is more advantageous for the junta,
which has more resources in terms of manpower recovery for the
battered units. In this regard, attempts to capture Avdeevka and
Peski would be a wiser move in order to capture the airport, but
since according to Minsk agreement the separation line must leave
Avdeevka with the junta, it was impossible for NAF to get to the
positions of the artillery supporting the junta in the airport, since
NAF is under pressure from Moscow to comply with the provisions of
the Minsk agreement. What is remarkable, junta was supposed to give
up Peski according to the separation line, but as a result NAF has to
spill blood in order to get to it."
Kiev
Not in Control of Its Own Military, Ceasefire Ignored
2
October, 2014
Ukrainian
authorities do not control all their military units, the prime
minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR),
Alexander Zakharchenko, said Wednesday.
“Kiev
does not control all units. Far from everyone in Ukraine needs truce.
There are those who violate it,” Zakharchenko told journalists.
According
to the United Nations, some 3,500 people have been killed and
hundreds of thousands have fled Ukraine’s war-torn southeast as a
result of clashes between Ukrainian troops and local militias in the
Donetsk and Luhansk regions during Kiev’s military operation to
regain control over the breakaway territories, which call themselves
the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic
(LPR).
The
parties to the Ukrainian conflict agreed on a ceasefire and exchange
of prisoners during talks mediated by the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on September 5 in Belarusian capital
Minsk. The ceasefire took effect the same day but reports said it has
occasionally been violated.
Zakharchenko
said the DPR capital Donetsk was shelled from the Ukrainian side
Wednesday morning. But DPR militia units “did not open return fire
on the day when the academic year started” in the republic, he
said.
Earlier,
representatives of the DPR and LPR repeatedly voiced their readiness
to observe the ceasefire regime agreed upon in early September in
Belarusian capital Minsk.
On
September 23, DPR militiamen started withdrawing military hardware
from the contact line under the Minsk Memorandum. “We are
implementing the treaty’s terms and withdrawing heavy artillery,
unlike the Ukrainian side,” DPR Defense Minister Vladimir Kononov
told a TASS correspondent then.
LPR
head Igor Plotnitsky assured journalists September 30 that all
agreements on the truce are being implemented. “We know where the
troops have not been withdrawn but agreements will be fulfilled. On
our part, for sure,” he said.
During
the first “June truce”, he recalled “we kept our word, we did
not use weapons. If we gave our word, signed [documents], we are
going to keep it,” Plotnitsky said.
On
September 20 in Minsk, the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine
comprising representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE adopted a
memorandum outlining the parameters for the implementation of
commitments on the ceasefire in Ukraine laid down in the Minsk
Protocol of September 5.
The
document contains nine points, including in particular a ban on the
use of all armaments and withdrawal of weapons with the calibers of
over 100 millimeters to a distance of 15 kilometers from the contact
line from each side. The OSCE was tasked with controlling the
implementation of memorandum provisions.
The
memorandum was signed by OSCE representative to Ukraine Heidi
Tagliavini, ex-Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma, Russia’s
ambassador in Kiev Mikhail Zurabov, Zakharchenko from the DPR and
Plotnitsky from the LPR. The talks also involved first deputy DPR
premier Andrey Purgin and LPR Supreme Council chairman Alexey
Karyakin.
Ukraine’s
parliament on September 16 granted a special self-rule status to
certain districts in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions for three years.
Elections to local self-government bodies were set for December 7.
The Verkhovna Rada also passed a law on amnesty for participants of
combat activities in Ukraine’s troubled eastern regions.
4
What
the battle for the Donetsk airport reveals about the Ukrainian and
Novorussian forces
3
October, 2014
I
hear contradictory reports about the situation of Donetsk airport
ranging from "airport 90% in Novorussian hands" to "airport
taken". Whatever may be the case, I believe that there is
a pretty good chance that the Novorussians are correct when they say
that airport will be taken this week-end. I took a quick look
at the militarymaps.info site to get the latest report and this is
what I saw:
There
are combats taking place right now (5PM Moscow time) but most of the
airport is in Novorussian hands. Furthermore, the Ukies have
been pushed back just barely enough to make it very hard, if not
impossible, for them to resupply their buddies at the airport.
In fact, Novorussian soldiers interviewed in the Russian social media
say that every time the Ukies try to send in a resupply convoy it
gets destroyed. The AngloZionists are also apparently preparing
for the loss of the airport: they are currently discussing the
imposition of more sanctions on Russia is the airport falls to the
Novorussians. Very stupid and yet oh so typical of these
arrogant and clueless bureaucrats.
But
the really interesting thing in all this is the Ukie behavior.
Try to make sense of that:
What
the Donetsk airport reveals about the Ukrainian forces
For
*months* now the Ukie forces at the airport have been resisting in
very hard conditions, often completely surrounded and very rarely
resupplied. The Novorussians have offered them innumerable
times to do what most other Junta forces did: leave through a
corridor. But the folks at the airport refused. Sure, the
(previously) ultra-modern Sergei Prokofiev Donetsk airport gave them
a lot of very strong buildings and plenty of underground tunnels and
facilities to hide, but their conditions there were not made much
easier by that: they have been shelled, submitted to sniper fire,
attacked by special commandos and basically starved and one can only
imagine their morale considering that the chances for victory or even
evacuation were close to zero. And yet they resisted with a
fierce determination. According to one Novorussian source, over
1000 Ukies have already died in and around this airport.
Why?
Why did they resist that way?
Did
that airport really have such a strategic meaning?
The
answer is no, not in the least. One silly notion was the the
Ukies were holding on to the airport to prevent the Russians from
using it to land their forces in Donetsk. This is laughable for
several reasons. First, the Russians can land a fully
mechanized airborne division anywhere, they don't need an airport for
that. Second, if the Russian military wanted to take that
airport, it could do that in a few hours (more about that later).
But most importantly, why in the world would the Russian bother
landing in a contested airport when they could land in Lugansk or
even simply drive from the border?! So no, the control of this
airport does nothing to prevent a mythical Russian invasion.
Does
the airport have some other strategic meaning? Does it allow to
control Donetsk maybe?
The
answer again is, no, not at all. In fact, if we look at what
the Ukies have actually been doing from that airport we come to the
most baffling "mystery" of it all: for months now the Ukies
at the airport have submitted the city of Donetsk to completely
random and indiscriminate fire. The kid of fire which kills
civilians and destroys buildings, but which will have
exactly zero impact
on the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF). And when I say zero I
really mean zero.
Let me explain.
The
Ukies do not have the reconnaissance/intelligence capabilities to
track the movements of NAF units inside Donetsk. Nor do they
have correctors which could correct artillery fire.
Furthermore, while the Junta Repression Forces (JRF) forces to the
northwest of the airport can, maybe, provider fire support to the
Ukies in the airport, the artillery in the airport itself is useless
because the NAF forces are too close for that kind of artillery to be
of much use. Besides, the JRF have a few (2?) tanks and mortars
to do that. So
the only possible use for the Ukie forces at the airport is to try to
terrorize the people of Donetsk.
This is simply mind-blowing, but it appears that 1000 or so Ukies
were killed in months of heavy fighting for the sole purpose of
killing civilians. Yes, it does sound absolutely crazy, but
that is because it is absolutely crazy.
Now,
it is true that the Ukie "Minister of Defense", Valerii
Geletei, is an incompetent clown. A former cop turned state
security official turned military (literally overnight), he is the
guy who claims that Russia used nukes in Lugansk, the guy who
"signed" his pledge of service with a closed pen and the
guy who has just shown WW2 era ammo as proof of a Russian invasion.
He is hated and despised even by the Ukies. I an see that guy
giving the order to "keep killing civilians until all of you are
dead", but why in the world are the Ukies at the airport
following such an idiotic order?
Finally,
consider that one of the few good aspects of an otherwise very
controversial ceasefire was precisely to freeze the conflict more or
less along the current line of contact and get any surrounded units
out with no more blood spilled. And several Ukies units used
this chance to get out of some rather desperate looking situation.
The JRF even unilaterally withdrew from some contested villages.
Except for the crazies at the airport who, instead of getting the
hell out of Dodge, decided to dig in, stay and keep on terrorizing
civilians.
I
might be mistaken here, and I would appreciate any insights into this
from you, but the only explanation I have for the apparently insane
behavior is that these Ukies have been terminally brainwashed.
They are like the SS in 1945 who screamed "Heil Hitler"
while standing in front of a Soviet firing squad. Just like the
SS, these guys apparently believe that their "honor
is called loyalty" and they are apparently willing to fight
to their last breath for the opportunity to terrorize civilians.
Those Ukrainians who fought for Saur Mogila at least could tell
themselves that they died in a battle for the control of the
critically important southern edge of Novorussia. But to die
for the Donetsk airport is either to die for nothing, or to die for
the capability to kill civilians. Crazy and scary stuff.
What
the Donetsk airport reveals about the Novorussian forces
There
is another thing about this airport which strikes me as important.
For months the Novorussians could not take it. Granted, this was a
tough objective to seize and one could even argue that the NAF was
stretched thin by more important combats elsewhere - both arguments
are true - but still that does not explain why they could not take
that airport.
There
is one fact which civilians are always unaware of and which even
military people often fail to realize: all military forces are good
when they are winning. Let's me explain: when a battle starts
and, say, side A gets the upper hand and begins beating or pursuing
side B, the actual performance of side A is almost always good.
It is exceedingly rare for a military force to show incompetence,
poor training or make mistakes while engaged in the pursuit of a
retreating enemy. This also means that you cannot judge the
effectiveness of a force by seeing how it performed in a battle it
won. The key criterion to measure the combat effectiveness of a
military force (from the foot solider up to the commander) is whether
it can turn the tide, whether it can fight well while retreating,
whether it can take a severe beating and then successfully mount a
counter-attack. That is something only a truly effective force
can do.
I
think of the Afghan insurgents who showed superb capabilities against
the Soviet military (especially the Tadjiks in the north).
Everybody had assumed that as soon as the last Soviet solider would
leave the insurgents would simply enter Kabul in a matter of hours.
It took them three years!
Urban
offensive operations are one of the most difficult tasks any military
force can be given and even a force which performs superbly in the
countryside can completely fail in an urban environment, especially
against a determined defender.
The
NAF did turn the tide and from a situation where the JRF almost
surrounded Donetsk and cut off Donetsk from Lugansk. The NAF
very skillfully used the fact that the JRF was "hugging the
roads" to let them in, then surround them, then cut them off and
then destroy them. But this was defensive operation.
Furthermore, they got *a lot* of help from Russia including not only
"voentorg", but also direct fire support from across the
Russian border. Then the Ukies ran. Their retreat was a
total disaster, a botched and chaotic retreat in which the JRF truly
showed how poor of a military force it was. But
we must not mistake the military incompetence of the Ukies for a
proof that the NAF is a very capable force on the offensive.
The fact is that we don't know how good the NAF would be in an
offensive operation, especially against a determined defender.
The case of the Donetsk airport is rather unique and does not prove
that the NAF could not do well, but it should at the very least give
some pause and reasons to think to those who believe that if not for
the ceasefire the NAF would have liberated Mariupol or the rest of
Novorussia. Furthermore, if we accept the argument often made
by the Novorussians that they could not get the needed forces to the
airport because they were stretched thin and needed these forces in
other directions, then what does it tell us about what would happen
of the NAF indeed did advance on several fronts as it appeared to be
doing just before the ceasefire was signed? Do those who today
deplore that Mariupol was not take realize that all
the best units of the NAF had already been allocated to this task and
that they were all far away from the rest of Novorussia?
To those who are so upset about the ceasefire I have a basic
question:
If
all the best NAF forces were allocated to the battle for Mariupol,
what NAF forces would have remained available in case of a Ukie
attack from the north? IF that had happened how "thin"
would the NAF forces around Donetsk and Lugansk have been?
I
know that I will not get an answer to those who have accepted as
indisputable the thesis that the NAF could have taken Mariupol and
freed the rest of Novorussia (nevermind those who believe that the
NAF could have taken Kiev). For them, the botched Ukie retreat
from Novorussia is a clear proof that the Ukie military was finished
and that total victory was at hand. And nevermind the Donetsk
airport.
History
cannot be re-written and we shall never know for sure. But as
long as one can make a plausible argument that the ceasefire was
signed just about at the perfect time for NAF - at the peak of its
success - then there is no need to assume that all those who are not
categorically opposed to that ceasefire are all traitors, agents of
Surkov or any other kind of nasty nonsense which the hurray-patriots
have been spewing on those who do not share their opinion. In
my opinion the battle for the Donetsk airport clearly shows that the
NAF was already stretched
thin and that it is far more skilled in rural defensive operations
than in offensive urban ones..
The
Saker
БЫВШИЙ
ПРЕЗИДЕНТ
ЧЕХИИ: “ЛОЖЬ ЗАПАДА О
РОССИИ
ЧУДОВИЩНА”
Интервью
с бывшим президентом Чехии, который,
возможно, был последним по-настоящему
искренним западным лидером
Нил
Кларк (Neil Clark)
Вацлав
Клаус (Václav Klaus) привык говорить вещи,
которые прочие избегают высказывать,
но его популярности это, судя по всему,
никогда не вредило. Напротив, этот
73-летний ярый евроскептик и поборник
свободного рынка вправе считаться самым
успешным «истинно консервативным»
политиком в Европе за последние 25 лет.
В конце концов, он успел побыть сначала
премьер-министром Чехии с 1992 года по
1998 год, а затем еще десять лет (с 2003 года
по 2013 год) — ее же президентом.
Поэтому
когда мы встречаемся после типичного
плотного сербского завтрака на
Международной научно-общественной
конференции в Белграде, я спрашиваю
его, что он мог бы посоветовать Дэвиду
Кэмерону и его Консервативной партии.
«В
прошлом году я участвовал в проходившей
в Виндзоре конференции, которая была
посвящена обновлению Консервативной
партии, — ответил он. — В своем выступлении
я задал вопрос: „А нужно ли вам обновляться
— или, может быть, достаточно будет
просто вернуться?“ Я имел в виду
необходимость возвращения к стандартным
консервативным идеям и подходам. Но,
боюсь, нынешнее руководство консерваторов
занимается чем-то совсем другим».
Подход
Клауса явно был ближе активистам, чем
упорным «модернизаторам» из партийной
верхушки. «Когда я закончил говорить,
ко мне подошли несколько пожилых дам и
сказали, что это было „похоже на речи
Мэгги“. По-моему, сейчас консерваторы
запутались в собственных идеях.
Заигрывания с „зеленой“ идеологией
для меня неприемлемы».
К
другому элементу «модернизаторской»
программы Клаус также относится без
особого энтузиазма — чтобы не сказать
большего: «Однополые браки и всякие
вещи насчет семьи, если говорить шире,
— это, на мой взгляд, очередная прискорбная
и трагическая ошибка нынешних лидеров
партии».
Разговор
неизбежно переходит на Европу. Как
британский референдум по вопросу о
членстве в ЕС и перспектива ухода
Британии из Евросоюза могли бы сказаться
на Континенте? «Это был бы сильный
сигнал. Даже в коммунистическую эпоху,
смотря на Британию извне, из-за железного
занавеса, я был очень зол, когда в начале
1970-х она решила покинуть ЕАСТ и вступить
в ЕЭС».
Этот
исторический шаг предпринял премьер-министр
от Консервативной партии Эдвард Хит
(Edward Heath). Что же Клаус думает о курсе
нынешнего лидера консерваторов в
отношении Европы? «Я несколько раз
встречался с г-ном Кэмероном и не уверен
в том, как он относится к Евросоюзу. Я
понимаю, что он должен как-то учитывать
разногласия, существующие по этому
вопросу в обществе и в его собственной
партии, но не думаю, что при тайном
голосовании на референдуме он поддержал
бы сохранение Британии в составе ЕС.
Впрочем, это только мои догадки».
Если
послушать, как Клаус горячо рассказывает
о нелепостях Евросоюза, трудно поверить,
что хоть один человек в здравом уме —
левый или правый — может захотеть, чтобы
его страна оставалась в этом объединении.
«Несколько дней назад я смотрел список
членов Еврокомиссии Юнкера. У нас в
стране считают, что 16 министров – это
слишком много, и полноценных портфелей
на всех не может хватить. У ЕС сейчас их
28 — это больше, чем у любой страны в
нашей части мира. Посмотрите, как
называются их портфели — я просто глазам
своим не поверил! Бывший премьер-министр
Эстонии — европейский комиссар по
цифровым рынкам. Как экономист, не могу
сказать, что это должно значить. Плюс
есть еще немецкий политик Гюнтер Эттингер
(Günther Oettinger) — европейский комиссар по
„цифровой экономике и обществу“. Если
бы даже в коммунистические времена у
нас в правительстве появились такие
должности, оно бы стало посмешищем. Я
не могу себе представить, чем эти люди
занимаются».
Я
говорю, что раздутая и забюрократизированная
экономическая модель ЕС берет самое
худшее от всех вариантов и не может
устраивать ни подлинных социалистов,
ни последователей Тэтчер и сторонников
свободного рынка. Клаус охотно со мной
соглашается: «В Европе мы получили не
просто немецкую Soziale Marktwirtschaft (социальную
рыночную экономику), а немецкую модель,
испорченную еще одним прилагательным
— „экологическая“».
«После
падения коммунизма я начал свою
политическую карьеру со знаменитого
лозунга: „За рынки без прилагательных“.
Эта фраза вызвала у нас в стране скандал.
Многие говорили: „Клаус выступает за
рынок без социальной политики“. „Нет,
— отвечал я, — Пускай будет социальная
политика, но я за рыночную экономику и
социальную политику вдобавок к ней, а
не за социальный рынок“. Порядок слов
очень важен. А сейчас мы все глубже
погружаемся в экологическую и социальную
рыночную экономику».
Впрочем,
как ни называй нынешнюю систему, говорит
Клаус, она явно не работает. «Политики
из верхушки ЕС и лидеры европейских
стран, делающие вид, что все в порядке,
— это смешное и нелепое зрелище. Меня
оно поражает, — говорит Клаус. — Недавно
я читал статью профессора Зинна,
известного немецкого экономиста,
изучавшего ситуацию в Италии. Он приводит
статистические данные, которые показывают,
что ВВП Италии с 2000 года сократился на
9%. Это нечто невообразимое! Не думаю,
чтобы коммунистическая Чехословакия
могла пережить такой долговременный
спад. За этот же период промышленное
производство сократилось на 25%! Четверть
экономики просто исчезла».
Клаус
считает, что Европейский Союз реформировать
бесполезно, и призывает заменить ЕС
«Организацией европейских государств»
— ассоциацией свободной торговли без
политической интеграции. Он вспоминает
времена чехословацкой Бархатной
революции 1989 года, в которой он принимал
активное участие: «Когда мы начали
менять нашу страну, мы осознанно избегали
слова „реформа“ и использовали слово
„преобразование“, потому что мы
добивались именно системных перемен.
Подобные системные перемены нужны
сейчас и Европе».
Европа,
по мнению Клауса, ошибается не только
в экономических вопросах. Он также
недоволен враждебностью западной элиты
к России. По его словам, эта враждебность
основана на неправильном и устаревшем
взгляде на эту страну. «Я помню, как один
политик из некоей страны, одно время
даже бывший ее министром иностранных
дел, говорил мне, что его ненависть к
коммунизму не позволяет ему читать
Достоевского. Эти слова я запомнил
надолго, и боюсь, что нынешняя антироссийская
пропаганда основана на аналогичной
логике и способе мышления. Я большую
часть жизни провел в коммунистической
Чехословакии, под советским господством.
Однако я не путаю Советский Союз с
Россией. Те, кто не видят между ними
разницы, просто предпочитают закрывать
на нее глаза. Я всегда говорю моим
американским и британским друзьям, что,
хотя политическая система в России
отличается от наших, и нам бы жить при
ней не понравилось, сравнивать нынешнюю
Россию с Советским Союзом Леонида
Брежнева просто глупо».
«Антироссийская
пропаганда США и ЕС абсолютно нелепа,
и я не могу с ней смириться», — уверенно
отмечает он.
Клаус
хочет вернуть полномочия по демократическому
принятию решений обратно на уровень
национальных государств: «Я критикую
не только ЕС — я также очень критически
отношусь к глобальному управлению и к
транснационализму в принципе. Неделю
назад, в Гонконге, я говорил, что крайне
наивно открывать свою страну, не
озаботившись сохранением основ
государственности. Такие вещи ведут
либо к анархии, либо к мировому
правительству. Я определенно за Европу
суверенных национальных государств.
Однако мы уже давно вышли за пределы
простой экономической интеграции.
Евросоюз — система постдемократическая
и постполитическая».
В
политике Клаус с самого начала отстаивал
принципы суверенитета и отрицал
господствующие точки зрения. В отличие
от прочих лидеров из стран бывшего
советского блока, он после падения
Берлинской стены, не колеблясь, критиковал
западную политику. Он был одним из
немногих, кто выступал против «гуманитарных
бомбардировок» Югославии, организованных
Клинтоном и Блэром в 1999 году. Он также
резко критиковал войну в Ираке.
При
этом он чувствует, что свобода
придерживаться «немодных» мнений и
выражать их оказалась сейчас на Западе
под нарастающей угрозой. «Если вы
спросите меня, идет ли сейчас в Европе
наступление на свободу, я скажу „да“.
Я чувствую, что на меня давят, не позволяя
мне высказывать мои взгляды. У меня
теперь с этим постоянно возникают
проблемы. Внезапно, впервые за 20 лет, я
начал сталкиваться со следующей
ситуацией: меня приглашают основным
выступающим на конференцию, затем
организаторы узнают, что у меня есть
серьезные сомнения по поводу Евросоюза,
однополых браков или украинского
кризиса, и говорят: „Извините, большое
Вам спасибо, но мы уже нашли другого
выступающего“. Я с такими вещами
сталкивался при коммунистах — но не в
так называемой свободной Европе.
Политически корректным признается лишь
узкий спектр мнений».
Для
борьбы с этой тревожной тенденцией
Клаус решил запустить новый проект: «Я
планирую, если найду деньги и людей,
создать в 2015 году новый ежеквартальный
журнал под названием „Европа и свобода“
(„Europe and Liberty“)».
Ему
трудно не симпатизировать. Еще недавно
у Европы были лидеры с четким и ясным
мировоззрением — такие левые, как
премьер-министр Швеции Улоф Пальме и
канцлер Австрии Бруно Крайский, и такие
правые, как де Голль и Маргарет Тэтчер.
С ними можно было соглашаться или не
соглашаться, но нельзя было упрекнуть
их в непоследовательности или
неискренности. Однако на смену им пришло
поколение вкрадчивых, бесцветных
политиков, колеблющихся вместе с
партийной линией.
Вацлав
Клаус – не такой. Он — реликт тех времен,
когда наши лидеры имели убеждения и не
боялись их высказывать. Остается
надеяться, что он не станет последним
в Европе политиком такого рода.
Оригинал
публикации: Vaclav
Klaus: the West’s lies about Russia are monstrous
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.