Ankara’s Crimea Conundrum!

Posted on 7 March 2014 by redaksiyon

Latest news, statements and opinions follow!

***

Kırım’daki Son Gelişmeler Hk.

Ukrayna’ya bağlı Kırım Özerk Cumhuriyeti Parlamentosu, bugün, 16 Mart 2014 tarihinde Kırım’ın statüsüyle ilgili bir referandum düzenleme kararı almıştır.
Ukrayna’daki siyasi krizin, ülkenin siyasi birliği ve toprak bütünlüğü temelinde, demokratik ilkeler çerçevesinde, uluslararası hukuka ve anlaşmalara uygun şekilde çözülmesi gerektiğini vurgulayageldik. Ayrıca, soydaşlarımız Kırım Tatarlarına da evsahipliği yapan Kırım Özerk Cumhuriyeti’ndeki koşulların özel bir hassasiyet taşıdığının altını çizerek, Kırım’da gerilimin düşürülmesi için ilgili tüm taraflara itidal ve sağduyu çağrısı yaptık.
Bu anlayışla, sözkonusu referandum kararının, ülkedeki krizin çözümü gayretlerine katkı sağlamayacağına inanıyoruz. Kararı, Kırım’daki farklı gruplar arasında ciddi kırılmalara yol açabilecek, bölgede ve ötesinde olumsuz sonuçlar doğurabilecek, tehlikeli ve yanlış bir adım olarak değerlendiriyoruz.
Ukrayna’daki siyasi krize, oldu bittilerle değil, yukarıda anılan temelde, uzlaşı ve diyalog yoluyla çözüm bulunabileceğini bu vesileyle bir kez daha anımsatmak istiyoruz. Kaynak.

Latest Developments in Crimea

The Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of Ukraine has adopted a resolution to hold a referendum on 16 March 2014 regarding the status of Crimea,.
We have been emphasizing that the political crisis in Ukraine should be settled on the basis of political unity and territorial integrity of the country, within the framework of democratic principles and in accordance with international law and agreements. Also, underlining the particular sensitivity of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea hosting our kinsmen the Crimean Tatars, we called on all relevant parties to act in restraint and common sense to ease the tension in Crimea.
With this understanding, we believe this resolution of the said referendum will not contribute to the settlement of the crisis in the country. We consider this resolution as a dangerous and wrong step that may create negative results in the region and beyond; and that may lead to serious breakups among different groups in Crimea.
We reiterate once more on this occasion that the settlement to the political crisis in Ukraine can not be reached through faits accomplis, but through reconciliation and dialog on the abovementioned basis. Source.

L’APCE défend résolument l’intégrité territoriale et la souveraineté de l’Ukraine

Strasbourg, 07.03.2014 – Réunie aujourd’hui à Paris, la Commission permanente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe (APCE) a exprimé son soutien sans réserve à l’intégrité territoriale et l’unité nationale de l’Ukraine, condamnant fermement la violation de la souveraineté et de l’intégrité territoriale du pays par la Fédération de Russie. Les actions menées par les forces militaires russes dans la péninsule de Crimée, ainsi que les menaces explicites d’actions militaires dans le reste du territoire ukrainien, constituent une violation directe du droit international, notamment de la Charte des Nations Unies, de l’Acte final d’Helsinki de l’OSCE et du Statut du Conseil de l’Europe, ainsi que des engagements souscrits par la Russie lors de son adhésion.

La Commission permanente s’inquiète particulièrement de l’autorisation donnée par le Conseil de la Fédération au Président russe de recourir à la force militaire en Crimée et déplore les déclarations des deux chambres du Parlement russe qui ont apporté leur soutien aux appels au séparatisme et à la sécession dans une région déjà tendue.

L’Assemblée apporte son plein appui aux nouvelles autorités légitimes de Kiev et salue la retenue dont elles font preuve. Elle les invite instamment à s’abstenir de toute action et de toute rhétorique qui pourraient diviser la société ukrainienne et porter atteinte à l’unité nationale. Afin de renforcer l’unité nationale et de favoriser l’essor démocratique du pays, il est important maintenant d’adopter dans les plus brefs délais une nouvelle Constitution parfaitement conforme aux normes du Conseil de l’Europe et d’organiser une élection présidentielle anticipée, suivie d’élections législatives anticipées quand la situation le permettra.

L’Assemblée se tient prête à aider à cet effet les autorités ukrainiennes, et en particulier la Verkhovna Rada. Source.

PACE strongly supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty

Strasbourg, 07.03.2014 – The Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), meeting today in Paris, expressed its full support for the territorial integrity and national unity of Ukraine. It therefore strongly condemned the violation by the Russian Federation of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The actions of Russian military forces in the Crimean peninsula, as well as explicit threats of military actions in the rest of Ukraine’s territory, are in direct violation of international law, including the UN Charter, the OSCE Helsinki Final Act, the Statute of the Council of Europe, as well as Russia’s accession commitments.

The Standing Committee is especially concerned that the Council of Federation authorised the Russian President to use military force in the Crimea and it regrets the statements by both houses of the Russian parliament that supported calls for separatism and secessionism in an already tense region.

The Assembly expresses its full support for the legitimate new authorities in Kyiv and commends them for their restraint. It urges the authorities to refrain from any actions and rhetoric that could divide the Ukrainian society and undermine national unity. In order to strengthen national unity and the democratic development of the country, it is now important that as soon as possible a new constitution is adopted that is fully in line with Council of Europe standards and an early presidential election is held, followed by early parliamentary elections when the situation allows.

The Assembly stands ready to assist the Ukrainian authorities, and especially the Verkhovna Rada, in these processes. Source.

Le secrétaire général assure le premier ministre ukrainien du soutien de l’OTAN à son pays

Ce jeudi (6 mars 2014), le secrétaire général de l’OTAN Anders Fogh Rasmussen a indiqué au premier ministre ukrainien Arsenii Iatseniouk que « en ces moments difficiles, l’OTAN se tient aux côtés de l’Ukraine. Elle soutient le droit de chaque pays à décider lui-même de son avenir. Elle soutient la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriale de l’Ukraine, ainsi que les principes fondamentaux du droit international ».
Le secrétaire général et le premier ministre se sont entretenus des graves développements en Ukraine, et de la façon dont l’OTAN et l’Ukraine pourraient renforcer leur partenariat. M. Rasmussen a indiqué que la crise en Ukraine « compromet gravement la sécurité et la stabilité de la région euro-atlantique tout entière », ajoutant qu’elle représente la menace la plus grave pour la sécurité en Europe depuis la fin de la guerre froide.
M. Rasmussen a souligné que l’Alliance compte renforcer sa coopération partenariale au travers de la Commission OTAN-Ukraine afin d’appuyer les réformes démocratiques. Il s’agit en particulier de renforcer les liens avec les dirigeants politiques et militaires ukrainiens, de concourir davantage au renforcement des capacités des forces armées ukrainiennes, et d’organiser plus d’entraînements et d’exercices conjoints. En outre, l’OTAN s’emploiera plus activement à associer l’Ukraine à ses projets multinationaux de développement capacitaire.
Le secrétaire général a rendu hommage au peuple ukrainien pour sa détermination et son courage, il a salué la retenue dont les forces armées ukrainiennes font preuve, et il a redit qu’une solution politique était le seul moyen de sortir de la crise.
« Avant tout, nous exhortons la Russie à respecter ses engagements internationaux et à mettre fin à l’escalade militaire en Crimée. Nous l’exhortons à faire rentrer ses forces dans leurs bases et à s’abstenir de toute ingérence ailleurs en Ukraine. Nul ne devrait tenter de redessiner la carte de l’Europe au XXIe siècle » a conclu M. Rasmussen. Source.

Readout of President Obama’s call with President Putin of Russia

President Obama spoke for an hour this afternoon with President Putin of Russia. President Obama emphasized that Russia’s actions are in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which has led us to take several steps in response, in coordination with our European partners. President Obama indicated that there is a way to resolve the situation diplomatically, which addresses the interests of Russia, the people of Ukraine, and the international community. As a part of that resolution, the governments of Ukraine and Russia would hold direct talks, facilitated by the international community; international monitors could ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, including ethnic Russians; Russian forces would return to their bases; and the international community would work together to support the Ukrainian people as they prepare for elections in May. President Obama indicated that Secretary Kerry would continue discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov, the government of Ukraine, and other international partners in the days to come to advance those objectives.Source.

Statement by the President on Ukraine

Since the Russian intervention, we’ve been mobilizing the international community to condemn this violation of international law and to support the people and government of Ukraine.
This morning I signed an executive order that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, or for stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people.
According to my guidance, the State Department has also put in place restrictions on the travel of certain individuals and officials. These decisions continue our efforts to impose a cost on Russia and those responsible for the situation in Crimea. And they also give us the flexibility to adjust our response going forward based on Russia’s actions.
We took these steps in close coordination with our European allies. I’ve spoken to several of our closest friends around the world, and I’m pleased that our international unity is on display at this important moment. Already, we’ve moved together to announced substantial assistance for the government in Kyiv, and today in Brussels, our allies took similar steps to impose costs on Russia. I am confident that we are moving forward together, united in our determination to oppose actions that violate international law and to support the government and people of Ukraine.
And that includes standing up for the principle of state sovereignty. The proposed referendum on the future of Crimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law. Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government of Ukraine. In 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.
While we take these steps, I want to be clear that there is also a way to resolve this crisis that respects the interests of the Russian Federation, as well as the Ukrainian people. Let international monitors into all of Ukraine, including Crimea, to ensure the rights of all Ukrainians are being respected, including ethnic Russians. Begin consultations between the government of Russia and Ukraine, with the participation of the international community. Russia would maintain its basing rights in Crimea, provided that it abides by its agreements and respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And the world should support the people of Ukraine as they move to elections in May.
That’s the path of de-escalation, and Secretary Kerry is engaged in discussions with all of the relevant parties, including Russia and Ukraine to pursue that path. But if this violation of international law continues, the resolve of the United States, and our allies and the international community will remain firm. Meanwhile, we’ve taken steps to reaffirm our commitment to the security and democracy of our allies in Eastern Europe and to support the people of Ukraine.
One last point — there’s been a lot of talk in Congress about these issues. Today, once again, I’m calling on Congress to follow up on these words with action, specifically to support the IMF’s capacity to lend resources to Ukraine and to provide American assistance for the Ukrainian government so that they can weather this storm and stabilize their economy, make needed reforms, deliver for their people, all of which will provide a smoother pathway for the elections that have already been scheduled in May.
Today the world can see that the United States is united with our allies and partners in upholding international law and pursuing a just outcome that advances global security and the future that the Ukrainian people deserve. That’s what we’re going to continue to do in the days to come until we have seen a resolution to this crisis. Source.

Statement by the Press Secretary on Ukraine

As President Obama has made clear, the United States is pursuing and reviewing a wide range of options in response to Russia’s ongoing violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – actions that constitute a threat to peace and security and a breach of international law, including Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter and of its 1997 military basing agreement with Ukraine, and that are inconsistent with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the Helsinki Final Act.
Pursuant to the President’s guidance, today the State Department is putting in place visa restrictions on a number of officials and individuals, reflecting a policy decision to deny visas to those responsible for or complicit in threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. This new step stands in addition to the policy already implemented to deny visas to those involved in human rights abuses related to political oppression in Ukraine.
In addition, the President has signed an Executive Order that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for activities undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; contributing to the misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine; or purporting to assert governmental authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the Ukrainian government in Kyiv. This E.O. is a flexible tool that will allow us to sanction those who are most directly involved in destabilizing Ukraine, including the military intervention in Crimea, and does not preclude further steps should the situation deteriorate.
These actions build upon the previous actions the United States has taken, including suspending bilateral discussions with Russia on trade and investment; suspending other bilateral meetings on a case-by-case basis; putting on hold U.S.-Russia military-to-military engagement, including exercises, bilateral meetings, port visits, and planning conferences; and our agreement with G-7 nations to suspend for the time being our participation in activities associated with the preparation of the scheduled G-8 Summit in Sochi in June. Depending on how the situation develops, the United States is prepared to consider additional steps and sanctions as necessary.
At the same time, as the President has said, we seek to work with all parties to achieve a diplomatic solution that de-escalates the situation and restores Ukraine’s sovereignty. We call on Russia to take the opportunity before it to resolve this crisis through direct and immediate dialogue with the Government of Ukraine, the immediate pull-back of Russia’s military forces to their bases, the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and support for the urgent deployment of international observers and human rights monitors who can assure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, including ethnic Russians, and who can support the Ukrainian government’s efforts to hold a free and fair election on May 25.
As we follow developments in Ukraine closely, the United States reaffirms its unwavering commitment to our collective defense commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty. We will continue to pursue measures that reinforce those commitments, to include the provision of additional support to NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission and our aviation detachment in Poland.
Source.

Eric Rubin : U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Ukraine

Let me begin by thanking this Committee for its deep engagement on this issue. In our efforts to back the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, we have been heartened by the robust bipartisan support that we have received from this Committee and from Congress more broadly. House Resolution 447 introduced by Ranking Member Engel and passed by the House on February 10, sent a powerful message that the American people stand wholly and unequivocally with the people of Ukraine in their hour of need.
We have had close and constant contact with Congress in every step of this grave situation. Our united efforts have demonstrated to the people of Ukraine and to the international community that the United States is resolute in its support of Ukraine’s desire for a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous future.
I would like to address four areas in my remarks. I will begin by discussing the political situation in Ukraine. Second, I will talk about regional stability, Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and the response of the United States and the international community to Russia’s action. Third, I will briefly touch on Ukraine’s current perilous economic situation and the tools necessary in the immediate and mid-term to begin the process of economic healing after years of severe mismanagement. My colleague from Treasury will build on this more thoroughly. Finally, I will briefly address U.S. technical assistance in Ukraine and support for the country’s return to the normal democratic process.
I underscore that the situation in the region is extremely fluid. We continue to adapt as it rapidly evolves.
Let me also add a few words about my own deep personal commitment to Ukraine and its future. I first worked to support the Ukrainian people and their aspirations for freedom in 1989, when I was the internal politics and nationalities affairs officer on the Soviet Desk at the State Department. I helped open relations with independent Ukraine in 1991, and my wife and I lived in Kyiv from 1994 through 1996, in the early days of Ukraine’s independence. I speak Ukrainian, and I have friends throughout Ukraine. Over the tumultuous events of the past several months, I have watched with horror as Ukrainians were cut down by snipers in the heart of Kyiv. But I have also been inspired by the people of Ukraine—their determination, their courage, and their insistence on the possibility of a better future for themselves and their country.

Political Situation

I would like to start by emphasizing that the democratic transition that occurred in Ukraine was an expression of will of the Ukrainian people. This is not about the United States. This is not about Russia.
The people of Ukraine have made a decision about their future. The Rada, the country’s democratically elected legislature, has taken the step of creating a transitional government following former president Yanukovych’s abdication. Ukraine’s lawmakers in the Rada have fulfilled their obligation to the people by preparing to tackle the pressing economic and political issues facing the country until new presidential elections can be held in May. These decisions have been supported by overwhelming majorities in the Rada including members of Yanukovych’s former party.
The United States welcomed the formation of the new government and is working with its leadership as it ensures the protection of the rights of all Ukrainians including all minorities. As the international community looks for ways to help Ukraine, we will focus on the government’s efforts to build the strong, sovereign and democratic country the people of Ukraine desire and so richly deserve. The decision of the Ukrainian people regarding their government needs to be respected.

Implications for Stability in the Region

Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, however, has endangered the promise of Ukraine’s democratic transition. As Secretary Kerry said in Kyiv on Tuesday, “the contrast could not be clearer: determined Ukrainians demonstrating strength through unity and a Russian Government out of excuses, hiding its hand behind falsehoods, intimidation, and provocations.”
The United States fully and unambiguously condemns Russia’s military intervention in Ukrainian territory. We have repeatedly indicated that Russia’s actions in Crimea are in clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity and a breach of international law, including Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter, and of its 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership and of its military basing agreement with Ukraine in which it agreed to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and not to interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs. It is also a blatant affront to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the Helsinki Final Act.
We have already taken actions consistent with the unacceptability of Russia’s military intervention. Shoulder to shoulder with our G7 counterparts, we have suspended participation in the G8 Sochi preparations. We have suspended all talks with Russia on any future trade or investment agreements. We have suspended military to military contacts. We issued a statement with the unanimous approval of the members of the North Atlantic Council strongly condemning the Russian military escalation in Crimea. NATO is stepping up efforts to increase the Baltic air policing mission. We are working on ways to strengthen our aviation detachment cooperation with Poland. We are considering other measures to provide reassurance to our allies.
And today the United States has marshalled a full package of measures aimed at demonstrating the force of U.S. resolve in the face of unprovoked military intervention and threats. Pursuant to the President’s guidance, the State Department is putting in place visa restrictions on a number of officials and individuals, reflecting a policy decision to deny visas to those responsible for or complicit in threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. In addition, the President has signed an Executive Order that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for activities undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; contributing to the misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine; or purporting to assert governmental authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the Ukrainian government in Kyiv. We have made it clear to Russia and others that steps to undermine Ukrainian democracy and territorial integrity will result in further political and economic isolation should they continue on this path.
Despite Russian obstinacy and deception, our focus remains on de-escalation of tensions. We continue to explore the possibility of an “off-ramp” that could lead to the relaxation of tensions in Ukraine, if the Russians are willing to take it. We support direct talks between the Ukrainian and Russian governments. Secretary Kerry met yesterday in Paris separately with the Foreign Ministers of Ukraine and Russia, as well as with European counterparts, in an effort to get such talks going. The OSCE and UN are in the process of deploying monitors in the country, including Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. These monitors will provide transparency about the activity of military and para-military forces, monitor for abuse, and defuse tensions between groups. They, along with senior delegations from NATO allies to the region, will offer objective on-the-ground information to counteract Russia’s flagrant propaganda campaign.
And let me be clear on this point. There are no confirmed reports of threats to ethnic Russians. No confirmed reports of a massive movement of ethnic Russian refugees. No threat to Russian naval bases. The interim Ukrainian government is a body that represents the will of the people. It is not an extremist cabal. Russia’s assertions are nothing more than a baseless veneer used to justify its military action.
I would also like to state before this committee that the United States is monitoring the reports of anti-Semitic acts extremely closely. We know that some organizations have expressed concern about the treatment of the Jewish community in Ukraine. We continue to emphasize to the leadership of all Ukrainian parties that there is no place for anti-Semitism in Ukraine’s future.
With regard to relations with Russia, we will continue to work with Russia in areas in which we have a responsibility to the global community such as Syria and Iran. That said, we must speak frankly about Russia’s action in Ukraine. While Russia is not an adversary, its actions in Ukraine are deeply adversarial – both to the rules of the international order and to the hopes and aspirations of the Ukrainian people.

Economic Situation

At the same time, Ukraine’s financial situation remains deeply precarious. The political upheaval of recent months has added to long-term economic and fiscal problems rooted in systemic corruption and mismanagement that have choked the country’s economic potential for years. Unsustainable economic policies under previous Ukrainian administrations have left Ukraine’s economy uncompetitive and have eroded Ukraine’s foreign reserves. Ukraine urgently needs to pursue economic reforms and secure external financing to restore economic stability .
In the immediate term, an International Monetary Fund (IMF) package provides the best foundation for economic advice and financing. Interim Prime Minister Yatsenyuk has stated that Ukraine needs to meet IMF conditions. Meeting these conditions will be tough. They will likely require reducing energy subsidies, a more flexible exchange rate, and reducing the budget deficit.
We welcome the new government’s commitment to pursue reforms that could be supported by an IMF program. Additional multilateral and bilateral support for a reform program could help to ensure that Ukraine has the support it needs in order for reforms to be successful and give it space to take reform steps incrementally. Just yesterday the European Union announced that it would be providing $3 billion in bilateral financial support, which would be complemented by assistance from the EIB and the multilateral development banks, much of it linked to an IMF program.
And the United States stands ready to act as well. We are working with this Committee and others in Congress to provide a sovereign loan guarantee for Ukraine to help provide needed financing to the government at a key point in Ukraine’s history in conjunction with an IMF program. This loan guarantee is an effective way to leverage U.S. assistance to Ukraine and achieve both political and economic foreign policy objectives. The Administration is also working with Congress to approve IMF quota legislation, which would support the IMF’s capacity to lend additional resources to Ukraine and help preserve continued U.S. leadership within this important institution. Passing this legislation is vital national security priority.
The United States is committed to supporting reform efforts aimed at bolstering Ukraine in its economic recovery. Only the IMF can provide the amount of funding necessary to cover Ukraine’s immediate and medium-term financing needs and restore economic stability. A loan guarantee from the United States could serve as an important complement to an IMF program by helping the government as it undertakes the required reforms. This loan guarantee will be the centerpiece of our bilateral assistance to help in this effort. We thank the Committee for its leadership and assistance in ensuring we can respond quickly to Ukraine’s urgent financial needs.
Ukraine is only the latest example of how we rely on the IMF to be the first responder in economic crises. This is why we are consulting with Congress to approve IMF quota legislation, which help preserve continued U.S. leadership within this important institution. This reform would also support the IMF’s capacity to lend additional resources to Ukraine. Passing this legislation is vital national security priority.

Technical Assistance

In addition to financial assistance, the United States continues to deploy technical assistance tools as Ukraine struggles to get back on its political and economic feet. Since the political crisis began, we have been working within existing resources—both the existing bilateral budget for Ukraine and global funding sources–to be as responsive as possible to urgent needs.
So far, this has included a full range of important actions. Our first priority is to support the Ukrainian government as it prepares for elections in less than three months, including by ensuring that the elections environment is conducive to a free, fair and inclusive election. We have intensified our legal assistance project to assist journalists and activists. We have increased support to local civil society and independent media organizations. We have launched a cybersecurity project aimed at protecting local NGOs, activists, and media. We are providing objective information about European integration and rapidly unfolding current events in Russian, with a particular emphasis in southern and eastern Ukraine. And we are assisting local journalists in developing local on-the-ground content.
We are reviewing our current resources to develop a package of additional assistance to the government of Ukraine in the near term and are working closely with USAID. We will consult with Congress as we put together a package which will prioritize programs to promote economic reform; conduct free and fair elections, battle corruption, strengthen the justice sector, and assist with asset recovery from corrupt officials; and help Ukraine weather trade and energy disruptions. Our assistance will also promote free, fair, and transparent elections on May 25.

Conclusion

As President Obama stated earlier this week, our national interest is in “seeing the Ukrainian people be able to determine their own destiny.” The United States and our allies are committed to helping Ukraine realize the full potential of this moment. Russia has a choice to make. It can come to the table and support the Ukrainians as they chart their future. Or it can continue its current course of action and risk being frozen out. Statement Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee

William J. Burns : Ukraine

A great deal is at stake in Ukraine today. Less than 48 hours ago in Kyiv, not far from the Shrine of the Fallen, Secretary Kerry made clear America’s deep and abiding commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, in the face of Russian aggression, and our determination to ensure that the people of Ukraine get to make their own choices about their future. That’s a bedrock conviction for the United States. On my own visit last week, I was profoundly moved by the bravery and selflessness of Ukrainians, and profoundly impressed by the commitment of the new interim government to reach across ethnic and regional lines and build a stable, democratic and inclusive Ukraine, with good relations with all of its neighbors, including Russia.
While we and our partners worked to support Ukraine’s transition, Russia worked actively to undermine it. Russia’s military intervention in Crimea is a brazen violation of its international obligations, and no amount of Russian posturing can obscure that fact.
Ukraine’s interim government, approved by 82 percent of the Rada, including most members of Yanukovich’s party, has shown admirable restraint in the face of massive provocation. They need and deserve our strong support. President Obama, Secretary Kerry and the entire Administration have been working hard, steadily and methodically, to build urgent international backing for Ukraine, counter-pressure against Russia, reassurance to other neighbors, and a path to de-escalation. Our strategy has four main elements, and we look forward to working with Congress on each of them.

First, immediate support for Ukraine as it deals with enormous economic challenges and prepares for critical national elections at the end of May.

On Tuesday, Secretary Kerry announced our intent to seek a $1 billion loan guarantee. That will be part of a major international effort to build a strong economic support package for Ukraine as it undertakes reform. That effort includes the IMF and the EU, which laid out its own substantial assistance package yesterday. Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and his colleagues are committed partners, and understand that the Ukrainian government has difficult reform choices to make, after inheriting an economic mess from Yanukovich. Ukraine’s considerable economic potential has never been matched by its business environment or economic leadership, and now is the time to begin to get its financial house in order and realize its promise.

Second, deterring further encroachment on Ukrainian territory and pressing for an end to Russia’s occupation of Crimea.

President Obama has led broad international condemnation of Russia’s intervention, with strong, unified statements from the G-7 and NATO, as well as the EU, whose leaders are meeting today in an emergency summit. We are sending international observers from the OSCE to Crimea and eastern Ukraine to bear witness to what is happening and make clear that minorities are not at risk. This was never a credible claim by Russia, nor a credible pretext for military intervention.
We are making clear that there are costs for what Russia has already done, and working with our partners to make clear that the costs will increase significantly if intervention expands. Today, the President signed an executive order authorizing sanctions – including asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities responsible for activities undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine; contributing to the misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine; or that purport to exercise authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the Ukrainian government in Kyiv. This E.O. will be used in a flexible way to designate those most directly involved in destabilizing Ukraine.
The State Department today also put in place visa restrictions on a number of officials and individuals. We continue to look at every aspect of our relationship with Russia, from suspension of preparations for the Sochi G-8 Summit to pausing key elements in our bilateral dialogue.

Third, bolstering Ukraine’s neighbors.

We are moving immediately to reinforce our Washington Treaty commitments to our allies. As Secretary Hagel stressed yesterday, we are taking concrete steps to support NATO partners, through intensified joint training with our aviation detachment in Poland and enhanced participation in NATO’s air policing mission in the Baltics.

And fourth, Secretary Kerry is working intensively to de-escalate the crisis, in order to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty while creating a diplomatic off-ramp.

We support direct dialogue between Kyiv and Moscow, facilitated by an international contact group. As the President and Secretary Kerry have emphasized, we do not seek confrontation with Russia. It is clearly in the interests of both Ukraine and Russia to have a healthy relationship, born of centuries of cultural, economic and social ties. The will for that exists among Ukraine’s new leaders. But it cannot happen if Russia continues down its current dangerous and irresponsible path. That will only bring greater isolation and mounting costs for Russia.
Our strategy, it seems to me, needs to be steady and determined, mindful of what’s at stake for Ukrainians as well as for international norms. We also need to be mindful of the enduring strengths of the United States and its partners, and the very real weaknesses sometimes obscured by Russian bluster. Most of all, President Putin underestimates the commitment of Ukrainians, across their country, to sovereignty and independence, and to writing their own future. No one should underestimate the power of patient and resolute counter-pressure, using all of the non-military means at our disposal, working with our allies, and leaving the door open to de-escalation and diplomacy if Russia is prepared to play by international rules. Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

EU meeting on Ukraine: David Cameron’s speech

This meeting of European leaders takes place at a dangerous moment.
The territorial integrity of an independent nation has been violated.
The sovereignty of one of the EU’s neighbours has been blatantly swept aside.
The aspirations of the Ukrainian people – to live in a country free from corruption and free to chart its own future – are being crushed.
And Russia has acted in flagrant breach of international law.
This matters to people in Britain because we depend on a world where countries obey the rules.
It matters because this is happening in our own neighbourhood – on the European continent where in the last 70 years we have worked so hard to keep the peace.
And it matters because we know from our history that turning a blind eye when nations are trampled over and their independence trashed stores up far greater problems in the long run.
So we must stand up to aggression, uphold international law and support people who want a free, European future.
We need to de-escalate the situation. We must be clear with the Russians about their actions. And we must back the Ukrainian people.
Each part of this matters.
So first, we must find a way to defuse the situation and to restore stability in Ukraine.
Some progress was made yesterday in Paris to get the Russians and Ukrainians around the table together.
But today’s vote of the Crimean Parliament to join Russia and the decision to bring forward an unconstitutional referendum to 10 days time are serious steps in the wrong direction.
The Ukrainian government has been clear that such a referendum would be illegal.
And today European leaders have backed their position.
Illegal actions committed by Russia cannot pass without a response.
And I made very clear today that it cannot be business as usual with Russia.
So, we have agreed in respect of what has happened already:
· to suspend negotiations on a more liberal visa regime for Russians
· to stop work on a comprehensive new agreement on relations between Russia and the EU
· and to pull out of all preparations for the G8 summit in Sochi in June
And if Russia does not rapidly engage in direct talks with the Ukrainian government to find a solution to this crisis, we have been clear that we will go further.
We have today tasked the European Commission to start work on additional measures, including travel bans and asset freezes.
Of course the situation in Ukraine remains highly precarious – the slightest miscalculation could see it spiral out of control.
And we have issued a very clear warning to President Putin that he must not destabilise the situation further.
If Russia does not change course, the statement issued today now makes clear that there will be severe and far reaching consequences in areas such an energy, trade, and financial relations.
We are determined to support the new Ukrainian government and to stand by the Ukrainian people.
What they want is what people everywhere want – a strong economy, the rule of law, the right to choose their leaders and to hold them to account.
In other words, a job, a voice and hope for a better future.
The new Ukrainian government faces massive challenges.
They will need to carry out far-reaching reform needed to stabilise and repair their economy.
And as they do this, we are prepared to offer a powerful package of finance, trade and technical assistance.
They will also need to tackle corruption.
The EU has now frozen the assets of 18 individuals linked to the former regime. And Britain is ready to help the new Ukrainian government go after ill-gotten funds and to return them to the people.
Today, we have deployed to Kiev a team from the National Crime Agency, supported by the Met and CPS to help with these efforts.
At the same time, the new government must show that it is standing up for and representing all Ukrainians – whatever their ethnic background.
It will be particularly important that the May elections are free and fair and enable all Ukrainians, including Russian speakers, to choose their leaders freely.
We are facing the most serious crisis in Europe this century.
Getting agreement from the elected leaders of 28 European nations is never easy.
Britain has played an important part bringing countries together, setting out new measures that need to be taken and insisting on clear values: standing up to aggression and backing the rule of law.
But we have sent a clear and united message to Russia that its actions are completely unacceptable and will incur consequences.
We have given our backing to Prime Minister Yatsenyuk at this challenging time for him and his country.
And we have stood up for the Ukrainian people and their entirely legitimate hope for a better future for them and their children.
And we will continue to do so in the days and weeks ahead. Source.

François HOLLANDE : Propos liminaire lors de la conférence de presse à l’issue du Conseil européen consacré à l’Ukraine

Ce Conseil européen était exceptionnel au sens où il avait été convoqué sur un seul sujet – l’Ukraine – et avec un invité lui-même exceptionnel, puisque n’étant pas membre de l’Union européenne, le chef du gouvernement ukrainien. Ce Conseil européen a été aussi exceptionnel dans le conte
xte dans lequel il s’est déroulé, c’est-à-dire avec trois événements qui ont marqué la journée.
Le premier, c’est l’annonce, par ce qu’on appelle « le Parlement de Crimée », de sa volonté d’être rattachée à la Russie. Le second événement a été l’impossibilité pour les observateurs de l’OSCE – qui justement sont là pour permettre le dialogue et l’apaisement – de parvenir même en Crimée. Et le troisième événement a été, là encore, l’impossibilité pour le représentant de l’ONU de pouvoir faire le travail pour lequel il avait été mandaté par le Secrétaire général. Tout cela a conduit le Conseil européen à prendre plusieurs décisions et la France y a joué tout son rôle.
La première décision, cela a été – et c’était le sens de la présence du Premier ministre ukrainien – de renouveler le soutien de l’Europe à l’Ukraine dans le moment très grave que ce pays traverse :
Un soutien financier, et ce sera, avec le FMI, une aide de plus de onze milliards qui sera mise à disposition de l’Ukraine, permettant, avec des déboursements rapides, de répondre aux besoins les plus urgents.
Il y a également eu une décision d’aide humanitaire par rapport à une population qui a été particulièrement éprouvée pour son alimentation et pour sa santé dans la dernière période.
Enfin il y a la volonté de l’Europe de faciliter le processus de transition, de faire en sorte qu’il puisse y avoir, autant qu’il est possible, un rassemblement autour du gouvernement avec l’ensemble des sensibilités, le respect des minorités et notamment des régions russophones ; l’organisation de l’élection présidentielle le 25 mai qui doit permettre d’avoir un Président élu de manière incontestable et ensuite des autorités qui pourront poursuivre le travail de réforme économique qui aura été engagé.
Le Conseil européen a également dit qu’il était disponible – et les États auront à prendre, là encore, des décisions – pour signer les chapitres politiques de l’accord d’association tout de suite. C’est-à-dire que l’accord d’association qui était sur la table et qui avait été proposé – vous vous en souvenez – à Vilnius au président d’alors de l’Ukraine, M. IANOUKOVYTCH, cet accord d’association est prêt, et d’abord dans sa partie politique, à être signé par l’Europe et par les États membres.
Et pour ce qui est du volet commercial de l’accord d’association, il a été demandé à la Commission européenne d’étudier les possibilités d’anticiper certaines mesures.
C’est une décision importante qui a été obtenue dans ce Conseil. Dès lors que le Premier ministre ukrainien en faisait la demande et dès lors qu’il y a aussi le souci que le peuple ukrainien s’exprime souverainement, l’attitude de l’Europe est de dire : « sur la version politique de l’accord d’association, il est possible d’engager plus rapidement la mise en œuvre ». C’est, je pense, un message important.
Cela, c’était la première décision qu’avait à prendre le Conseil européen. Il y en avait une autre qui était de contribuer, autant qu’il est possible, à l’abaissement de la tension, à ce qu’on appelle « la désescalade ». Mais au moment où nous nous préparions à faire des propositions, sont intervenus les événements que j’ai cités et qui marquent incontestablement une élévation dans le niveau de la tension.
Le Conseil européen a donc décidé les mesures qui avaient été proposées par le Conseil des ministres des Affaires étrangères lundi, c’est-à-dire la suspension des négociations sur les visas, la suspension des discussions sur un nouvel accord de coopération entre l’Union européenne et la Russie et également la suspension de la participation, pour les pays concernés, aux travaux du G8. Ces décisions prennent effet dès aujourd’hui.
Mais l’Union européenne et la France en particulier, nous voulons tout faire pour qu’il puisse y avoir l’ouverture d’un processus de discussion, de négociation, de médiation avec des mécanismes multilatéraux qui ont été d’ailleurs évoqués à Paris hier. Ils l’ont été encore aujourd’hui à Rome, puisqu’il y avait une réunion à laquelle participaient les principaux ministres des Affaires étrangères, notamment russe, américain, français et autres, sur la Libye. A cette occasion-là, il y a eu des contacts.
Oui, nous pouvons à tout moment, avec des mécanismes multilatéraux – ce que certains appellent « le groupe de contact » –, rentrer dans une discussion qui devrait permettre, si la volonté existe de réduire la tension, de retrouver les voies d’un dialogue et d’une compréhension de ce que veut le peuple ukrainien et de ce que sont aussi les intérêts – on les connaît – de la Russie, notamment en Crimée, et des intérêts culturels qui existent aussi.
Mais s’il n’y avait pas de progrès dans la négociation, alors il y aurait à prendre de nouvelles décisions et elles ont été d’ores et déjà avancées pour qu’elles soient préparées le cas échéant. Ce seraient les restrictions des déplacements, le gel des avoirs d’un certain nombre de personnes et l’annulation du sommet entre l’Union européenne et la Russie. Les Institutions européennes ont été mandatées pour faire ce travail préparatoire.
Si la Russie prenait de nouvelles mesures qui déstabiliseraient l’Ukraine ou, pour parler plus simplement, mettraient en cause l’intégrité territoriale de l’Ukraine et donc sa souveraineté, alors il y aurait à prendre encore de nouvelles dispositions qui concerneraient les relations entre l’Union européenne et la Russie et qui toucheraient de nombreux secteurs économiques.
Le Conseil européen a évoqué cette gradation : des mesures tout de suite ; des mesures possibles s’il n’y a pas de négociation ; et des mesures éventuelles s’il y a aggravation de la tension. C’est cela la gradation, pour que les uns et les autres soient informés de ce qu’est notre détermination et, en même temps, notre volonté de dialogue et de négociation.
Je veux terminer pour dire qu’il y a la situation en Ukraine mais il y a aussi – vous le savez – les accords d’association qui ont été voulus par la Moldavie et par la Géorgie. Le Conseil européen a décidé que ces accords, déjà paraphés, devraient être signés – avant d’être ratifiés, pour le mois d’août prochain afin qu’il n’y ait aucun doute sur, là aussi, la volonté d’associer ces pays à l’Union européenne comme ils en ont exprimé la volonté. Source.

Ankara’s Crimea Conundrum

by Yigal Schleifer – Ankara has little choice about being involved in the ongoing crisis surrounding Crimea.
Beyond its geographic proximity to the peninsula in the Black Sea, Turkey also has deep historical ties to Crimea, once an Ottoman province, and strong interests there, especially with regards to the fate of Muslim Crimean Tatars, who make up an estimated 11 percent of the population.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu recently expressed his concern about how developments in Crimea might impact the Tatars and today his ministry issued a statement calling the upcoming referendum there on whether the region should become part of Russia as a “wrong” move.
But just how much can Ankara do in the face of Moscow’s moves in Crimea? The truth is very little. Write the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Soner Cagaptay and James Jeffrey in a brief released this week:
Turkey’s dependence on Russia for around half of its natural gas imports and historic Turkish fears of the Russians will temper Ankara’s reaction to Moscow’s takeover of Crimea. In case of NATO action in the Black Sea, for instance, Turkey would balance its NATO affiliation with its treaty obligations, rooted in the 1936 Montreux Convention, which limits the access of nonlittoral powers into the Black Sea through the Turkish Straits, including the Bosporus. Ankara could adopt a position in the Crimean conflict similar to its stance in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia, another of Ankara’s Black Sea neighbors, with Turkey playing a balancing game between NATO and Russia.
The difficult position Turkey has been put in by the situation in Crimea is certainly reminiscent of the conundrum (…)Full analysis.

Turkey on the Russian military intervention in Crimea

by Szymon Ananicz – In the Ukrainian-Russian crisis, Turkey has backed Kyiv. It has declared that Ukraine’s territorial integrity needed to be preserved, and pledged assistance in stabilising the situation and ensuring the Tatar minority’s security. However, Turkey is unlikely to take more decisive actions which might push it into a political confrontation with Russia. Due to concerns over
possible retaliation from Moscow, which has strong instruments to pressure Turkey, Ankara will probably act with restraint.

Turkey’s actions so far

Since the Russian intervention in Crimea in the last days of February and first days of March, the attitude of Turkey has been that of moderate involvement. On the one hand, Turkey supports Kyiv, but on the other, fears Russia’s reaction. It manifested its support through the meeting between the Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and the new Ukrainian leaders (including acting president Oleksandr Turchynov and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk), held in Kyiv on 1 March. Davutoğlu firmly backed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and offered political and economic support to stabilise the situation and ensure peaceful conditions for the “brotherly” Crimean Tatars. Davutoğlu also consulted on the issue with Western officials including John Kerry, Catherine Ashton and Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Nevertheless, the subsequent declarations of the Turkish leadership (made only three days later) were very restrained and demonstrated that Turkey did not want the crisis to mar its relations with Russia.
In the Turkish media, the Russian intervention has been getting less space and attention than internal policy issues (including the corruption scandal). The society’s demonstrations of support for the Tatars have been few and small.

The crisis from Ankara’s point of view

Ankara sees the Russian intervention as a serious threat to its position in the Black Sea region. Firstly, there is a risk that the crisis might escalate in an uncontrolled manner, directly threatening the security of Turkey, its relations with Russia and its economic interests. Secondly, even if the conflict does not escalate further, the crisis will most probably boost Russia’s regional dominance, thus diminishing the importance of Turkey. Thirdly, the Russian intervention consolidates Moscow’s practice of undertaking unpunished armed interventions in Turkey’s surroundings. Finally, it puts the efficacy of the AKP government’s foreign policy to a test before the coming elections.
More broadly, the current crisis has called into question the efficacy of the strategy which Turkey has been pursuing towards the Black Sea region so far. That strategy aims at building a system based on the primacy of two main actors, Russia and Turkey, and on regional co-operation mechanisms intended as checks on Russian expansionism and as measures to stabilise the region. In line with this policy, and – at times against pressure from NATO – Ankara has been advocating the application of the 1936 Montreaux convention which imposes considerable restrictions on movements of military vessels of countries from outside the region. Turkey’s reasoning was that the convention would put it in a privileged position and make the Black Sea a de facto Turkish-Russian condominium, while at the same time limiting the volume of traffic in Turkeys straits of Bosporus and Dardanelle. Ankara has also been promoting joint economic and security institutions with membership limited to countries of the region, such as the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) or the Black Sea Naval Force (BLACKSEAFOR).
Turkey’s stance on the war in Georgia was an expression of its Black Sea policy: Ankara showed considerable restraint in commenting on the Russian invasion, did not allow a radical stepping up of US military presence on the Black Sea and then tried, without success, to promote the establishment of a strictly regional organisation, the Caucasus Stability and Co-operation Platform which was expected to stabilise the region. The current crisis demonstrates that Turkey’s efforts to make Russia recognise it as an equally important actor in the region have failed.

Relations with Ukraine

Ukraine has never been a particularly important partner for Turkey. That role in the region has been reserved for Russia, perceived by Ankara as a decisively more important actor in the spheres of politics, security and economy, including energy (Turkey’s trade exchange with Ukraine was worth US$ 6.2 billion in 2012, compared to around US$ 33 billion of trade exchange with Russia). Ankara’s assumption has been that political relations with Kyiv could only be developed at the expense of relations with Moscow. Moreover, political and economic co-operation in recent years has been impeded by the instability in Ukraine, its widespread corruption and the lack of clear interest in building closer relations with Ankara on the part of Kyiv. Therefore, in bilateral relations with Ukraine Turkey has limited itself to courtesy visits (e.g. within the framework of the High-Level Co-operation Council), and promoting business relations and tourism (the two countries mutually abolished visas in 2012). The Crimean Tatars occupy a special place in Ankara’s policy towards Ukraine due to their cultural, religious and historical ties with Turkey, accentuated by the neo-Ottoman and pan-Turkish traits in Turkey’s state ideology. Turkey supported the repatriation of Tatars expulsed to Central Asia and has been providing development aid to Crimea (US$ 25 million since 1991). In those foreign policy measures, Turkey’s state ideology played a greater role than the expectations of the difficult-to-measure and almost completely assimilated Tatar diaspora, whose significance on Turkey’s political scene is marginal. Full analysis.

Disrupting Putin’s Game Plan

Crimea has been turned into a military zone, and its inhabitants might soon find themselves trapped in the firing line if the crisis continues to escalate. Russians now face international diplomatic and economic isolation, thus exacerbating their country’s economic woes. And Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reckless gamble risks dragging the world into a wider conflict.
In light of Putin’s dangerous behavior, the West must rethink its stance toward him. Here is a leader who read a hidden, menacing agenda into a technical European Union document about export subsidies and anti-fraud provisions. More broadly, here is a paranoiac who sees an implausible coalition of liberal Russians, Ukrainian fascists, the CIA, and Islamist terrorists trying to thwart his preferences, if not topple him, at every turn. (…)
When Ukrainians stood up against their corrupt elite, they became the first people to put their lives on the line for the goal of EU membership. The result was unwarranted retaliation from Russia.
So this is not Ukraine’s war. Ukraine is the immediate victim, but it is by no means Putin’s ultimate target. This is a blatant attack on the principles of state sovereignty, inviolability of negotiated borders, and adherence to multilateral agreements that underpin today’s rule-based international system. Countering Russia’s aggression is thus the responsibility of all who would uphold that system. Full opinion.

RUSSIA’S INVASION OF CRIMEA: THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE RETURNS

by Jack David – U.S. action — or inaction — in response to aggression has sent the same message. We took no action of substance in response to Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia; we acceded to Russia’s demand in 2009 that we revoke missile-defense treaty commitments we had previously made to Poland and the Czech Republic; we abandoned the victory gained at such great cost in Iraq; the commander in chief announced a troop withdrawal in Afghanistan that was obviously unrelated to any military or political objective; the U.S. responses to the 2011 turmoil in Libya were ambivalent, at best; the president drew a redline in Syria in 2012 and then claimed he hadn’t. In all this, the leaders of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea could not fail to see that America’s resolve to stave off aggression is substantially diminished.
In the context of this history, it is not surprising that China recently declared its right to control vast areas of the sea off East Asia, and its right to use coast-guard and military ships to do so; nor should we be surprised that Vladimir Putin is using military force to seize Ukrainian territory. Beijing and Moscow saw opportunity — and seized it.
In this sense, Russia’s seizure of the Crimean peninsula — and perhaps more of Ukraine tomorrow — marks the end of an era. The era that is ending is one in which U.S. military preeminence and U.S. resolve helped nourish a liberal, peaceful international order. It lasted from 1945 to today. Three principal features of this order have been dispute resolution mostly by discussion rather than armed conflict; freedom of all to use international waters; and increasing recognition that free men, free markets, and the rule of law are the most certain path to prosperity. Russia’s use of military force to seize Ukraine’s Crimea ends all that. The law of the jungle has been restored to international relations. U.S. capabilities and resolve are no longer strong enough to support more noble aspirations. Full opinion.

Washington’s Hysteria Towards Russia Hides US Regime Change

By Finian CUNNINGHAM – European Union ministers this week somehow found reserves of €11 billion for the new «Western friendly» administration in Kiev – against the backdrop of millions of EU citizens suffering from unemployment and deprivation. The International Monetary Fund is also drawing up a lure (loan) of $2 billion.
With pro-Western, pro-capitalist Yatsenyuk now at the helm in Kiev (as Nuland prescribed), Ukraine is being steered inexorably into debt bondage by the West. This bondage, facilitated by an unelected junta, will entail an austerity assault on Ukrainian workers, beginning with swingeing cuts in public spending, wages and subsidies on fuel. It will also lead to privatization of Ukrainian oil and gas industries and the full take over of other prodigious Ukrainian natural resources, such as its wheat agriculture, by Western capital. Yatsenyuk, who talks with pride about being willing to commit political suicide for the sake of pro-Western reforms, that is Western subjugation, is exactly the kind of ideologue the West want and need in Kiev, as Nuland duly recognized.
Interestingly, this week the new Ukrainian ambassador to Belarus, Mykhailo Yeshel, admitted in a media interview that loans (lures) from Washington were being offered on condition of the Ukraine permitting the deployment of American missile systems on its territory – right on the border with Russia.
The emerging picture is clear. Despite all the hysterical nonsense being spouted by Western leaders and their media propaganda machine, demanding Russia to «back off» from Ukraine, the Western regime-change operation in that country is not just being consolidated – it is being ramped up. Full analysis.