Monday, June 29, 2015

Russian leadership has not yet proceeded to escalate for a year the food sanctions against the EU in response

Putin

Author: root of yesterday, 15:58
Putin

War sanctions. Fracture: Moscow increased rates

In this review, the blogosphere would like to highlight two events environment. Firstly, on the Decree of the President of Russia Vladimir Putin to extend for a year the food sanctions against the EU in response to the extension for six months EU sanctions against Russia, adopted a landmark day - June 22. Secondly, on the creation of the EU Foreign Service EastStratComTeam special unit to coordinate information and kontrpropagandistskoyraboty against Russia.

Although Vladimir Putin accepted the decision to asymmetric sanctions rather quietly passed by the federal mass media and has caused great excitement in the community, as a matter of long-expected, in fact it is the decision of the Russian leader is revolutionary. Never before in the past since the collapse of the Soviet Union, while the Russian leadership has not yet proceeded to escalate the conflict with the West and did not raise rates first. What was constantly criticized by "patriots", they say, it's time to give high-handed in the teeth to the West. On that "peacekeepers", whose position I share, answered - of course, we give, but not now.

The fact that Stalin could not start in 1939 war with Hitler - the Soviet economy in general and the military industry, as well as the army, were not yet ready, as we're not ready for the summer of 1941. That if we could postpone the war until 1943, then convinced the enemy was driven back to the border immediately. But since there has occurred. Therefore, the retreat of Moscow and flirting with the West that we have seen since 2000, was determined entirely similar factors - Russia, its economy, industry and army were not ready for a head-on confrontation with the West. Putin had to win time and to focus the country. What to do, of course, with many nuances, but the strategic course it was.

Every time the Kremlin has raised rates to a certain level to check the level of resistance of opponents and making it, stepped back. Then the situation is repeated, and so again and again, with one small "trifles" - rates were rising all the time. Behind the scenes, a little bit, but not lowered and raised. First, opponents experienced geopolitical and historical Card gamblers, this is not scared and even amused - for a long time they have not seen such a "novice", which would be so aggressive bluffing and anticipating how to raise rates, they undress him naked. But it was not there. "Bluff" was delayed and ended the Olympics, and then bloodless and voluntary return of the Crimea to Russia. Here at the world Card "wealthy man" started to attack epiphany - like so, like and fighters for the "boy" to be seen, then where such exorbitant insolence?

But Vladimir Vladimirovich and then showed tact and did not want to even dip opponent's face in the dirt from under the hooves of their own. And given the opportunity to save face and to establish mutually beneficial dialogue with Russia without "steps". But it was not even dokrichatsya ... West biting at the bit ... and continued to ram obstinacy beat the keeper. Here on this background, after another idiotic action by the EU and adopted "asymmetric" decision not to extend the sanctions for six months, and once a year. And rightly so, why waste time on trifles? As long as you sow, yet the harvest gather until you sell, just a year is needed.

Frankly, I've been waiting for the moment when Russia will not respond symmetrically and raise rates. Because to be second in the dialogue - a secondary, and the main thing - to follow the rules of the game. But to raise interest rates - which means to formulate and create new rules of the game, the opponent will have to comply with any or will play initially. Now, this point is likely to come, and "peacekeepers", more than any other branch of the domestic space were more faithful to the discourse, which is not formulating for many years personified the Kremlin.

About this behavioral strategy wrote a few months ago, Sergei Smirnov in the article "What will happen to the ruble, or the last move of Putin": "It is worth noting that all the time Putin's strategy can be summarized in four steps. Step one: Putin offers a mutually beneficial compromise. Keyword -vzaimovygodny. Step Two: If the partner refuses, Putin is doing, so that conditions become favorable and unfavorable to him partner. Step three: Putin offers partners a compromise on terms unfavorable to the partner. Step Four: Putin takes consent from a partner or otherwise, offering him to hang on the scarf »(http://guruinvest.com/blogs/45/261/chto-budet-s-ruble ..).

Now we see that the fourth step of the Kremlin began to do, and at the top level of geopolitical struggle. It says only one thing - that Russia focused and strengthened so that we can raise the stakes against the whole West. In essence, this means a psychological turning point in the war, we were the last twenty five years. If before we scare the West with sanctions, propaganda, exceptions, limitations, etc., then this decision Vladimir Putin has shown that under this line be drawn strip stories, and not just - as thick line.Now, for each move against Russia, we will meet a doubling of rates, with the result that the sanctions will not under Russia and the West.

United States, of course, is far away, but that's Europe, namely Europe (for Ukraine) we are now fighting US nachet in full fall into the "alignment". And Europe will run and jump into the legs is not the one who will be her stroke on the head, and who feasibly will clamp in a vise what kept "Koshcheeva needle." In my unprofessional opinion, the valve must defeat the machine. Of course, too early to draw conclusions, but it seems that the engine went in the opposite direction to the West. And next month (BRIC and SCO summits in Ufa will take place very soon - on July 8-10) will show exactly - how it is.

The fact that the train moved in the opposite direction, and indicates an attempt to Europe and the West in general to limit the influence of Russian media to the Western audience. The fact that the West is beginning to lose not only the information confrontation with Russia, but also aware of this situation, it is best to say it made in the last year trying to limit the penetration of the Russian mass media, especially electronic on territory under its control. West was afraid of the influence of Russian media asWesterners on a comparison with a very thin trickle until Russian news began to see the lies and hypocrisy of the Western media.The fact that attempts to turn the tide in their favor have not been successful, said the new initiative and the establishment of the West in the foreign service of EU EastStratComTeam special unit to coordinate information and kontrpropagandistskoyraboty against Russia.

We are talking about the alleged Russian propaganda. But this is just a play on words, and again attempt to impose its own rules, its own glossary of terms. And because this game is quite simple, we probably also need to go down this path - to declare all the Western media propaganda machine, which is especially true given the very limited number of beneficial owners of these media, and by looking at the Western sanctions against Russian media , raise (to start) twice. Restrict sales in Russia of all these glamorous, to put it mildly, publications. Strike on the pocket and at the same time to clear the clearing for domestic producers.And so, step by step, to displace the West with the country's information space.

In general, the creation of "jamming", namely this is now actively engaged in the "evil empire", never bring the desired effect.Liberty, equality, fraternity, the main ideas and ideals of democracy (for which, incidentally, fought people of the world throughout the history of mankind), which is a symbol of today's world is not sodomitskie US and Europe, and Russia, sooner or later strikes their way, and we can free from the yoke of tyranny oligarchic-digital Western nations.

Yuri Ram 

West gave Ukraine unrealistic economic expectations

World Politics Today



European media: the West gave Ukraine unrealistic economic expectations. Even though European leaders promised the Kiev authorities to improve the economic situation, major investors withdraw their assets, and the preliminary conclusions about the effectiveness of Western Ukraine are disappointing, writes New Europe. 

Money in the Ukrainian treasury becomes every day less and less, while Western leaders predicted improvement in the economy is still not in sight. Last spring, the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, attempted to quell fears of an impending economic collapse in Ukraine, stating: "You continue to reform, we We continue to support. " Has it benefit? Facts contradictory, but preliminary conclusions are not inspire hope, the newspaper notes. 

The military conflict in the Donbass in Ukraine cost 5-7 million dollars a day, which is approximately 5% of annual GDP.Despite several packages of financial assistance from international lenders, after taking into account the necessary payments on loans the country received a total of one billion dollars in 2014. At the same time Ukraine is required over the next four years, about $ 40 billion, according to the article. Reforms under the austerity policies, which requires Ukraine to the West, led to the fact that in this year, inflation in Ukraine will be 46%, while the country's GDP will fall by "unexpected" 9%. Ukraine's state debt in June reached 100% of GDP, investors quickly began to withdraw assets, leaving the country without foreign funds and opportunities to strengthen the economy. 

Gas prices for the population grew four times after the abolition of state subsidies. Thus, many citizens can not pay the bills, the newspaper reminds. Estimated benefits of the measures taken Kiev, and remain unsold.Meanwhile, major international energy companies - Chevron and Shell - are refusing to work in Ukraine. Both of these events, "dealt a devastating blow" to hopes on investment, while the country is trying to find foreign partners and to stop the outflow of capital, writes New Europe. In addition, the fight against oligarchs, who are the current Kiev authorities, may be mixed political motives that can also scare off potential investors. 

They imagine a country where aggressive possible alienation of property and excessive interference by the state, says the article. In this approach, when the West accused Russia of fomenting the conflict in Ukraine and trying to isolate the Russian Federation, also requires revision. 

Western leaders should work together with Russia, Ukraine to become economically strong and prosperous, but remains neutral in military terms by the state, believes the publication. "In the interest of full implementation of the Minsk Agreement and to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the EU should work with Moscow, and Kiev. However, we have the West not forge far, isolating Russia while placing less responsibility in Ukraine, "- writes the New Europe.

Carpenter: Kiev deliberately provokes the Republic, to wage war

Published June 29, 2015 - 19:05 
Carpenter: Kiev deliberately provokes the Republic, to wage war 

Kiev authorities deliberately provoked the DNI and LC for waging war. This was stated by the head of Igor LC Carpenter. "Today, Ukraine is increasingly provoking and DNI and our responses, because they do not have any arguments, and for them the only way out and the economic and political - is to start a war," - said the head of the Republic. "So what is happening now, it is just a provocation, which for us is very painful and unpleasant, but for the sake and in order to resolve the conflict peacefully, we will perform the Minsk agreement", - he explained.

http://q99.it/JrF01hp

The US’ “Asia Pivot” is in Doldrums

16.06.2015 Author: Salman Rafi Sheikh

The US’ “Asia Pivot” is in Doldrums

If the US’ “Asia Pivot” was to be described in one sentence, it would be “encirclement” of its two most important strategic peers in the world: Russia and China. The idea of “encirclement” was further based upon building a chain of allies across Asia, which is somehow now suffering from standstill. As it stands, not only is the US not succeeding in securing that chain of allies, but the ‘counter-economic-offensive’ of Russia and China has struck a heavy blow to the US ambitions as well.

As far as the question of the effectiveness and the success of “Asia Pivot” is concerned, one can evaluate it by emphasizing the fact that in its bid to strengthen its weak position, the US did not hesitate to virtually accept Iran’s erstwhile position on its nuclear programme. The fast changing situation inside Afghanistan and in Central Asian region must have compelled the US to make a serious attempt to wean Iran to its side so that the Iranian route to the Caspian Sea could be opened to use for the former. In other words, in the US’ new strategic calculations with regard to its position in this part of the word, Iran has come to occupy a significant position, and as such, Iran is most likely to take strategic advantage of it in order to strengthen its position against Saudi led “Sunni” block in the Middle East.

However, the success of the “Asia Pivot” is not dependent upon Iran alone; it is rather more deeply dependent upon that chain of allies the US originally conceived of as vital in this strategy. Iran, as is obvious, is only one link in that chain. Therefore, its position and its role in in facilitating the “Asia Pivot” must not be over-emphasized.

Although it is believed that the on-going crisis in the Middle East have impacted the progress of the “Asia Pivot”, the fact is that the US has not been able to succeed in securing the kind of agreements with its East Asian allies it wanted to secure. East Asia, as it turns out, is not waiting for the US, nor is it willing to engage with the US on such terms as would jeopardize their relations with Russia and China. Major countries in the region, including America’s key allies and its top emerging rival, are actively jockeying for influence, assertively reassessing their bi-lateral relations with their neighbors and generally stirring for what could become a significant realignment of power in the world’s fastest-growing region specifically, and in the world generally. It is increasingly become clear with each day passing that the post-cold war balance of power has now changed a lot, and that global politics is no longer solely dominated by the US.

The recalcitrant behaviour of the US’ erstwhile allies, in this behalf, is only a reaction to this changing global political realities. Not only this, China is also actively involved in jeopardizing the “Asia Pivot” by exploiting rivalry between two of the US’ main allies in the region: South Korea and Japan. Tensions between the two American allies, which stem from a troubled history, particularly events that transpired during World War II, continue to flare from time to time and are always a source of trouble for the US to get over it. South Korea wants to see genuine repentance from Tokyo, in addition to compensation, for Japanese actions during the war, notably on the so-called comfort women, as the Korean women forced into sexual slavery for the benefit of Japanese soldiers were called.

China, meanwhile, is deliberately working to profit from the dispute between Japan and South Korea with a strong, top-level diplomatic offensive to complement the South Korea’s considerable economic muscle. Chinese policy, and priorities, were markedly evident during Chinese President’s last year visit to South Korea. Making an unprecedented move, and breaking with the tradition, Xi Jingping travelled to South Korea before travelling to North Korea. Not only was it an indication of Chinese policy to sabotage the “pivot” by embarking on offensive diplomacy but also a clear message to the young North Korean leader who has presided over a deteriorating relationship with Beijing. But more than a mere warning to North Korea, the Chinese gesture was meant to warmly embrace South Korea. That the tour was meant to hit at the heart of South Korea-Japan rivalry became self-evident in one of the speeches Xi delivered during the visit. In the speech delivered to Korean students, Xi not only spoke of Japanese military aggression during World War II, but also of the time 400 years ago when China’s Ming rulers sent soldiers to help Korea fend off Japanese invaders.

Apart from winning the US allies to its side, China, in partnership with Russia mainly, has also launched an “economic offensive” in the shape of Asian Infrastructure and Development Bank. Under Chinese stewardship, a new and potentially disruptive player in the development banking landscape, the AIIB, which was initially proposed in 2013 by President Xi Jingping, has gathered a lot of steam in the past few months, and has become the primary source of attraction for the erstwhile US allies in the region. In other words, this initiative has alone done so much damage to the US position in the region that no limited military conflict could do. As it stands, the Bank’s stated mission is to “focus on the development of infrastructure and other productive sectors in Asia.” It has attracted 57 founding member countries. This group includes some of America’s closest allies — first the UK, followed by Germany, France, South Korea, and Israel, among others. The U.S. and Japan are, as should have been expected, two of the most prominent players to decline membership. Although this Bank is by far much smaller, in terms of the capital it has, than World Bank and Asian Development Bank, however, with so many major countries on board, the AIIB poses a credible alternative to incumbent development banking systems like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and others that have been in place, largely unchallenged, for 70 years. It’s a big shake-up for the development world, and a very suitable alternative to many a state in the region which do wish to get out of the dollar-oriented, US dominated, economic system.

The Chinese-Russian endeavor is, perhaps, the strongest response to the “Asia Pivot”, which not only meant to encircle and contain China but, at the same time, also aimed at integrating itself into the US led global economic system dominated by dollar. The initiative to establish a different currency system and the related development of the AIIB have thus clearly established the failure of the US ‘dream’ of having China into the trap.

However, apart from attempting to structure an altogether ‘new economic system’, China, by default, is not that much integrated in the current global economic system being virtually run by the World Bank and the IMF. This can be illustrated in this way: China is now the world’s second largest economy—the largest if measured in terms of purchasing-power parity; however, its contribution and its voting power in the IMF is roughly equivalent to that of the Netherlands and Belgium combined. It is certainly much less than China’s economic worth. And, it is certainly a bad omen for the US policy to have China integrated into global economic system.

On politico-military front, China is equally aggressively asserting its space. Not only is she reclaiming land and building an airstrip on the disputed Spratly Islands, creating what the Pentagon has called “facts on the water,” but also actively engaged in rash island-building program in the South China Sea. Although the US has signaled to send its Navy in the region to ensure “freedom of navigation”, it is quite obvious that the US cannot afford to confront China militarily; after all, China is one of the most important investors in the USA itself. Chinese presence in the US can be assessed from the fact that between 2011 and 2013, the value of China’s mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the United States exceeded the value of US merger and acquisitions deals in China. Similarly, between 2011 and 2012, Chinese FDI flows into the US exceeded US FDI flows into China. While it is too early to call this a permanent turning point, Chinese companies are also certainly poised to deepen their presence in the US with the passage of time. Given these trends, it can hardly be expected that the USA can or should even think of engaging in a military conflict with China.

In this context, it is quite an evident fact that China is playing a long game, and it is scoring points slowly but steadily while the US struggles to carry out its much-advertised “pivot.” With US attention currently occupied by Iraq, Syria and now Yemen, developments in Asia that clamor for closer attention from the US once again seem to be getting drowned out by the din from the Middle East. However, it is also a fact that the US-Iran rapprochement is kind of a US response to Chinese assertiveness in East Asia. The US policy, in this regard, can be summarized in this way: if China gets hold over East Asia, the US can manipulate energy rich regions of West and Central Asia through Iran. And, if the US can bring this region under its control, it can not only manipulate the flow of energy to China and other East Asian states and thereby impact their economic growth, but also cause trouble for another major power: Russia. The US strategy is, therefore, two edged: one of the one hand, it aims to strengthen its position in the Middle East, and on the other, it aims to maintain political influence in the Eastern and Central Asian regions, enough to prevent China-Russia alliance from establishing total hegemony. Notwithstanding the strategic aim of the US, it seems quite improbable that the US would, at least in the near future, be able to secure any major victory. Whether or not its position is weak can be a moot question; however, it is quite certain that its competitors—Russia and China—are much stronger than ever, and are therefore in a much better position to put the “pivot” in the ‘dustbin’ of geo-politics.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook

These are lies the New York Times wants you to believe about Russia

These are lies the New York Times wants you to believe about Russia

Our sanctions caused Russia's downturn. They protect Big Oil, the well-connected, and make the world more dangerous


    WEDNESDAY, DEC 10, 2014 04:00 PM PST
These are lies the New York Times wants you to believe about RussiaRussian President Vladimir Putin, center, looks back at US President Barack Obama, left, as they arrive with Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, at the the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit.(Credit: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
You can look at the Russian economy two ways now and you should. So let’s: It is an important moment in the destruction of something and the construction of something else, and we had better be clear just what in both cases. The world we live in changes shape as we speak.
Truth No. 1: Russians are besieged. Sanctions the West has insisted on prosecuting in response to the Ukraine crisis — Washington in the lead, the Europeans reluctant followers — are hitting hard, let there be no question. Oil prices are at astonishing lows, probably if not yet provably manipulated by top operatives in the diplomatic and political spheres.
Truth No. 2: Russians are hot. With an energetic activism just as astonishing as the oil prices, Russian officials, President Putin in the very visible lead but with platoons of technocrats behind him, are forging an extensive network of South-South relationships — East-East, if you prefer — that are something very new under the sun. Some of us were banging on about South-South trade and diplomatic unity as far back as the 1970s; I have anticipated the arriving reality since the early years of this century. But I would never have predicted the pace of events as we have them before us. Stunning.
Holiday surprise: There is a Truth No. 3 and it is this: Truth No. 1, the siege of the Russian economy, is proving a significant catalyst in the advance of Truth No. 2, the creative response of a nation under ever-mounting pressure.
Timothy Snyder, the Yale professor whose nitwittery on the Ukraine crisis is simply nonpareil (and praise heaven he has gone quiet), exclaimed some months ago that Putin is threatening to undermine the entire postwar order. I replied in this space the following week, Gee, if only it were so.
Already it seems to be. But miss this not: Russia is advancing this world-historical turn with a considerable assist from its adversaries in the West, not alone. For all the pseuds who pretend to know Schumpeter but know only one thing, the creative destruction bit, how is this as a prime example of the phenom?
Details in a sec, but this thought first: We are all bound to pay close attention to these events because they matter to everyone, whether this is yet obvious or not. Probably in our lifetimes — and I had it further out until recently — we will begin to inhabit a different planet.
And it stands to be a better one, if you accept that equilibrium, interdependence, cooperation and all those other notions Washington is frightened to death of will make for a more secure world than our lopsided primacy, incessant confrontations, drone murders, waterboarding, nuclear arsenals and the National Endowment for Democracy’s subversions will ever deliver for us.
How much more capable, equally, will be a human community that addresses its problems with the wisdom not of one civilization, which happened by historical circumstance to modernize in the material sphere before others, but with the smarts and imaginations and perspectives of many?
Those details come in flurries now and fall into two files, destruction and construction. To the former first.
The economics ministry in Moscow has just forecast a swoon in its outlook for 2015. On a dime, it shifts from a prediction of 1.2 percent growth to 0.8 percent contraction. The math is easy: This is a rip of 2 percentage points right out of Russia’s middle. No sentient American should have any difficulty understanding what these numbers will mean to many millions of ordinary Russians.
The ministry’s report is the first to anticipate the consequences of the several rounds of sanctions imposed this year, the 34 percent drop in the ruble’s value this year and the collapse in oil prices. The last are now far below what Russia needs — about $105 a barrel — if the petroleum sector is to contribute to national revenues. As detailed in this space a few weeks ago, there are ample grounds to question whether price patterns in global oil markets are the consequence of American manipulations.
As to the ruble, we saw this coming months ago as reports of “silent sanctions,” as financial services people call them, began to come through. Off-the-books sanctions is the better term. A few at a time — HSBC, Lloyd’s — banks began denying credit to Russian enterprises; as documented, these decisions were at the  Treasury Department’s informal urging.
Reflecting the creep of interdependence in the global economy, financing from Western banks is vital to Russian corporations of all sizes. At this point, my sources in the markets tell me, the spigot is off: Credit and all customary loan rollovers are virtually unavailable across the board.
This is the anatomy of much suffering that is about to get done. Is the course wise? Is there a point? Is it other than ridiculous to posit some “net-positive” justification for this?
I see nothing good in this whatsoever. I see recklessness.
Think of it this way, as an old friend from Asia days suggests. Currency speculators abandoned the Thai baht en masse in 1997 and before we knew it Thailand had dragged all of East Asia into prolonged crisis. Remember? Now consider the size of the Thai economy — tiny in the scheme of things, and heavily agricultural still.
Now consider the size of the Russian economy. It is the world’s No. 2 producer of natural gas and No. 3 producer of oil. In terms of nominal gross domestic product — standard measure — Russia’s economy, at $2.1 trillion, is slightly larger than Italy’s. Another measure, purchasing power parity, values Russia’s economy at $3.5 trillion, but never mind: Even by nominal GDP, Russia is the world’s No. 8 economic power.
Comfortable now with the sanctions regime, are we?
The cliques in Washington are because the U.S. trades very little with Russia and they have no grasp of limits of any kind. This is cynicism made flesh when you consider Europe’s vulnerabilities. The contagious economic and social crisis is already spreading to nations near Russia’s borders.
As Germans and other Europeans understand, take down this beast and the blood will spatter everywhere. Now you can see, maybe, why one consequence of the Ukraine crisis is a serious deterioration of relations between America and those known as “the allies,” a term that has masked many complications since the Cold War’s onset.
As to the point of it all, it gets bitterer the more we learn of Ukraine and its arriving future.
Long ago, an English diplomat in Tokyo wrote to his Foreign Office in London, “The Japanese can neither love the Americans nor endure being loved by them.” It is dead on the fate of Ukrainians so far as one can make out. All signs are they are in for the suffocating embrace. Here comes the neoliberal order. It will be very weird to watch.
My jaw hit the corner of my desk when I read last week that Ukraine’s new finance minister, one Natalie Jaresko, is 1) an American citizen, granted a Ukraine passport simultaneously with her cabinet appointment, 2) a former State Department officer, 3) recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in that $5 billion Victoria Nuland famously bragged of spending in State’s effort to yank Ukraine westward and 4) a participant in apparently extensive insider dealing via the investment management company she co-founded after leaving State.
Get this:
Jaresko served as president and chief executive officer of Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), which was created by the U.S. Agency for International Development with $150 million to spur business activity in Ukraine. She also was co-founder and managing partner of Horizon Capital, which managed WNISEF’s investments at a rate of 2 percent to 2.5 percent of committed capital, fees exceeding $1 million in recent years, according to WNISEF’s 2012 annual report.
Her title at Horizon Capital must be CCIO, chief conflict of interest officer.
Full credit, given with gusto: The above passage is from the long exposé of this sordid business by Robert Parry, whose work on Ukraine is invaluable. Read this piece here: a riveting read covering a tangled web. Parry, in turn, cites John Hellmer, a former Moscow correspondent who recently explored Jaresko’s story as State Department official (and diplomat in post-Soviet Kiev) turned recipient of USAID funds.
Surely this is the right person to regulate Ukraine’s financial markets, counter corruption with archangelic purpose and negotiate with Washington, the Europeans and the IMF in behalf of Ukrainians’ interests. No wonder the parliament in Kiev erupted when Jaresko’s appointment was announced.
Footnote here: That $150 million fund State handed Jaresko has lost more than a third of its value since the Ukrainian economy tanked. As she steps into office, Kiev’s foreign reserves are down to $10 billion and shrinking, while inflation roars at 22 percent.
My jaw has been bruised, to be honest, since, as the Ukraine crisis got hot, Vice President Biden’s son, R. Hunter, was named to the board of Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s No. 1 producer of natural gas. I cannot make out who is the chief conflict of interest officer here, Joe or the boy.
News comes of our Hunter, it turns out. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that he was bounced from the U.S. Navy Reserve earlier this year after a positive drug test. If the 44-year-old were Ukrainian (or any other nationality) and had been so charged, he would not be allowed into this country. This is the kind of person America is now happy to send abroad.
More substantively, Burisma announced last month that it will now commence drilling near Slavyansk, where Ukrainian troops have been dodging bullets while installing the company’s hydraulic fracturing equipment. Slavyansk, alert readers will recall, was the object of three months’ sustained bombing and artillery shelling prior to this announcement.
Overseeing all this is Jaresko and — second of three foreigners named to a new cabinet — Aivaras Abromavicius, a Lithuanian and a partner in an asset-management firm called East Capital. He will be the incoming economy minister, such as there is an economy.
Why these foreigners? In my read, Biden is a straight-out emissary sent to shepherd American corporations into the resource game via joint ventures or what have you, we will have to see, and the others are roughly the equivalent of compradors — in effect, bought-off locals.
Here is a tableau worth a moment’s consideration: Over here, Vicky Nuland stands before a Chevron plaque as she explains to business executives how well the $5 billion was spent. Here we have Hunter Biden doing Burisma’s legal work. Over here we have a small-town mayor in Romania who is run out of town for selling Chevron a fracking lease. (This you can read of in the Times.) And over there, also in the Times report, we have the Lithuanians forcing Chevron to abandon a shale-drilling project after widespread demonstrations opposing it.
You want to know why I hold the neoliberal agenda and those who advance it in contempt? This is why. We watch a corporate shark-feed. It has nothing to do with democracy. There is nothing in this for Ukrainians. They are about to hear their first lectures on the virtues of “austerity.”
I have three remarks.
One, the greed at the cost of human life and society is so brazen here it causes me to stop typing to reread the sentences. Can market-consciousness have brought us this low?
Two, please count the number of times you have read the words “Chevron,” “Burisma” or “shale-gas interests” in any account of Ukraine by correspondents covering it. I can find no mention of any from those in the field. This is “the power of leaving out,” as I often put it, in spades. I rest the case (for now).
Three, there is a deeper tragedy. Ukrainians live between East and West. This is not only a matter of geography: There is among them a mix of Eastern consciousness and Western consciousness. Accordingly, they had a chance to stand as the very best the new century offers us, a planet whose old divisions could be erased in favor of a more fulsome idea of the successful society and its potential.
This chance is now all but lost — destroyed by those who resisted it.
What I find remarkable now is that Moscow does not seem to be taking Ukraine’s misfortune and the West’s aggressions against Russia itself passively — or even negatively, for that matter. So we pass from the destructive file to the constructive.
Neil MacFarquhar, a standout in the New York Times’ Moscow bureau for his full-frontal prejudices, gave as negative an account as he could when he covered Putin’s year-end address. I had another read. This guy is bloodied, O.K., but he is not bowed, and I would advise against waiting for it.
I did like the Times’ head, parenthetically: “Putin, Amid Stark Challenges, Says Russia’s Destiny Is at Hand.” Without going histrionic, that is likely to prove precisely what is at hand. My favorite MacFarquhar sentence: “Mr. Putin enjoyed ever-greater support from March to August, but in the months since, as sanctions began to bite with inflation, support began to erode — though his approval ratings remain in the 80s.”
You have to love a paper that will publish this. Somehow.
Look at Putin’s foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in — an intentional finger in Washington’s eye, as I read it — then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list.
A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years’ time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market.
Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers. But two points: One, it was soon enough clear that the Europeans, having used South Stream as leverage in the sanctions game, probably overplayed their hand. The day following the announcement they were struggling for composure so far as I can make out.
Two, Putin stunned everyone with his decision from Ankara, where he stood with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to announce that South Stream would be rerouted to serve the Turkish market. Think about this: It is more than a new deal; there are significant political and diplomatic implications in this, given Turkey’s traditional alliances, its EU aspirations and so on.
This is the way the world changes shape, the way new worlds get built. Think of these new ties in terms of the old trade routes. Many things other than goods traveled along them. As then, the traffic will run in both directions, making our latest globalization the two-way street it should have been from the first.
One could say it is not the West’s world any longer, and I called it “post-Western” in a book several years ago. This is not quite so. It is ours, but only to the extent that it is destined to be everybody’s, if I read history rightly. As an American, my biggest regret on this score — apart from all the suffering caused in our names — is  that my country seems bent on doing almost everything it can to lose out on a great deal of what would be its share in the arriving era; this in the name of prolonging a time that is no longer.
Patrick Smith is the author of “Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century.” He was the International Herald Tribune’s bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote “Letter from Tokyo” for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist.

Friday, June 19, 2015

INFORMANT TO MH 17 UNPACKS


INFORMANT TO MH 17 UNPACKS
June 15, 2015


Now comes the truth? The million-dollar reward for information on the shooting down of flight MH-17 led allegedly to success.


Debris of the MH 17 in a field in eastern Ukraine Photo: Getty Images


The man who can provide evidence allegedly to shoot down the passenger plane MH-17 disappears on a folding bike. Right, left, small ways to narrow for a car could follow him. The Swiss is back and smiles. In his pocket, he plays with a torn dollar bill. His clients will be satisfied. He talked to the informants in private for 20 minutes. That was enough for him.

The Swiss is certain: This is the man, to whom they have been waiting for. Which they had put a million reward in prospect and will pay off. For evidence that can prove how the Enlightenment was obscured since the launch of the aircraft on 17 July 2014 in which all 298 passengers died.

"Our clients have got the information that they wanted to get," says Josef Resch. "So my job is finished." The Lübeck private investigator had already been paid out by the Swiss middlemen, against silence. The hardships of the past months have noted the 66-year-olds. Many threats were there.Against him, his staff, his family. Dubious meeting, flashy cars around him, people who followed him. An employee says: "We may have a political dimension to the contract underestimated at first." 

THE CLIENT REMAINS ANONYMOUS


A slight dissatisfaction with swings. Still do not know Resch, who are his clients what they intend to do with the purchased information. He does not know their intention. Are its clients politically motivated? Or economically? Will someone just clarity? Or find a possible traitor, before he turns to others? Buying information, before they can do damage. He just do not know. And that gnaws at him.

In September last year Resch was commissioned by a Swiss man, a reward for information on the circumstances and on the groups behind the launch of the MH 17 auszuloben: 30 million dollars. Had exposed more than the US authorities'm upside of Osama Laden then. Resch is known for his unorthodox methods of investigation, he operates in a legal gray area. He works with high rewards, relies on the greed of accomplices. Even the then volatile punters Florian Homm he has driven in this way for more than five years in hiding to the public.

But this time everything is different. He hunts no alleged fraudsters. His customers are not cheated investors, not corporations. It's a great unknown with a lot of money. And the enemies he makes, is powerful. The truth that he seeks maybe no one wants to hear. Because they could have the potential to trigger a political earthquake. Before he accepts the order, it goes through your mind: "Maybe I should indeed be only the useful Depp in a collusion." Nevertheless, he accepts the order. "What can be bad about finding those guilty of the death of 298 people," he calms down. The fee wipes away the last doubts.

WHO CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT?

In November 2014, the Swiss occur again up to him. "We need a second Edward Snowden" , Resch says then. Someone from the services who could prove that the education is hampered. The know what should not be publicized. For this information the anonymous client provide an additional 17 million dollars.

Still the official international team of investigators has been able to provide any evidence led by the Netherlands. Even today, nearly a year after the disaster, is still not fixed, what exactly happened at noon of the 17th of July 2014.

There are only theories. Credible, and what looks strong after the conspiracy. The most common and most plausible is that the machine has been brought on its way from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with a Russian ground-to-air missile, a BUK from heaven. Whether Russian army personnel or pro-Russian separatists have fired it, remains unclear. Videos and images that circulate on the net, should demonstrate how the BUK system was brought from Russia in the Eastern Ukraine. And there, was fired on that Thursday around 13.20 clock. Media are on their way to the Ukraine, speak with alleged witnesses, research at venues. But who and what can you believe?

A man, a cliche: private investigator Josef Resch Photo: Jens Bold
HALF DOLLAR BILL AS A BADGE


His clients are professionals. Or have looked too much James Bond. Communication with the Swiss man running mostly on codes on websites. From phone booths numbers are dialed abroad, who often belong to restaurants. Messages are stored there. One of the first meetings Resch is a dollar sign. The Swiss then it breaks into two parts, right through the signature, one half Resch that henceforth he should carry with you enough. The other half he is a. It could be, says the Swiss, that employee by him appeared in the investigators in order to exchange messages. They would always half of the dollar there. Who anspreche him without the dollar bill, do not come from him.

As a reward for the information on MH 17 is world public, Resch is buried by an avalanche of emails, calls and letters. Its server breaks even at times under the weight. Documents are served on him, sometimes better, sometimes worse falsified. Conspiracy theories of all kinds get to hear the investigator. "We have needed weeks to sift and sort. 99.9 percent were clearly mark off as nonsense, "said Resch.
MEETINGS IN HOTELS


Each chain of evidence can be apparently refutes. Photos are exposed as forgeries, the revealing evidence later turn out to be amateurish. Russia presents images of Ukrainian military jets, occupy 17. Credible analysis bound for MH, they are fake. The governments in Kiev and Moscow do everything possible to prove the guilt of the other. The truth remains on track. The silence of the United States are the most mystery. A war zone on the eastern edge of Europe should not have been meticulously monitored? Hard to imagine. And the impotence of the international investigators can doubt. Should something be covered up?

Resch and his team arrange several meetings with alleged informants. Each appointment meticulously prepared. Mostly in Germany, in hotels around Lübeck. Here Resch feels safe. It's his pitch. Invitations to come to Ukraine or to Russia, he ignored. "Who really useful documents, and wants to sell it, which also comes to Germany," is his credo.
THE LORD IN THE BLACK SUV


Some informants log in to the lawyer of Resch. Meetings take place in the firm. As in December, when two black SUVs ancestors with British license plates. Three men get out, introduce themselves as the head of a security company that has been working for the British government in Ukraine. The spokesman is titled a lord. On the website of the company, there are movies, like storming heavily armed mercenaries homes and buses. And a note that the company was involved in military, defense, and intelligence and care close ties to the British government.

For the government in Kiev, the company, as the British, the Russians have the communications recorded and evaluated. This finding that the Russians had shot down 17 MH. There were even videos. The evidence should be only for cash but there. The legend: The private company wanted a gild his acquired in the service of the Crown evidence. For plump, find Resch. A second planned meeting in Zurich, it can burst.
DOCUMENTS FROM THE UKRAINIAN SECRET SERVICE?


At the same time also held meeting with a Russian-speaking man, according to Resch. Twice they had taken about 35 to 40 year olds. He would each have a thick folder with documents, copies of documents with stamps and the references "top secret" had it. Alleged Sender: the Ukrainian secret service SBU. The man, as he had said, had many contacts in the forefront of Ukraine.

According to an informant, the original documents should have been destroyed long ago. This arrangement also to be found in the documents again.Capital could inspect them. In the submitted documents whose authenticity can not be verified, referring to the launch of MH 17, reported the arrest of witnesses, redeployment of forces. In an arrangement of 24 July 2014 the Director of the Directorate of the SBU in the Lugansk region states that one of the military personnel have made video recordings of the event. The man was identified and vorläufug arrest.

The informant did, however, insisted on speaking directly with clients Resch. He also tried to drive a wedge in Resch team. A former detective chief was an informer of Ukrainians, he claimed. The investigation had revealed. Resch broke off contact with the Russians, liked him as a not credible.
BARGAIN WITH INFORMANT


A few weeks ago came the contact to have now led to the breakthrough. The man had been in the morning at 9 clock unannounced in front of his house, says Resch, and asked for an interview. That you have then done in a public place. About the contents of the talks must not talk Resch. He must submit a confidentiality statement to its clients.

The Informant seemed so credible that it was first the Swiss husband ordered the next meeting. It was the man with the half dollar bill. And supposedly it was to bargain. The end of May was Resch, he says, paid his fee and set the search.
"I EXPECT THAT VERY SOON SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN"


Four days later it rings again at his door. A gentleman who introduces himself as an employee of a major German law firm Resch makes an offer for its information gained. "That could have been a test of my clients be" suspected Resch. Or the lawyer was working on behalf of a public authority.

After ten months of investigation Resch is pleased that the case is closed. Who shot MH 17, he can not say. Resch shrugs. He was no longer privy to the details of the last informants. At least, says Resch. Until then, there had been well-crafted documents for each version. ". The longer we have identified all the more opaque it was" But, so Resch added: "I expect that very soon something will happen. Who pays that kind of money for information which they do not keep to himself. "

Stumbling into a New Cold War | By Paul R. Pillar


Stumbling into a New Cold War
By Paul R. Pillar
June 16, 2015

U.S. expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders and last year’s U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine have drawn reactions from Moscow and now counter-reactions from Washington, including a plan to preposition U.S. military hardware in the Baltic States. But is that the best option, asks ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar. 


President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the situation in Ukraine, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 29, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

The U.S. Department of Defense reportedly has plans to place tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other heavy weapons in the Baltic countries and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. It is easy to see what this is about. It is an attempt to send a signal — a warning, of sorts — to Russia amid the continued tensions that events in Ukraine have heightened.

The type of signal was chosen to be strong enough to be reassuring to East Europeans who are looking for reassurance and to meet domestic demands to be seen standing up to Vladimir Putin, while being restrained enough not to prod the Russians into making some destructive response.

If this positioning of military equipment was the middle option on an options paper, the alternatives bracketing it were the weaker option of limiting policy toward Russia to non-military measures, or the more provocative one of stationing U.S. troops and not just equipment in those Eastern European locations. In other words, a half measure, similar to how economic sanctions are often seen as a compromise between doing nothing beyond a diplomatic demarche or sending in the Marines.

Military moves as signals have long been a part of international relations and of deterrence, but we still ought to ask about the strategic wisdom and rationale of the proposed equipment deployment. Even a mere signal loses its meaning and effectiveness if it is disconnected from material implications and consequences.

The positioning of materiel sounds like some familiar U.S. moves in Cold War-era Europe, but it actually is different. U.S. troops in Europe became the prototypical “trip-wire” of the Cold War, with an attack against them being widely assumed to bring full U.S. engagement in any war in Europe. An attack against stored U.S. munitions, however, is not the same in that regard as an attack that kills U.S. soldiers.

Prepositioning of equipment in Germany was another staple of Cold War logisticians, but that was part of a serious effort to facilitate U.S.-led resistance to any attempt by the Red Army to overrun Western Europe. The total stocks being considered for positioning in Eastern Europe would be about enough for a single brigade.

Each of the three Baltic republics would be the location for equipment that would outfit a company of about 150 soldiers. It is hard to think of that in the same terms as the Cold War prepositioning. Probably one of the first things that would happen if Russia got aggressive against the Baltic states would be Russian capture of the prepositioned supplies.

Russia has issued its own warnings in response to the reported U.S. plans. That is to be expected, but it may be only the first step toward a local arms race. Do not be surprised by Russian deployments along border areas that would make quick capture of prepositioned U.S. supplies all the more feasible if Russian troops were to cross more borders. A Russian general already has said as much.

A fundamental and longstanding question underlying all of this is exactly what the United States would be willing as well as able to defend in response to any Russian aggression, or to serious military moves dressed up as something other than aggression.

Questions were asked during the Cold War about whether Americans would be willing to risk New York or Washington to save Bonn or Paris. Such questions become all the more difficult to answer reassuringly when the subject is Riga and Tallinn rather than Bonn and Paris. The Article Five commitment in the North Atlantic Treaty still exists, but the imagined circumstances in which it could apply today, which might begin with little green men sneaking across a border, are far different from an imagined pouring of Red Army hordes through the Fulda Gap.

Closely related to all this is how attitudes toward NATO obligations have evolved within member countries. In a new Pew poll, when asked “If Russia got into a serious military conflict with one of its neighboring countries that is our NATO ally, do you think our country should or should not use military force to defend that country?” majorities in three of the most important European allies — Germany, France, and Italy — responded “should not.”

This amounts to a repudiation of the Article Five obligation to consider an armed attack against any one member state as an attack against all. In the poll, Americans expressed the most intent to live up to that obligation, with 56 percent saying “should.” But 37 percent of American respondents said “should not.” In light of such alliance-wide attitudes, it is fair to ask what NATO stands for today.

That question, and the prospect of possible new arms races along the Russian borderlands, are embedded in the story of how one of the Cold War alliances did not end when the Cold War did. It is impossible to prove what European affairs would look like today under an alternate history in which NATO was not retained and enlarged eastward as a kind of unending victory lap for winning the Cold War.

It is reasonable to conjecture, however, that under such an alternate history, in which the Russian nation was embraced as a co-victor for throwing off the Soviet yoke, we would not only not have so much discomfort about treaty obligations but also less need to think about the Russian-Western relationship going in directions in which those obligations might be invoked.

But that was a road not taken, and it should not be surprising that sustaining and expanding a Cold War alliance has helped lead to circumstances in which we talk about a new Cold War, even without all of the ideological trappings of the old one.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

US's Withdrawal from ABM Treaty pushes Russia toward a New Arms Race

Putin: Unilateral US withdrawal from ABM treaty pushing Russia toward new arms race
Published time: June 19, 2015



Russian President Vladimir Putin at a panel discussion during the plenary meeting of the 19th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum 2015. (RIA Novosti / Sergey Guneev)

For those of you too young to know how life under a constant threat of oblivion, learn now why the
treaty was signed in the first place. We are living in times of extreme danger due to the misguided and unruly efforts of the USA and the EU to totally eliminate peoples they consider unworthy. Secret Societies of an evil elite have undermined the world's regulatory agencies such as the UN and NATO.
John F. Kennedy was assassinated for his openly voicing the need of America to dismiss these power hungry Fascists.

  

Global decisions like the US pulling out of a treaty banning strategic anti-ballistic missile defenses are pushing the world towards a new Cold War, Russian President Vladimir Putin said. Military conflicts have a far lesser impact, he added.

“Not military conflicts but global decisions like the US unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty lead to a Cold War,” Putin said. “This more in fact pushes us to a new round of the arms race, because it changes the global security system.”

Putin made his comments at a key plenary session at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

The 1972 ABM treaty between the US and Soviet Union ensured that neither side tried to neutralize its foe's nuclear deterrence by building an anti-missile shield. The US unilaterally withdrew from it in 2002, as the Bush administration claimed it needed protection from “rogue states” such as North Korea and Iran. Moscow believes that the US is actually building a global anti-missile system to undermine the defenses of Russia and China.

The Russian president's comments came in response to a question whether he felt that the Ukrainian armed conflict was pushing Russia and the US towards a Cold War-like confrontation.

Putin warned the US against trying to use the language of ultimatums in its relations with Russia.

“The problem is that they are constantly trying to impose their standards and decisions on us with no regard to our interests,” he explained. “In essence they say: 'we are better' as if the US knows better what is good for us. Well, let us decide for ourselves what our interests and needs are as dictated by our history and culture.”

He accused Washington of meddling in Russia's internal affairs and sticking to an arrangement that pits Russia either with America or against it.

“This is no dialogue. It's an ultimatum. Don't speak the language of ultimatums with us.”

Ukraine is another example of how the US is causing trouble by maintaining its arrogant approach to international politics, Putin said.

“They should not have supported the anti-constitutionalists’ armed coup that in the end led to a violent confrontation in Ukraine, a civil war in fact,” he said. “We are not the cause of all those crisis events that Ukraine is experiencing.”


Thursday, June 18, 2015

Minsk talks: Is there a way out of the impasse?


Minsk talks: Is there a way out of the impasse?


In the Donbas not believe that the truce will be observed


Past the 16th meeting in Minsk subgroups contact group to resolve the situation in the Donbass expectedly ended in a stalemate. Or almost nothing. The authorized representative of the People's Republic of Lugansk (LC) Dane Vladislav , he said that from the Ukraine "is a process of even braking and sabotage."

"Kiev is not responding to proposals DNI and LC on the amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine, in this regard there is no progress", - quotes Dana TASS.

A similar view is shared by the representative of the DNI in the negotiations Denis Pushilin . "It has been a meeting of the three subgroups. We expected more. It is necessary to determine this. Positive steps are, but they are very few, in order to be able to resolve the conflict.And, let's say, to declare a truce, "- said Pushilin.

A somewhat more optimistic about the situation in Ukraine, the OSCE Special Representative, Heidi Tagliavini . In her opinion, "the sub-working groups of the contact group in Ukraine worked constructively, but did not reach a breakthrough."

Coming from the Donbass news say that the war was okay, but the talks - his. And these processes are little overlap between them. June 17, it was noted that the Ukrainian security forces for the first time fired Donetsk volume-detonating ammunition. This information is posted in the "Reports from the militia of New Russia VKontakte". This weapon was made in Soviet times for the destruction of the most powerful fortifications. The use of such weapons in the city is considered to be inhumane, as enshrined in UN documents.

June 17 was also aware of the shooting of two Ukrainian women for the soldiers' suspicion of separatism. " That is, the "truce" turns all the new blood, and no end in sight.

- We do not expect that in the near future, a turning point in the negotiations, - commented, "Free Press" Denis Pushilin. - No evidence of it is not. Probably, it will take many meetings before the result.

"SP": - Second Minsk agreement signed last winter. However, they are not enforced. Is there any point in continuing the talks?

- The problem should be considered together. You can not separate the military and political components. Hoping that without a political settlement will be terminated fire - a big mistake.

Kiev, under various pretexts, in practice, refused to discuss the status of the Donbass. Last aggravation of the situation on the contact line between militias and Ukrainian security services is largely due precisely to the fact that the Ukrainian authorities did not take clear political and economic decisions.

We see that the effectiveness of the negotiations concerned all the participants, except for Ukraine.Both Russia and Europe in the face of the OSCE and the DNI with LC in favor of it, as soon as possible to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict. But Ukraine behaves very passively.Members of the contact groups on the Ukrainian side did not speak out for or against our proposals.From the President Poroshenko are extremely contradictory statements. 3 weeks ago, we sent to the Verkhovna Rada a version of the amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine provides for the special status of Donbass. But we did not get any clear answer, no alternative.

"SP": - In this scenario, it is possible to say that in the next few days or even a week will be able to achieve a real cease-fire?

- If Kiev wants it, then everything will be done in a few days. In particular, we are ready to create a demilitarized zone at the contact line between the militias and the Ukrainian security services. But Ukraine, still, or does not hear us, or for us to put forward unacceptable demands for complete disarmament of militias, and so on. D.

"SP": - A few days ago you said that the situation is on the verge of "snowballing growth of" hostilities. Something has changed?

- No, the situation is exactly the same.

"SP": - 15 June, the DNR Alexander Zakharchenko said that the country will not return to the Ukraine and will remain an independent state. How should we understand these words in the context of the Minsk Agreement?

- Zakharchenko meant that the return to Ukraine to normal subjects would not. In the past there is no way. It is necessary to build a new relationship based on the principles of the forced coexistence.

- Minsk negotiation process is sluggish, - says head of the Center for coordination and support of the movement "South-East" Alex Anpilogov. - Politicians and diplomats involved in the negotiations, are inert, no real results, we do not see.

Hence, some fairly radical statements of official representatives of the DNI. Directly, they can not say that the Minsk process of negotiations went into deadlock. But the words of Foreign Minister Alexander Kofman DNR that the republic will have military aid to Transnistria in Ukraine in case of aggression, saying just that in "Minsk-2" in the Donbass no one seriously believes.

Against the background of almost daily deaths from shelling Ukrainian security officials sorts of statements that the talks are "close to a breakthrough," transformed into a perfect farce.

"SP": - How long can such a situation?

- I think that this can not long continue. The inhabitants of Donetsk and Lugansk more often the question arises: why do we need such a "peace" in which people continue to be killed? June 15 at the meeting emerged spontaneously in the Oktyabrsky district of Donetsk was made an appeal to the authorities of the DNI, either we fight and stripped the Ukrainian army from the city, so she could not fire at him, or will it be done by the authorities in another country.

Russia to some extent today is engaged in appeasement. I think the Russian establishment's time to think: are we ready to years in Donbass regularly exterminated Russian and Russian-speaking citizens?

"SP": - At one time Russian politicians made unequivocal statements that the DNI and LC must return to the Ukraine. Last week in this regard - the calm. What is the reason?

- Now, when the shelling intensified Donetsk, Gorlovka and other cities to talk about the return of the country that destroys its own citizens not seem quite appropriate. But Russia's position in this matter, in my opinion, has not changed. This is evident by the fact that Russian diplomats and politicians keep talking about commitment to the Minsk Agreement. And these agreements mean that the DNI and LC - an integral part of Ukraine. If we remove some particular and intricate expressions, "Minsk-2" - just about it.

Even if Kiev recognizes the special status of the Donbass, the constitutional majority of the Ukrainian parliament (which in this case will be representatives of the DNI and LC) simply cancel the membership at the first opportunity.

Or, say, in the Donbas is to operate the law on the special status of the Russian language. But as in the Minsk Agreement no specifics on this issue, the Kiev is free, for example, enter 20 hours per year of the optional study of the Russian language in schools and Donbass announce that this special status and is. Russia And it will have nothing to object to, since there are no other conditions are negotiated.

I'm not sure that in the case of the massacres of the inhabitants of "reunited" with Ukraine Donbass will put the question of the Russian genocide. We now have, according to different estimates from 6 to 50 thousand dead residents of Donbass and no international organization, which must investigate such crimes, it does not say that for it someone has to answer.

"SP": - How do you assess the chances of militias to defeat the Ukrainian Army in the event of the final breakdown of negotiations?

- More winter militia might well liberate the territory Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Now, I think, at best, the militia will "push" the Ukrainian army from the Donetsk and Lugansk on the distance from which it can not bombard the city. Fighting for Marinka shown that the combat capability Ukrainian army is growing faster than the combat capability of the armed forces of New Russia.

Source