MEPs call for firm action on Russia to prevent further escalation
Kırım yönetimi: Rusya’ya bağlanmayı halkın yüzde 85’i destekler
Latest Declarations, statements & analysis follow !
***
Ukraine: MEPs call for firm action on Russia to prevent further escalation
EU-Abgeordnete zur Situation in der Ukraine: Krim-Referendum ist rechtswidrig
MEPs called for a strong response to Russia on 12 March in a debate over its military involvement in Ukraine. They also rejected the upcoming referendum on independence in Crimea, which they saw as manipulated and contrary to international and Ukrainian law. The EU should also support Ukraine and continue to work towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Dimitris Kourkoulas, Greek deputy foreign minister responsible for European affairs, spoke on behalf of the Council. He called the situation in Ukraine “the most serious crisis in Europe in recent years”. He stressed that the priority should be to find a peaceful solution that fully respects international law. “The European Union is ready to help the Ukrainian people on an economic, financial and technical level,” he said.
José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, called the situation in Ukraine a test for the European Union, which would have geopolitical consequences for our countries. He said Ukraine should not become a border between neighbours who no longer talk.
José Ignacio Salafranca, a Spanish member of the EPP group, said: “We have to clearly reject the referendum that will be held in Crimea: it is illegitimate, it is illegal.” He quoted former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko in saying that ”Russia will go as far as they are allowed to go” and called for firm action, as “otherwise the conflict will become unavoidable”.
Hannes Swoboda, the Austrian chair of the S&D group, said: “Let me be very clear, this is not a legitimate referendum. All the referendums we saw in the past have been totally different. They were done on a legal basis, with international observers, no military pressure on the national assembly.” He said we should make clear to Russia that we cannot accept this referendum.
Underlining that the referendum in Crimea would lead to an illegal annexation by Russia, Hans van Baalen, a Dutch member of the ALDE group, demanded sanctions. “We have to have serious sanctions that will hurt Russia,” he said, wondering if the Council was ready to follow suit.
Rebecca Harms, the German co-chair of the Green group, said it was not true that the EU was powerless, underlining that 45% of Russia’s trade is with the European Union. “We don’t need to find ourselves in some kind of military conflict. Make it clear to Russia, if they want to isolate themselves, then that is what is going to happen.”
Ryszard Antoni Legutko, a Polish member of the ECR group, pointed out that there was not much to expect from Europe on the Ukraine issue: “The EU has neither instruments, no will, nor a common foreign policy for that matter.”
Nikola Vuljanić, a Croatian member of the GUE/NGL group, warned that not supporting the Ukrainian people strongly can only contribute to the escalation. “The European Union is talking about strong sanctions but only soft constraints are imposed,” he said.
Jacek Olgierd Kurski, a Polish member of the EFD group, said: “Putin has said that the fall of the Soviet Union was the biggest tragedy of the 20th century. He is now rebuilding the empire, first Georgia, now Ukraine.”
Andreas Mölzer, a non-attached member from Austria, said that if the EU wanted to avoid a permanent flashpoint, we would have to work with everyone. Anything is better than a civil war, he said. Video of the debate
*
Ukraine: les députés demandent une action ferme sur la Russie pour éviter une nouvelle escalade
Les députés européens ont appelé à une réponse forte à la Russie le 12 mars lors d’un débat sur son implication militaire en Ukraine. Ils ont également rejeté le référendum sur l’indépendance en Crimée, qu’ils ont vu comme une manipulation et une contradiction au droit international et ukrainien. L’Union européenne devrait également soutenir l’Ukraine et continuera à travailler pour une résolution pacifique du conflit.
Dimitris Kourkoulas, ministre grec adjoint chargé des affaires européennes, a représenté le Conseil. Il a qualifié la situation en Ukraine de “crise la plus grave en Europe de ces dernières années”. Il a souligné que la priorité immédiate est de trouver une solution pacifique à la crise actuelle, dans le plein respect du droit international. “L’Union européenne est prête à aider le peuple ukrainien sur le plan économique, financier et technique”.
José Manuel Barroso, président de la Commission européenne, a qualifié la situation en Ukraine de test pour l’Union européenne, qui pourrait avoir des conséquences géopolitiques pour nos pays. L’Ukraine ne doit pas devenir une frontière entre des voisins qui ne se parlent plus.
“Nous devons clairement rejeter le référendum qui sera organisé en Crimée. Il n’est pas légitime, et est illégal”, a déclaré le député démocrate chrétien espagnol José Ignacio Salafranca. Il a cité Ioulia Timochenko: “la Russie ira aussi loin qu’elle peut aller” et a appelé à une action ferme sans laquelle “le conflit sera inévitable”.
Hannes Swoboda, député démocrate socialiste autrichien, a quant à lui déclaré: “permettez-moi d’être très clair: ce n’est pas un référendum légitime. Tous les référendums organisés par le passé ont été totalement différents. Ils avaient une base juridique, des observateurs internationaux, aucune pression militaire sur l’Assemblée nationale”. Il a ajouté que nous devrions faire comprendre à la Russie que nous ne pouvons pas accepter ce référendum.
Soulignant l’organisation illégale du référendum en Crimée, suite à l’annexion illégale du territoire par la Russie, Hans van Baalen, député démocrate libéral néerlandais, a demandé des sanctions: “nous devons appliquer des sanctions sévères qui affecteront la Russie”. Il s’est également demandé si le Conseil était prêt à emboîter le pas.
Rebecca Harms, députée verte allemande, a déclaré que l’Union européenne n’est pas impuissante, soulignant sa part de 45% dans les échanges commerciaux de la Russie. “Nous n’avons pas besoin de nous retrouver dans une sorte de conflit militaire. Il faut que ce soit clair pour la Russie que si elle veut s’isoler, alors c’est ce qui va arriver”.
Au contraire, pour Ryszard Antoni Legutko, député conservateur et réformiste polonais, il n’y a pas grand-chose à attendre de l’Europe au sujet de l’Ukraine: “l’Union européenne n’a ni instruments, ni volonté pour une politique étrangère commune sur cette question”.
Nikola Vuljanić, député croate de la Gauche unitaire européenne/Gauche verte, a averti que ne pas soutenir le peuple ukrainien contribuera à l’escalade. “L’Union européenne parle de sanctions sévères mais seules des contraintes souples sont imposées”, a-t-il expliqué.
“Poutine a déclaré que la chute de l’Union soviétique a été la plus grande tragédie du 20ème siècle. Il est actuellement en train de reconstruire l’empire, d’abord avec la Géorgie, et maintenant avec l’Ukraine”, a mis en garde Jacek Olgierd Kurski, député polonais membres du groupe Europe, libertés, démocratie.
Selon Andreas Mölzer, député autrichien non inscrit, nous devons travailler avec tout le monde si nous voulons éviter d’avoir une poudrière permanente. Tout vaut mieux que la guerre civile, selon lui. Video of the debate
*
Crimea: sanctions against Russia necessary
Strasbourg, 12 March 2014-The EPP Group in the European Parliament is calling for targeted sanctions against Russia, following Moscow’s continued failure to contribute to international mediation efforts in Ukraine.
“In the absence of Russian willingness to de-escalate the Crimean crisis, the EU must impose travel bans and asset freezes on leading Russian officials, impose an arms and dual-use technology embargo and, in the end, economic sanctions,” said the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Elmar Brok (Germany), the EPP Group Coordinator in the Foreign Affairs Committee, José Ignacio Salafranca (Spain) and the Vice-President of the Eastern Partnership Parliamentary Assembly, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (Poland).
The three EPP Group members underlined that their demands were reflected by a cross-party resolution tabled for a plenary vote tomorrow, Thursday 13 March. Referring to the scheduled Crimean referendum as “illegitimate and illegal”, the joint motion condemns Russia’s invasion of Crimea and recalls that these actions are in breach of international law.
“Russia itself has guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum. By now forcing the annexation of Crimea in the absence of any threat to the Russian-speaking minority of Ukraine and given the proven record of the new Ukrainian government not to use any force, Russia is engaging in a cold-blooded breach of its own legal obligations and international law,” Brok, Salafranca and Saryusz-Wolski said.
“This is a coup against international law. Europe and the international community as a whole cannot remain silent in the face of such aggression. Sanctions are necessary, since Russia failed to grasp any prior possibility to defuse the tensions diplomatically.”
Note: The European Parliament is scheduled to vote its resolution on the Crimean crisis on Thursday 13 March at noon CET. Source.
*
Statement of G-7 Leaders on Ukraine
Erklärung der Staats- und Regierungschefs der G7 zur Ukraine
We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission, call on the Russian Federation to cease all efforts to change the status of Crimea contrary to Ukrainian law and in violation of international law. We call on the Russian Federation to immediately halt actions supporting a referendum on the territory of Crimea regarding its status, in direct violation of the Constitution of Ukraine.
Any such referendum would have no legal effect. Given the lack of adequate preparation and the intimidating presence of Russian troops, it would also be a deeply flawed process which would have no moral force. For all these reasons, we would not recognize the outcome.
Russian annexation of Crimea would be a clear violation of the United Nations Charter; Russia’s commitments under the Helsinki Final Act; its obligations to Ukraine under its 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership; the Russia-Ukraine 1997 basing agreement; and its commitments in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. In addition to its impact on the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea could have grave implications for the legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states. Should the Russian Federation take such a step, we will take further action, individually and collectively.
We call on the Russian Federation to de-escalate the conflict in Crimea and other parts of Ukraine immediately, withdraw its forces back to their pre-crisis numbers and garrisons, begin direct discussions with the Government of Ukraine, and avail itself of international mediation and observation offers to address any legitimate concerns it may have. We, the leaders of the G-7, urge Russia to join us in working together through diplomatic processes to resolve the current crisis and support progress for a sovereign independent, inclusive and united Ukraine. We also remind the Russian Federation of our decision to suspend participation in any activities related to preparation of a G-8 Sochi meeting until it changes course and the environment comes back to where the G-8 is able to have a meaningful discussion.
*
Introductory statement by President Barroso on Ukraine
Very serious concerns remain over the situation in Ukraine. And I would like to start by saying how grateful we are for the constant attention that this Parliament has been giving to this most important crisis. I know that the Parliament, as an institution, and many of you in this room have been deploying considerable energy and time to help find a solution. And I hope that we can put all our efforts along the same lines to support Ukraine, a European country.
Ukraine was also subject of an extraordinary meeting of Heads of State and Government last week, also attended partly by the Ukrainian Prime-Minister Yatseniuk. Today I want to share with you the results of that meeting, and specifically what the European Commission has been doing to support Ukraine in these very challenging times, not only supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Ukrainians but also giving our best for regional and international peace.
The developments which started with the people of Ukraine expressing a clear wish to take their future into their own hands, have called for a robust and united European response. The present situation directly challenges us in many ways and forms. It challenges our conscience as individuals. It challenges our unity as Europeans. It challenges our policies as decision makers. And it challenges some of the values that we hold dear, such as peace and democracy.
This is, in a way, a test of our Union. And the outcome of the current situation will greatly impact in the geopolitical configuration of our continent for the years to come.
What happened in Crimea was an unprovoked and unacceptable violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and its territorial integrity.
In the aftermath of this violation, together with other G7 leaders, the President of the European Council and myself, on behalf of the European Union, have strongly and unequivocally condemned this action on behalf of the European Union.
Today, at 14:00 Central European Time, we will release another statement that will leave no doubt about the determination of the G-7 countries and the European Union. We call on the Russian Federation to cease all efforts to annexe Ukraine’s autonomous Republic of Crimea.
The present situation remains very tense, so we need to take a very principled but also a very responsible approach. The Ukrainian people have already shed too much blood in this process. No more lives should be put at risk.
Our immediate goal and objective should be to de-escalate the situation and find a peaceful solution to the current crisis, in full respect of international law. Any attempt to legitimise a referendum in Crimea is contrary to the Ukrainian constitution and international law and quite clearly illegal.
We have been proposing to Russia the possibility of direct talks through international mechanisms available, including a possible contact group, in full respect of the principles of unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. So far, unfortunately, as you know, to no avail. The High Representative/ Vice-President Catherine Ashton remains in constant contact with her counterparts on this front and I would like to praise her role.
Meanwhile, however, the financial and economic situation has already deteriorated dramatically, and we have not lost any time in mobilising a support package to help stem the tide and help Ukraine to stabilise its economic and financial situation.
I am proud that the Commission was quickly able to propose an overall support package of at least €11 billion from the European budget and European Union-based international financial institutions and this for the short and medium term. This was the proof that we can react quickly; that we can show solidarity; that we can rise to the challenge.
And as you know, this package was welcomed by our Member States in the European Council and, specifically, the Prime Minister of Ukraine expressed his gratitude for this initiative.
Some of the measures can be put into practice immediately. And indeed, just yesterday, Commisioner De Gucht and myself publicly presented a Commission proposal to frontload unilaterally the trade parts of the Association Agreement, so that Ukraine can benefit from tariff reductions and tariff rate quotas even before the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area is fully applied. This will save the Ukrainian economy €500 million a year in tariff cuts. I hope we can count on your, and the Council’s, active commitment to fast-track the approval process.
We have also immediately dispatched a mission from our services to identify the economic and financial needs of the Ukrainian authorities. And I can announce that the Commission will propose next week, the 19th March, macro financial assistance of an additional €1 billion.
This amount, will bring our total macro financial assistance to 1.6 billion, and is a very concrete demonstration of our solidarity to help Ukraine face the short term difficulties. However, it is crucial that this is part of a wider international effort where also other international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, as well as our Member States bilateraly and international partners, can participate. I would like to thank Olli Rehn and his services for moving quickly on this. And I would like to have a special word of thanks to Stefan Füle for his constant and strong engagement in this file.
At the same time it is equally crucial to underline that this aid package is not a quick fix and needs to be complemented by, on the other side, a reform-oriented and inclusive Ukrainian government, committed to fixing the current state of their financial system and rebuilding the economic foundations of the country, during both the current transition phase and in the medium to long term.
At the Summit meeting last week, we also decided that we will sign the political chapters of the Association agreement before the Presidential elections that will take place in May. This will seal the political association of Ukraine with the European Union, as was wished for by its people in such a clear manner during these past months and can naturally be followed by the entry into force of the remaining parts of the Association Agreement/DCFTA post presidential elections. We also reconfirmed our intention to sign Association Agreements/DCFTAs with Georgia and Moldova before the end of August.
The European Union has been pro-active and united throughout this crisis, and I am sure this will also be the case when the European Council discusses the next steps next week.
This is vital for Ukraine’s stability and prosperity, and it is vital for our credibility. The ball is currently in Russia’s court and, as we speak, the diplomatic, political and military situation is not yet moving in the right direction.
Last week’s meeting of Heads of State and Government has taken a gradual approach to the measures we are ready to take in response to the current situation, so as to send an unambiguous signal that going further down this path will have consequences, but at the same time preventing further entrenching the conflict from our side.
Our dialogue on visa facilitation and liberalisation, the discussions on the New Agreement and the preparations for the G8 meeting in Sochi have already been suspended. If meaningful negotiations do not begin within the next few days and produce results within a limited timeframe, this will trigger additional measures. And a further deterioration of the situation could lead to far reaching consequences, which I sincerely hope can be avoided.
I have been working together with the Commission and also with the Member States for the last 10 years to build a constructive relationship with Russia, while supporting our neighbours’ efforts and sovereign choices to reform, to modernise and build closer relations with the European Union.
Our relationship with our Eastern partners does not have to be an exclusive one. Our model of engagement is that of open regionalism, and not of autarchic self-entrenchment. We are not asking, not even suggesting to our partners from the Eastern Neighbourhood, to turn their backs on Russia. On the contrary, we encourage them to have good neighbourly relations, to enhance their traditional trade ties. But at the same time Russia needs to accept fully the right of these countries to decide their own future and the nature of relations they chose to have with Russia.
The page of last century’s history should be turned and not re-written. I believe in a European continent where the rule of law prevails over the rule of force, where sovereignty is shared and not limited, where the logic of cooperation replaces the logic of confrontation. We don’t need new Cold Wars. And we certainly do not want them.
Security does not come from segregation, separating communities, building fences, but by embracing differences and diversity. Ukraine should not be a border between neighbours that don’t speak to each other, but a bridge where they can meet.
Ukraine should not be seen as a problem for Europe, but an asset for a more united European continent.
On the basis of these principles, I think we can say that a united, inclusive, stable and prosperous Ukraine can only be of benefit to all its neighbours and partners. The European Union remains committed to that goal. To Ukraine’s unity and to European peace. José Manuel Durão Barroso
President of the European Commission
*
Crimea referendum: major threat to the stability of the borders in Europe
Strasbourg, 12 March 2014 – Let me under the first point recall that the referendum organised in Crimea on Sunday infringes in various sense on international law as regards the state sovereignty and the inviolability and territorial integrity as well as the Ukrainian constitution.
It poses a major threat to the stability of the borders in Europe. The EU condemns the circumstances and the actual proposed question of referendum which we consider illegal illegitimate and its outcome invalid.
Furthermore the proposed Russian bill foreseeing even easier annexation of foreign territories on the basis of an alleged threat to Russian minority there and without the a corresponding treaty with the relevant neighbouring state will likewise go against international laws and principles. But is not only about Crimea, this is the most serious challenge to the Helsinki process we have seen so far. And that is why what is going on in Crimea is happening much more closer to us than many of us, many of you are ready to accept.
Second – let us do everything in our power to help the Russian leaders not to make yet another grave mistake. A mistake his successors and history teaches us certain lessons would apologise for it, as they already did, the mistake that would turn the multipolar world into a zero polar world where only one rule applies that there are no rules.
Three – let us support and help Ukraine, not only in their measured reaction so far but also in that country becoming a democratic country, with accountable government, free of corruption, with justice for all, with active involvement of civil society, established guaranteed rights of all citizens and all minorities.
Four – let us not forget about the citizens of Moldova and Georgia and many others in Eastern European region for whom the values and principles the EU is based on are what they aspire for.
To conclude: the Council, the Commission and after this debate I strongly believe also this House are principled, responsible and united in their readiness to adopt concrete measures but also principled responsible and united in offering in parallel the political dialogue to de-escalate the situation and find peaceful solution because that is the way forward. Štefan Füle
European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy
*
How Can Europe Now Deal With Russia?
In short, the EU should deal with Russia by standing up for its own core values, rules, and commitments. The bloc should also take this opportunity to enhance coordination among its 28 member states.
The Ukraine crisis constitutes a profound challenge for the EU, both externally—in terms of its neighborhood policy and relations with Russia—and internally. The instruments that the EU chooses to adopt will depend on how it defines its short- and long-term objectives and interests in its Eastern neighborhood. That, in turn, depends on what kind of relationship with Russia the EU considers best for Europeans of today and tomorrow. (…)
Russia’s annexation of Crimea would be an unacceptable breach of international law, and Europe has to deal with Russia now. The EU must avoid knee-jerk reactions, keep calm, and continue to seek ways to deescalate the crisis.
EU leaders should not waver from their minimal demands of establishing an international “contact group” on Ukraine and deploying military observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. If the EU is forced to introduce sanctions, they should be measured and constructed in such a way that they can be ramped up or scaled down depending on how the crisis evolves.(…)
The image of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton offering high tea to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the height of Russia’s invasion of Crimea was a diplomatic triumph for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Shiny silverware, tasty crumpets, and finger sandwiches ensured the photo went viral on social media. You do not tackle a major political crisis—exacerbated by the apparent disappearance of 250 of Kiev’s pro-European demonstrators—while allowing such a picture to circulate.
Yet the image was not just a public-relations fiasco for the EU, it was also a true reflection of Europe today—a continent resigned to cave in to the Kremlin’s aggressive posturing. “Are you proposing war?” retort EU diplomatic sources lamely. Of course not, but between pastries and boots on the ground there are a number of intermediate options. Writing on Twitter, former chess champion Garry Kasparov has proposed “banks not tanks,” suggesting that the EU should apply firm financial pressure on Russian oligarchs in London to convey a clear message to Putin.(…)
The EU appears to have little appetite for trade embargoes or other punitive measures against Russia. But perhaps there is no need for such actions. Russia’s key source of leverage vis-à-vis Europe—its energy trade—is already under assault from the shale gas revolution that is gradually enabling Europe to diversify its energy supply.
At the same time, the EU’s Third Energy Package requires Russian energy giant Gazprom (and other companies) to separate its gas production operations from its transmission lines, while the European Commission is conducting an antitrust investigation into the firm’s business practices. Both actions hold out the prospect of a different EU-Russia energy relationship and hence renewed bilateral ties more generally.(…) Full article.
*
La crise ukrainienne révèle l’impuissance de l’UE et son alignement absurde sur la vision américaine de l’Europe.
Par Colonel Alain Corvez – La terminologie «Occident», désigne les Etats-Unis d’Amérique, grande puissance souveraine, fière et sûre de représenter les valeurs universelles de la liberté dont la statue illumine le monde à l’entrée de New York, première force militaire du moment, qui définit ses intérêts planétaires et les défend avec âpreté, et ses alliés européens qu’elle a poussés à s’unir dans une organisation technocratique afin que cette Europe de l’Ouest ne constitue qu’un glacis apolitique protecteur, uniquement préoccupé d’organiser le commerce libre et sans frontières ouvert aux capitaux prédateurs de la finance internationale, initialement contre le monde soviétique et désormais contre la Russie dont elle ne cesse de saper les appuis pour l’empêcher de redevenir une grande puissance et qui est déjà sa rivale. Cette Union Européenne qui n’en finit pas de mourir d’impuissance politique, simultanément à des échecs économiques dramatiques, est désormais rejetée par la majorité des habitants du continent qui ont fini par voir en elle la source de leurs malheurs, d’autant plus que la bureaucratie bruxelloise s’arroge aussi la mission de réglementer le mode de vie journalier des individus ainsi que leurs valeurs morales et spirituelles. Les nations qui la composent transmettent chaque jour davantage leurs droits régaliens à une technocratie bruxelloise qui, à peine consciente de sa vacuité, ne voit d’issue à ses échecs patents que dans une intégration encore plus forte. Il va sans dire que face à cette impuissance ressentie, les dirigeants européens ne voient pas d’avenir à leur survie nationale et délèguent leur défense au parrain d’outre-Atlantique en intégrant l’organisation militaire de l’OTAN, liant ipso facto leurs destins au succès de la grande Amérique.
Russophobie
L’Union Soviétique s’étant effondrée au début des années 90, on aurait pu croire qu’une grande Europe des nations allait pouvoir se construire sur des bases sérieuses mais il fut rapidement clair que l’UE n’avait pas de politique cohérente à cet égard et qu’après l’intermède Eltsine qui ouvrait la Russie aux prédateurs occidentaux, Poutine affirmait la volonté de la Russie de se reconstruire en une puissance politique et militaire, enracinant cette action dans les traditions ancestrales de la Russie des tsars, luttant contre les oligarques qui avaient commencé à s’emparer des richesses nationales avec l’appui de l’étranger, et surtout encourageant les valeurs patriotiques, religieuses, spirituelles et morales propres à l’âme russe.
C’est dire que le modèle construit par le nouveau tsar avec l’appui d’une forte majorité de la population, représente l’opposé de celui prôné par l’Union Européenne et les nations qui la composent, qui passent leur temps à vouloir ignorer leur histoire ou à s’en accuser, à réfuter leurs racines religieuses, culturelles et spirituelles et plaident en permanence pour l’abolition des barrières morales au nom du libéralisme total, allant même jusqu’à nier de façon aberrante les différences entre les sexes. Il est donc indispensable pour les tenants de cette Europe démoniaque de dénigrer systématiquement tout ce qui est russe, d’autant plus qu’ils participent ainsi au combat que mène leur parrain américain pour affaiblir la Russie.
Sans aucune logique stratégique, l’UE s’est élargie depuis l’effondrement de l’URSS aux pays de l’Europe de l’est, cet élargissement allant de pair avec leur intégration dans l’OTAN qui, d’une défense contre l’Union Soviétique qui n’existe plus est devenue une alliance contre la Russie, même si les Etats-Unis prétendent le contraire, allant même jusqu’à proposer à Moscou un partenariat en son sein. Mais la défense antimissile balistique (DAMB) est, malgré les arguties de langage, un système sous l’égide des Etats-Unis dirigé contre la Russie et non contre l’Iran. Lire analyse..
*
Ukraine’s Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge
By Eugene Chausovsky – A second, more worrying effect of the competition between the West and Russia over Ukraine extends beyond Ukrainian borders. As competition over the fate of Ukraine has escalated, it has also intensified Western-Russian competition elsewhere in the region.
Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet countries that have sought stronger ties with the West, have accelerated their attempts to further integrate with the European Union — and in Georgia’s case, with NATO. On the other hand, countries such as Belarus and Armenia have sought to strengthen their economic and security ties with Russia. Countries already strongly integrated with the West like the Baltics are glad to see Western powers stand up to Russia, but meanwhile they know that they could be the next in line in the struggle between Russia and the West. Russia could hit them economically, and Moscow could also offer what it calls protection to their sizable Russian minorities as it did in Crimea. Russia already has hinted at this in discussions to extend Russian citizenship to ethnic Russians and Russian speakers throughout the former Soviet Union.
The major question moving forward is how committed Russia and the West are to backing and reinforcing their positions in these rival blocs. Russia has made clear that it is willing to act militarily to defend its interests in Ukraine. Russia showed the same level of dedication to preventing Georgia from turning to NATO in 2008. Moscow has made no secret that it is willing to use a mixture of economic pressure, energy manipulation and, if need be, military force to prevent the countries on its periphery from leaving the Russian orbit. In the meantime, Russia will seek to intensify integration efforts in its own blocs, including the Customs Union on the economic side and the Collective Security Treaty Organization on the military side.
So the big question is what the West intends. On several occasions, the European Union and United States have proved that they can play a major role in shaping events on the ground in Ukraine. Obtaining EU membership is a stated goal of the governments in Moldova and Georgia, and a significant number of people in Ukraine also support EU membership. But since it has yet to offer sufficient aid or actual membership, the European Union has not demonstrated as serious a commitment to the borderland countries as Russia has. It has refrained from doing so for several reasons, including its own financial troubles and political divisions and its dependence on energy and trade with Russia. While the European Union may yet show stronger resolve as a result of the current Ukrainian crisis, a major shift in the bloc’s approach is unlikely — at least not on its own.
On the Western side, then, U.S. intentions are key. In recent years, the United States has largely stayed on the sidelines in the competition over the Russian periphery. The United States was just as quiet as the European Union was in its reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia, and calls leading up to the invasion for swiftly integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO went largely unanswered. Statements were made, but little was done.
But the global geopolitical climate (…) Full analysis.
*
World War III over Ukraine, anyone?
By Edward LOZANSKY – As Russia and the United States face off over Ukraine, this country’s political leaders embrace a narrative far different from what Russian President Vladimir Putin claims is going on over there.
Western policymakers see Mr. Putin as the only bad guy on the scene as he moves Russian troops into the Crimea and prepares to annex the Crimean Peninsula to “protect” the Russian speakers living there. They see aggression pure and simple and are seeking ways to make Russia pay.
The rhetoric in this country reflects the U.S. acceptance of this narrative. Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton cavalierly compares Mr. Putin to Adolf Hitler while leading members of Congress ruminate on how best to punish Russia, and President Obama moves military assets into the region in case things go from bad to worse.
The Russians and their friends in Crimea look at the situation from a very different perspective. Most of them see the new leaders of Ukraine as radical, anti-Russian nationalists more interested in getting back at Russia for the sins of Soviet-era communists who starved, tortured and killed as many as 7 million Ukrainians. They fear that the new Ukrainian leadership wants retribution.
While American politicians describe Mr. Putin as Hitler-like, Russians in Crimea are convinced that real neo-Nazis are pulling the levers in Kiev.
Hard-line anti-Russians occupy important ministerial positions in the new Ukrainian government in spite of U.S. attempts to keep them out.
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland managed to keep the notorious extremist Oleg Tyahnibok, head of the Svododa Party, out of the new government, fearing that his presence could damage the public face of the new regime. Full analysis.
*
The triumph of fascism
Dr. Michael Pravica – As one example, a fanatical effort is afoot amongst various pseudo-intellectual “scholars” to rewrite history and yet-again blame the Serbs for WWI based on the “evidence” that Gavrilo Princip (who was a Bosnian Serb) was supported by Serbia. Of course, whenever facts get in the way, they are just conveniently disregarded. Bosnia was illegally and viciously occupied by Austria after the Ottoman Turkish retreat from the Balkans. The homegrown Bosnian “Black Hand” organization comprised Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and Bosnian Croats and had little to do with Serbia but much to do with freeing Bosnia from illegal and brutal occupation. When Austria declared war on Serbia due to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the Serbs handily defeated the Austrians and defended their territory, throwing the Austrian army out of Serbia.
That should have been the end of it with the Austrians retreating with their tails between their legs. But no, Germany had to step into defend Austrian “honor” and the Russians defended the Serbs which catalyzed and ignited WWI in Europe, ending the outdated and unfair social order based upon extreme wealth polarization. The goal of rewriting history is to make a new case for fascism’s reemergence into the mainstream of political discourse.
Today, we see an all out effort to subvert and destroy America’s democracy by controlling bought America’s “leaders” to disregard our beloved Constitution and enact “laws” that remove our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. As we witnessed in NATO’s barbaric and illegal war against the Serbian people, politicians act first and then let American ask questions later.
The US is becoming so thoroughly corrupt that many Americans worry about an inevitable internal revolution because the politicians are no longer “of the people, for the people, and by the people” but “of the corporations, for the corporations, and by the corporations.” Despite the valiant efforts of millions of Americans vis a vis Wall Street protests (e.g.), their will is not being respected and they are finding that fascism is creeping into the American way of life, which will ultimately destroy it as it destroyed Germany in WWII. As witnessed during NATO’s illegal and vicious bombing of Serbia, Western leaders acted without any respect for international or even domestic laws (e.g. the War Powers Act of 1973) and get judicial cronies and the media to cover their tracks [5]. And then American leaders have the chutzpah and gall to condemn Russia for its efforts to protect ethnic Russians in the Crimea!
Full story.
*
Seeds of impunity: who shut the West’s eyes on Ukraine’s far right?
By Dmitry BABICH – Are they all fascists? Indeed, they are not. Even in Adolph Hitler’s Germany between 1933 and 1945 people with Nazi views might not even make up a majority. The Nazis never won absolute majority at the relatively fair elections held in Germany in 1920s and the beginning of the 30s. But certainly it does not take off the responsibility from the German people for what happened to their own country and other countries of Europe in that period. The German Nazis at a certain moment became the most vocal, the most active and the most determined part of Germany’s political spectrum. But the deeply immoral character of their movement was visible to all people who had even the most limited access to the Nazi programs and newspapers. So, shame on the German voters of that period and on the governments which whitewashed the ideology of National Socialism.
Alas, the bulk of the Western public opinion is behaving now worse than in the 1930s. Modern media give us unlimited access to the program and ideas of the neo-Nazi party Svoboda, which now controls four seats in the new Ukrainian government, as well as the position of the prosecutor general. You can read their wishes: to make people running for important positions reveal their ethnic origin; to make what they call Ukrainophobia a criminal offence; to proclaim the former allies of Adolph Hitler heroes of the Ukrainian nation.
These ideas are deeply dangerous (…) Full opinion.
*
Related/Konuya ilişkin:
Filed under: European Union/Avrupa Birliği, Russia - Rusya, Ukraine_Ukrayna, USA, Yeni Dünya Düzeni |
YERELCE 
Leave a Reply