Russia and Ukraine -12/15.2014

Kiev Denies Allegations of NATO Equipment 

Shipments to Closed Airports

Transport planes, combat aircraft and strike helicopters were spotted by militia fighters in eastern Ukraine

Sputnik News,

14 December, 2014

MOSCOW, December 14 (Sputnik) — The Eastern Ukrainian militia reports an increase of air activity over the territory controlled by the Ukrainian forces, according to Rossiyskaya Gazeta. The militia fighters spotted transport and attack planes, as well as strike and multipurpose helicopters.

The biggest increase of activity is reported over the airfields in Kramatorsk and Chuhuiv where military equipment is shipped from Dnepropetrovsk. In addition, the militia reports that four NATO transport planes landed in Zaporizhia airport last night, carrying cargo containers and some unspecified equipment.

Meanwhile, Novorossia news agency reports that US C-130 Hercules transport planes are being unloaded in Zaporizhia airport. The unidentified cargo they delivered is being stored in shipping crates. The airport perimeter was recently reinforced by hastily erected guard towers.

The agency also reports that about 50 soldiers dressed in NATO uniforms were seen by locals in Chuhuiv, a town in Kharkiv region of Ukraine. Eyewitnesses say that soldiers were speaking Polish and tried to stop people from taking pictures of them.

On Friday the head of the Ukrainian State Aviation Administration Denis Antonyuk said that all flights to and from Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkiv and Zaporizhia were prohibited for security reasons, as requested by the Ukrainian military.

Ukrainian military representatives denied all allegations about NATO transport planes being unloaded in the recently shut down airports

Ukraine As Seen Through The Eyes Of A Geologist

by Vadim Zolotaryev, 

http://matveychev-oleg.livejournal.com/1722656.html
via http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/1729991

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/ukraine-as-seen-through-eyes-of.html

translated by Eugenia (thanks so much!!)A matter-of-fact view backed by numbers 

07-12-2014: By profession, I am a geologist, not a fortune teller or a psychic. I have no way of knowing what Putin is currently thinking of or what Poroshenko and Obama talked about yesterday. I am not on intimate terms with oligarchs of different countries involved in the events in Ukraine and have only a vague idea about their financial machinations. But I know the mineral resources that are the foundation of the Ukraine economy and, based mostly on that knowledge, I am offering my understanding of the current situation.

In the Soviet Union, Ukraine was above all the premier metallurgical region.

The Krivorozshskiy ore field is the second largest in the world (the first is the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly). The Donetsk coalfield is located close to the Krivorozshskiy ore field. The distance between them is only 300-400 km. There is no other place in the world where ore and coking coal are found in such quantities so close together. The Nikopol deposit of manganese ore needed for Siemens-Martin process of steel production is also nearby. In addition, the Kremenchug, Belozersk, and Kerchensky ore deposits were also exploited.

On this base, Ukraine developed metal-intensive manufacturing: equipment for factories and mining industry, rail transport, sea ships, agricultural equipment, etc.

The byproducts of the iron and coke making were used in the chemical industries (acids, plastics, mineral fertilizers).

All these industries developed in the proximity to the sources of raw materials, and that process created the industrial South-East of Ukraine.

The project Novorossiya includes precisely these territories (Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozye, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kharkov, Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson regions).

I want to emphasize: Novorossiya is a unified industrial complex and not at all the place of concentration of the Russian-speaking population.

Nevertheless, it is directly connected with Russia. Since the Ukrainian industry was created in the USSR, the products of that industry were manufactured according to the standards suitable specifically for the former Soviet countries, i.e. Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus.

In contrast, the Ukrainian industry is unsuitable for Europe or America. Everyone knows about the differences in the width of rail tracks, different European electrical outlets, but there are thousands of such incompatibilities. Therefore, the West can only make use of the Ukrainian raw materials.

But this makes all Ukrainian factories redundant, and, consequently, workers in these factories become redundant as well, followed by people that feed, cloth, and provide medical services to the workers. There is a reason why the West speaks about the need to reduce the population of Ukraine to 15 million people. And it does not matter which language these people speak.

The whole mess started not because of the language problem but because of the dispute where should Ukraine go: to the EU or ECU.

The authors of the project Novorossiya reasonably supposed that the South-East of Ukraine could be equally successful as an independent republic maintaining close ties with Russia or as a federal subject within the Russian Federation. However, as a part of Ukraine the South-East could be successful only if Ukraine keeps as close a relationship with Russia as existed in the Soviet times.

As a separate entity, Novorossiya could exist without Odessa or Nikolaev, thereby losing the shipbuilding industry, or without Kharkov, with its Kharkov Tractor Plant, but it cannot survive without its raw material base: Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozye regions with their iron and manganese ore and Donetsk and Lugansk with their coalfields.

On the other hand, Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic by themselves have no means of existence.

Soviet geologists and economists had recognized the problems of the Donetsk coalfield. In order to understand these problems, let us discuss what is Donbass – the most renowned coalfield of the Soviet Union.

Firsts, this is a relatively small coalfield. Below, I list the resources of the main coalfields of the USSR for comparison:

Lensk – 2647 billion ton;
Tunguska – 1745 billion ton;
Kansk-Achinsk – 1220 billion ton;
Kuznetsk – 805 billion ton;
Taimyr – 583 billion ton;
Pechersk – 344 billion ton;
Donetsk – 240 billion ton.

By its structure, the Donetsk coal basin is, simply speaking, a large basket of ancient igneous rock approximately 70 thousand square km in size and 8 km deep. That basket is filled with sedimentary rock intermixed with layers of coal. But these layers are not horizontal but folded, disrupted, distorted, and displaced.

Total of 300 coal seams have been found. About 50 seams have the thickness from 50 cm to 2 m and are good for mining. Although now in Donbass ever the seams as narrow as 20 cm are being exploited.

For comparison: in Kuznetsk coalfield the thickness of mines coal beds reaches 20 m, and the seams are horizontal and located very close to the surface.

In Donbass, however, all productive coal beds lying close to the surface have already been exhausted. Now it is necessary to reach deep (1000-1200 m) to extract coal, and this is considering that sudden explosive ejections of coal, gas, and rock are possible starting from the depth of 500-700 m.

In order to ensure normal conditions for people working at great depths under high pressure and temperature, new technologies are constantly needed to remove gases from seams, provide ventilation and air conditioning in the mines, to develop and use special equipment allowing for the coal extraction without people, etc. All this requires enormous capital investments.

In the USSR, the same investment yielded 3 times more coal in Kuzbass than in Donbass.

Significantly, the rate of adoption of new technologies in Donbass started to decline back in the 1980s when the marked forces made inroads into our economy. This had an immediate impact on the annual coal production:

1940 - 94 million tons;
1970 - 218 million tons;
1980 - 223 million tons;
1985 - 200 million tons;
1991 - 165 million tons;
2000 - 75 million tons.

As can be seen, with the beginning of perestroika, the annual coal production in Donbass declines rapidly, because the exploitation of the Donbass coalfields was no longer possible without constant technological innovations. However, capitalists would not invest more capital into unprofitable enterprises. That is why Donbass mines are closing one by one, and mining accident after accident claim human lives.

At the same time, the quality of the Donbass coal is very high. Anthracite of such quality is ideal for metallurgy. Because of that, Soviet economists insisted that this high quality expensive coal should be used in a most effective manner, i.e. exclusively in Ukrainian metallurgy. Lower quality coal produced without additional expense alongside high grade anthracite could be used for burning.

The energy sector of Ukraine, as a part of the energy complex of the USSR, was meant to use Russian oil and gas as well as transfer of electricity from the power stations working on the low grade Ekibastuz and Kansk-Achinsk coal (these are the open-cast coal regions, with the production cost 10 times lower than in Donbass) and development of the atomic energy.

However, just a few mines in Donbass could supply the amount of coal required by the Ukrainian metallurgy sector, with just 1/100 of all Donbass miners needed to operate them.

Precisely the problem of Donbass miners was what kept the Donbass mines in the Soviet Union fully operational and the entire region subsidized by the state. Clearly, the elimination of townships, relocation and retraining of such an enormous number of people would raise an avalanche of protests. Since the people’s interests still dominated over the interest of the economy, a gradual re-specialization of the Donbass mining region was planned, with building of new, mostly equipment manufacturing, plants.

Naturally, after Ukraine’s independence, there could be no building of new plants; all over Ukraine, existing enterprises were going bankrupt and disappearing. The Donetsk coal was considered only as burning coal for energy production. However, producing burning coal at such cost is not just unprofitable, it is criminal, given that in the capitalist conditions the production expenses are often covered by human lives.

Yet capitalism went even further in its criminality. Instead of unprofitable coalfield, Donbass is now considered as a promising region for shale gas production.

Unfortunately, I do not know for sure what amount of shale gas is predicted to be in Donbass. Theoretically, in such a coalfield all rock should contain gas to a certain extent. Drilling for gas is much cheaper that mining for coal (both in the cost of the equipment and of the work force). Besides, drilling could be done at considerably greater depths. Thus, for investors there are all the reasons to expect the conversion of the unprofitable region into a more or less profitable one.

But that is for the investors. For the citizens of Ukraine, and particularly those of Donbass, such re-purposing of the region is turning into a tragedy. The main trouble is not ecological. The tragedy is that, with the shale gas production conducted on a large scale in the former coal-producing region, most of the Donbass population will become redundant, lose their jobs and means of existence. (Donbass is the most densely populated region of Ukraine, where most of the residents are connected to the coal mining industry). Moreover, a larger part of the South-East of Ukraine will become redundant as well, since only ore mining companies will survive, whereas all metallurgy plants will close followed by machinery and equipment plants, pipe rolling plants, shipyards – all this industry will cease to exist.

I cannot say that I admire Putin or that Russian oligarchs are dearer to me in any way than oligarchs of other countries. But the fact that Russia has the intention of preserving the Ukraine’s metallurgic complex makes me an unwavering supporter of Putin’s policy. This policy is, of course, completely devoid of altruism or disinterested love to the Russian-speaking population of the South-East. Equally, the Poroshenko government could not care less about the Ukrainian people.

The pro-American government of the today’s Ukraine is deliberately doing everything to destroy the Ukrainian metallurgic complex, to isolate the Ukrainian ore deposits from the coalfields, to destroy Donbass.

The military actions destroy first the infrastructure of the Donbass towns. Schools, hospitals, communications are being targeted; mines are being destroyed. Indiscriminate artillery fire terrorizes the population causing mass departure; the residents feel increasing hatred toward the Ukrainian army and Ukraine as a whole. Throughout Ukraine, antipathy is being inflamed towards “colorads” that want to present a piece of Ukraine to Putin.

However, Russia is not interested in Novorossiya, as represented by Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Russia has plenty of its own coalfields and gas deposits that, in contrast to Donbass, are profitable. The cost of coal production in Donbass is considerably higher than in any Russian coalfield. Furthermore, Russia would like to preserve the metallurgic complex of Ukraine, i.e. to keep the link between Donbass and the Ukrainian iron ore deposits.

That is why Russia is in no hurry to recognize the independence of Novorossiya. The separation of Donbass from Ukraine is an American project. The project that will bring suffering first of all to the people of Donetsk and Lugansk regions as well as to all the people of Ukraine.

Currently, self-proclaimed republics are running election campaigns, and there is a real danger that the power will be assumed by people who, while fighting for the independence of the republics, are trying to attain the independence precisely to achieve the objectives of the American project.

Donbass does not need independence. Donbass needs to unite with other industrial regions of Ukraine, primarily Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozye. Donbass needs the entire Ukrainian industry to be preserved.

The survival of the Ukrainian industry is a necessity for the Ukrainian nation as a whole. But the majority of Ukrainian people do not understand their true interests, do not understand that Ukraine, with its resources and population, cannon be an independent state, that to ensure employment for the people Ukraine requires labor-intensive industries. The products of that industry should be exported, and it can only be exported to the former Soviet countries, and the separation from these countries, first of all from Russia, would mean ruination for the Ukrainian nation.

However, nobody explains any of this to the Ukrainian people. The pro-American mass media are filled with russophobic propaganda, while Russian mass media focus on the defense of the Russian-speaking population saying that Ukraine is no more, that it has never really existed and should not exist, thereby, from its own side, inciting hatred between Russian and Ukrainian people and promoting the separation of Donbass. 

A coup against Putin or a coup BY Putin?

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/a-coup-against-putin-or-coup-by-putin.html

Dear friends,

A very interesting question was recently asked by a reader of the French Saker Blog, "FD":

Should we expect a coup AGAINST Putin or a coup BY Putin? Given the power of the pro-USA forces at the top political, intellectual, financial and media circles, will Putin not have to make his own "18 Brumaire"?

This is a very interesting idea because, in a way, it might appear to be, if not a good solution, then at least a needed one.  Clearly, the extremely negative and yet central role played in Russian politics by what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" is a real threat to Putin and Russia.  This "5th column" of saboteurs is even represented in the Medvedev government and they are openly refusing to implement Putin's decrees and decisions.  Over and over again we have seen how his decisions are basically ignored by the government and how Putin is trying to reduce their influence but with very limited success.  And since the "power ministries" (Military, Internal, FSB, FSO, Justice, Police, Emergencies, etc.) are firmly on Putin's side, why would he not use the latter against the former?  In a direct confrontation between "big money" and "big guns", big guns will always win.

Alas, this is not that simple.

The first thing to remember here is that the real power base of Putin are not the "power ministries" but the 80%+ of people who support him.  That support is not unconditional, however.  There are already reports that it has already taken a slide down (by a few points only) because of the economic problems.  And Russians have a very bad recollection of the GKChP coup in 1991 or the bloody mess in 1993.  Furthermore, there are a number of key achievements which the vast majority of Russians do not want to give up, including their freedoms of assembly, speech, organization, demonstration and all the other civil and political rights.  Oh sure, Russians still like a "strong leader", but they want it to be a strong and legal leader.  And for all the often very real nostalgia for the good aspects of the Soviet regime, very few people would truly want a return to the old style authoritarian rule of the CPSU.  Of course, if Putin did decide to make a coup against the "Atlantic Integrationists" he could easily explain to the people all the good reasons for doing that, but once the rule of law has been broken, it is very, very hard to re-create it.  I think that Putin knows that very well (he has a law degree) and I think that this roots in the KGB make him particularly sensitive to this point (yes, I know, in the West there is this idea that the KGB was above the law, this is not true.  The KGB had to act strictly within the Soviet laws).

Again, I will repeat this absolutely crucial fact: the real power base of Putin are not the "power ministries" but the 80%+ of people who support him.  Whatever political move he makes, he absolutely needs to have the popular support for it.  By the way, he is acutely aware of that.  This is why he began his speech to the Federal Assembly this year with the following words:

Today’s address will be related to the current situation and conditions, as well as the tasks we are facing. But before delivering it I’d like to thank all of you for the support, unity and solidarity you have shown during the landmark events that will seriously influence the future of our country. 

This year we faced trials that only a mature and united nation and a truly sovereign and strong state can withstand. Russia has proved that it can protect its compatriots and defend truth and fairness.

Russia has done this thanks to its citizens, thanks to your work and the results we have achieved together, and thanks to our profound understanding of the essence and importance of national interests. We have become aware of the indivisibility and integrity of the thousand-year long history of our country.We have come to believe in ourselves, to believe that we can do much and achieve every goal.

This is quite amazing and very revealing.   He could have thanked the Russian military or the "polite armed men in green", but instead if thanked the people for their support which he clearly put as the cornerstone of the Russian successes even in this very difficult year.

Big guns are powerful, but crude instruments.  Yes, the Russian military could obliterate the Ukrainian military and take Kiev in just a few days and yes, Putin could easily seize power in Russia and simply fire, or even jail, all the "Atlantic Integrationists".  But that would only make things worse and Putin knows that.

Far from being a delusion for naive and Pollyanna-type people, the rule of law - international and national - is crucial for the survival and well-being of a civilized nation.  Yes, there are circumstances when a head of state has to give a illegal but vitally needed order, and Putin understands that too, but these have to be the ultimate last resort, something to do only in the most extreme circumstances and kept to a minimum.  Putin cannot hope to built a society based on the rule of law while at the same time completely disregarding the Russian Constitution.

One look at the horrors happening in the Ukraine can remind us all, including the Russian people, what can happen once the rule of law is tossed out of the window and replaced by the rule of the gun: utter and complete chaos which will take years, if not decades, to undo.

So no, I don't see Putin engaging on a coup and nor do I have any reasons to believe that a majority of Russian people would welcome that.  And I am very happy about this simply because I believe that modern Russia is better than that.

Kind regards,

The Saker

15.12.2014 Ukrainian crisis news. Latest news of Ukraine, Russia, UNCH, Phillipines

CrossTalk: US vs Russia

Khazin on Putin's message - 05 Dec 2014

Moscow Times is a liberal English-language publication and Ryzhkov a liberal politician.

Putin Must Change Direction or Face a Coup

Vladimir Ryzhkov

Moscow Times,

1 December, 2014

As the Ukrainian crisis intensified in recent months and after Western states imposed sanctions not only on Russia, but even on close associates of President Vladimir Putin, Moscow's ruling elite concluded that Washington and Brussels are intent on achieving a regime change in Russia.

However, not a single official of the United States or of any other Western country has made a statement to that effect. The fact that U.S. President Barack Obama has listed the Kremlin's policy toward Ukraine as one of the three main threats to international security does not necessarily mean that Washington is bent on toppling the Russian regime at any price — however much the sanctions might suggest otherwise.

What's more, the Russian and U.S. presidential administrations continue an intensive dialogue not only on Ukraine, but on a wide range of issues.

Nonetheless, in his annual speech before the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the main goal of the Western sanctions is regime change in Russia. Apparently, that is the only way the Kremlin chooses to interpret the actions of the West.

As if on cue, all of Russia's state-controlled television stations immediately rushed to prove that the U.S. and the West are fomenting a coup in Russia and that the job of everyone in the "Western camp" is to stir up discontent among the masses so that the Russian opposition can move in and channel that anger in the right direction.

Formerly the exclusive view of marginalized groups, Moscow latched onto this "conspiracy theory" and elevated it to official policy several years ago. That only raises even deeper doubts about the ability of Russia's leaders to grasp objective reality.

The phenomenon of regime change became well-known and subjected to thorough study following the 1968 release of the classic book by Edward Luttwak "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook." Since then, many hundreds of coups have occurred in more than 100 countries. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the former Soviet republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Moldova and possibly Turkmenistan — owing to the mysterious death of former Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov — all suffered coups of some description.

Russia itself survived coup attempts in 1991 and 1993, as did Uzbekistan in 2005. Only Belarus and Kazakhstan have so far escaped coups and even attempted coups, but that is no guarantee for the future.

How justified are fears that the West really could accomplish a coup d'état in modern Russia — however unlikely it is that such a plan even exists?

Following World War II, no successful coup has occurred among any of the victorious powers or members of the nuclear club — that is, in the U.S., the Soviet Union/Russia, Britain, China, France or India. The only exception is Pakistan, although that country developed its nuclear weapon in response to India's nuclear program, and since 1999, Pakistan has had a democratically elected leadership and no further coups.

As Luttwak explained, coup d'états occur only in weak, unstable states and societies. By contrast, states are practically invulnerable to coups where power is distributed between multiple institutions and levels of government, there are active political parties, a strong and stable economy, a strong civil society, trade unions, associations, local authorities, leaders of public opinion and independent media, and there are fair

elections being held regularly.

By contrast, in countries where the population views the government as a separate and uncontrollable force such as the climate or the weather, where the authorities take little or no interest in the well-being of their fellow citizens, where there are weak institutions of civil society and leaders rely exclusively on the government bureaucracy and defense and law enforcement structures to maintain their hold on power, and where the economy suffers from chronic and long-term crisis — these are the states most vulnerable to a coup d'état.

In such societies, rebels need only seize the center of power in the capital to gain control over the bureaucracy — which generally cares little about who holds the reins — and the success of the coup is ensured.

According to Luttwak, three conditions must exist in a country with a strong government bureaucracy and a weak society in order for a coup to succeed. They are:

- an extended and serious economic collapse accompanied by massive unemployment and galloping inflation;

- a long and unsuccessful war, a major war or else a situation in which the ruling regime suffers a serious diplomatic defeat;

- chronic political instability and a multiparty system.

The fatal weakness of authoritarian regimes is that the more they suppress society and the more the narrow circle of rulers who head the bureaucracy and security forces wield arbitrary power, the more vulnerable that regime is to a potential coup because it becomes relatively easy to snatch away that power once it is concentrated in only a few hands. And it is all the easier when society and the government bureaucracy act as no more than passive onlookers.

If Putin and his team really want to reliably protect Russia against any attempt at a coup d'état — either from domestic or foreign forces — and to ensure the lasting sovereignty of the country, they need to actively promote the development of a strong civil society and democracy rather than suppressing them both.

They must also adopt effective economic policies that guarantee high employment levels and economic growth — as, for example, China has done — while at the same time avoiding dangerous foreign policy ventures. Recall that the war in Afghanistan hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Vladimir Ryzhkov, a State Duma deputy from 1993 to 2007, is a political analyst.