Західні політики і медія про Україну (in English)

[Feral Cat]

Putin Isn’t Reviving the USSR, He’s Creating a Fascist State

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/putin-isn-t-reviving-ussr-101500375.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw

[Feral Cat]

Armed With Google and YouTube, Analysts Gauge Russia’s Presence in Ukraine


By MICHAEL R. GORDON MAY 27, 2015


WASHINGTON — An unusual investigation using publicly available videos, smartphone photographs and satellite images shows that Russia is continuing to defy the West by conducting protracted military operations inside Ukraine, according to an independent report.

Russia has long dismissed Western allegations that its military has intervened in Ukraine as little more than computer-generated propaganda.

In an attempt to puncture the Russian denials, independent experts have operated like digital Sherlock Holmeses, using Google’s Street View, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, satellite photographs and Russia’s version of Facebook, including social media updates by Russian soldiers. That research was then supplemented by more traditional sources like court documents and local media reports.

“Independent researchers, using open sources and rigorous methodology, have demonstrated that Russian troops and Russian weapons have been an important part of the fight in Ukraine’s east,” said John E. Herbst, a former American ambassador to Ukraine and one of the authors of the report, Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin’s War in Ukraine, which is to be released Thursday by the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based research center.

While the most recent photograph analyzed in the Atlantic Council report was taken in February, Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general, said in an interview in Washington on Wednesday that there was ample evidence that Russia still had forces in Ukraine and was sending arms to separatists there.

“Russia is present in eastern Ukraine,” Mr. Stoltenberg said. “This is something we have from our own intelligence. But in addition to our own intelligence, it is based on open sources.”

The report comes as European nations are preparing to vote next month on whether to ease or maintain economic sanctions on Russia because of its role in Ukraine.

“The way Russian propaganda works, it makes it seem you can’t possibly know the truth,” said Eliot Higgins, a British-based researcher who founded the investigative website Bellingcat.com and led the effort to analyze the imagery for the Atlantic Council report. “If you try to counter it by doing the same thing, you are just adding to the noise. But you can get to the truth by pointing to the open source data and what’s publicly available.”

Analyzing photographs of large craters in Ukraine and videos of rocket launches on nearby Russian territory, the Atlantic Council report concludes that Russian units have fired across the Ukrainian border. The report finds that craters near the Ukrainian town Panchenkove were the result of Russian multiple rocket fire near Gukovo, Russia, and from a separate site in eastern Ukraine.

“Four videos containing geotags filmed in different locations in and around Gukovo showed the launch of rockets,” the report said. “Cross-border attacks served as cover for a renewed military incursion in the summer of 2014.” Geotags can show where images and videos were created.


Drawing on satellite photographs and social media posts by Russian soldiers, the report shows the network of Russian military camps that have sprouted near the Ukrainian border and have been used to send Russian weapons and troops into eastern Ukraine. The camps, the report notes, are in plain view to “anyone with access to Google Earth or Google Maps.”

Using YouTube video, the report tracked the movement of Russian convoys, including armored vehicles and self-propelled artillery. In one case, the report notes, a Russian military convoy was filmed moving in August through Staraya Stanitsa, Russia. In February, a YouTube channel associated with Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists showed an armored vehicle from the same convoy in Ukraine.

By using satellite imagery and separate photographs of Russian equipment, the report also documents the movement of Russian tanks, SA-22 air-defense systems, Grad rocket launchers and armored reconnaissance vehicles.

American officials have at times used photographs to buttress their claims of Russian intervention. When Secretary of State John Kerry met with President Vladimir V. Putin in Sochi, Russia, this month, Mr. Kerry showed him photographs of Russian air defenses and other weapons in eastern Ukraine to try to persuade him that the United States had clear evidence of Russia’s military role, Western officials said.

Last year, NATO also issued satellite photographs of Russian artillery positions inside Ukraine to support its allegations of Russian involvement.

But the photographs Mr. Kerry showed Mr. Putin have not been made public. Russian officials, who have repeatedly portrayed Ukraine’s new government as the main obstacle to a political settlement, have dismissed NATO’s public evidence as misinformation.

Mr. Stoltenberg declined to say how many Russian troops were in Ukraine or positioned near its border. But one Western official, who asked not to be identified because he was discussing intelligence reports, said Russia had moved about nine battalion tactical groups close to its border with Ukraine, and that as many as five additional battalions could be sent there in coming weeks. The number of troops in such units can vary, but a battalion could have about 1,000 troops, creating a potential force of well over 10,000 Russian troops in Ukraine by this summer.

It is unclear if Russia is preparing for a major offensive to help Ukrainian separatists seize more territory or if it is trying to put pressure on the Ukrainian government to make more constitutional concessions. Either way, the moves by Russia’s military are a violation of the peace agreement that was negotiated in Minsk, Belarus, in February, which called for the removal of foreign troops, the pulling back of heavy weapons and the disbanding of “illegal groups.”

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said in a speech on Wednesday that the conflict over Ukraine is “a test for the West,” and that “President Putin is wagering that he has greater staying power.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/world/europe/videos-and-google-help-researchers-gauge-russias-presence-in-ukraine.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

[Feral Cat]

 May 27, 2015

Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine and Boris Nemtsov's Putin. War.

By Maksymilian Czuperski, John Herbst, Eliot Higgins, Alina Polyakova, and Damon Wilson
 


Russia is at war with Ukraine. Russian citizens and soldiers are fighting and dying in a war of their government's own making. Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to deny Russian involvement in the fighting, but the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. Drawing upon open source information, Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine provides irrefutable evidence of direct Russian military involvement in eastern Ukraine.

This report, the result of an Atlantic Council Working Group launched to examine direct Russian military involvement in Ukraine, has five key findings:

    Satellite images confirm the movement of Russian troops and camp buildups along the Ukrainian border.

    Russian training camps stationed along the Ukrainian border are the launching points of Russia's war in Ukraine. These camps are the staging ground for Russian military equipment transported into Ukraine, soon to join the separatist arsenal, and for Russian soldiers mobilized across Russia to cross into Ukraine.

    Commanders order Russian soldiers to conceal the identifying features of military vehicles, remove insignia from uniforms, and travel across the border to join separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.

    A variety of Russian manufactured arms and munitions—not used by the Ukrainian military—have appeared in the hands of separatists, including shoulder launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS), various types of rocket launchers, anti-tank guided missiles, landmines, and various small arms.

    During key offensives, Russian forces in Ukraine have received cover from Russian territory. A combination of satellite data, crater analysis, and open source materials confirms that many attacks originated in Russia.


Read the Report (PDF)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/8J54Vm53XGagf3xzV24xP5a5s83uFHEyUn1VUloHBDNruXj5pknTeDibpqRjOv95

[Feral Cat]

Про поїздку Керрі до Сочі і про наслідки на найблищче майбутнє

Alternative reality
Vladimir Putin concocts a new story on Ukraine, leaving the West wondering what he is up to

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21652339-vladimir-putin-concocts-new-story-ukraine-leaving-west-wondering-what-he-up

In fact, American sources insist Mr Kerry’s visit was meant not to make amends but to ascertain Mr Putin’s thinking on several issues. Will Mr Putin work against America on Iran? Is he willing to co-operate in Syria? Will he stop meddling in Ukraine? The answer to all three questions seemed to be no. Mr Kerry also delivered a message in response to Mr Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling: do not go too far in testing NATO’s military resolve, as it will backfire. Mr Putin spun Mr Kerry’s visit as a diplomatic triumph, but he now faces the question of what to do next.

The situation in Ukraine has reached a stalemate. Although Mr Putin endorsed the Minsk peace agreement last September, his goals are the opposite of those of Ukraine and the West. He wants the separatist Donbas to remain inside Ukraine, but as an open sore which Russia can prod when needed to control the country. Only once he has this “political settlement” will he discuss closing the border with Ukraine. The West wants Russia to secure the border and withdraw its forces from Ukraine, so that local elections in Donbas can pave the way for its reintegration. That would defy the purpose of Mr Putin’s exercise.

“The Kremlin wanted to conduct this war on the cheap,” says Alexander Baunov of the Carnegie Moscow Centre, a think-tank. The cost of restarting the war would be high. Russia would probably be hit with a fresh round of sanctions, which could bring down its banks. It would also have to send large numbers of regular troops to Ukraine, which most Russians do not support. The Kremlin’s hope is that Ukraine will simply implode under the weight of its economic problems.

But as Mr Kerry has learned, Mr Putin will not leave Ukraine alone. If all else fails, Russia will escalate, as its wargames in the region are meant to show. A full war would require greater mobilisation of the Russian public, control over all spheres of social life and broader repression. The Kremlin has already suppressed all independent political activity in the country. In the past week it has moved beyond politics.

[Адам Жоржович]

http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=9395

The US Nails Fifa, But It’s Putin Who Howls

"...But by far the best part of this is watching Vladimir Putin totally lose his sh*t over the arrests, and the parallel Swiss investigation of the awarding of the 2018 World Cup to Russia (as well as the 2022 WC to Qatar):

   

President Vladimir V. Putin sought to transform the burgeoning scandal over corruption in soccer’s international governing body into an extension of the confrontation between Russia and the West on Thursday, accusing the United States of global overreach while invoking the fates of Edward J. Snowden and Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder.

    Most world leaders remained mum, apparently waiting for more details to emerge, but Mr. Putin went on the offensive immediately.

    He used the moment to again portray Russia as under siege — in this case threatened with the humiliating loss of the right to host the 2018 World Cup, a move considered unlikely.

    Mr. Putin called the arrests of top FIFA officials in Zurich on Wednesday “another blatant attempt by the United States to extend its jurisdiction to other states,” according to a transcript of an overnight news conference posted on the Kremlin website. Mr. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked classified information about global surveillance programs, and Mr. Assange, whose website published United States military and diplomatic documents, have both eluded American prosecution by taking refuge in other countries.

Note to VVP: idiots who use American banks to launder money and arrange corrupt transactions on American soil are most decidedly in the jurisdiction of the US.

But come to think of it, it’s precisely the fact that Putin knows that all too well which explains his howling like a scalded cat. It hits very close to home. It demonstrates a  vulnerability of which he is all too aware of, and neuralgic about.

Putin also conveniently overlooks the fact that it is the Swiss who have announced that they are examining specifically the awarding of the World Cup to Russia. The US said nothing about that, and indeed, the US embassy in Moscow said the indictments have nothing to do with Russia, so cool your jets, Vlad. Though, of course, Attorney General Lynch’s statement that the investigation is not over clearly looms over Putin and Russia. But the fact that the Swiss are involved makes it harder to make this a purely evil American plot.

It’s also hilarious to see that Gazprom assured Fifa that it would not terminate its sponsorship. So good to know that Fifa still lives up to Gazprom’s high standards for corruption.

Putin’s raising the issue of the “persecution” of Snowden and Julian Assange is also beyond parody. For Putin to credit Snowden as a hero for revealing secrets nearly simultaneously with Russia’s passing a law that makes information regarding the deaths of Russian servicemen on “special operations” during peacetime a state secret is particularly outlandish. To defend  the Pale One at anytime is bizarre. (Perhaps Vlad sees his fate when he looks at Assange-hiding out in a friendly embassy, dependent on a sun lamp for his Vitamin D.)

The statements of the Russian sport minister are also amusing. “We have nothing to hide.” (Who said you did? And if you have nothing to hide, why did you destroy the rented computers on which contained all of the Russian bidding committee’s correspondence and work product?)

The best: “I see no threat to Russia.”

If this is no threat, why is Putin freaking out? His over the top reaction betrays a deep fear that Russia and everyone involved in the WC bid, including Roman Abramovich and Putin himself) will be implicated. So many people arrested have an incentive to sing like birds. So many computers to search (including Fifa’s, which the Swiss are doing presently).

I am actually somewhat surprised at Putin’s reaction. He has been rather relaxed lately. The old cockiness has returned. The insecurity and paranoia of late-2014 and early-2015 had apparently vanished. He would have been much better off had he played this cool, and ignored the issue altogether. By making such a big deal out of it he looks guilty as hell. Which he doubtless is, but he could have fooled a lot more people had he just blown this off. A public fit screams a deep concern that he indeed very much has something-or somethings-to hide.

The next weeks and months should be rather enjoyable, watching  Blatter and Putin rant and squirm. And maybe, in the end, the world’s football-I mean soccer!-fanatics will be spared the torture of visiting Russia in 2018."

[Feral Cat]

 

The Pale One... 

[Feral Cat]

Нарешті приходить на Захід розуміння, що проблема не в Хуйлі, а власне в самих кацапах. 

Europe’s problem is with Russia, not Putin

The west acts as if it had a Vladimir Putin problem. In fact it has a Russia problem. The Russian president stands within a long tradition of Russian thinking. His departure would fix nothing. Any plausible successor would pursue a similar course, if perhaps with a little less machismo.

The Russia problem is not new. It emerged 200 years ago, at the end of the Napoleonic period, with the opening up of what we would today call a values gap. In the 19th century Russia maintained an autocratic regime as Europe moved towards liberal democracy.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0ff7324-03b5-11e5-a70f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3bpQdiuL3

[Feral Cat]

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...nd-in-kyiv

Кореспондент з Канади пише, що Київ справив на нього "сюрреальне враження." "Здається, єдиною турботою майже всіх киян у ці свята є, яким би ще чином розслабитися і добре потішитися. І це при тому, що більшість з них повторює, як вони втомилися від цієї війни, і скільки вони на неї пожертвували. (...) Зовсім не те в Росії. Там путінська пропаганда нагадує народові 24 години на день і 7 днів на тиждень, що їх батьківщина є під загрозою українського фашизму."

The city’s gilded youth and Mafia overlords glided past in their smart Bentleys and German luxury sedans and sports cars. Cafés, restaurants, night clubs and parks downtown were packed. Khreshchatyk Street, the broad main thoroughfare leading to Maidan, was closed to traffic as thousands of people, including many young men who clearly did not have to serve in the military, strolled by.

To look at this crowd was to conclude Ukrainians do not have a care in the world.

There were still a few traces of the revolution and its ill-starred aftermath. There was a small open-air photo gallery depicting the conflict in the east. A group of soldiers’ mothers was taking donations for the war effort. A half-dozen strapping men in army fatigues and maroon berets were walking around purposefully.

One of the ironies of the current situation is that time and time again people in Kyiv who do not appear to have suffered at all said they were tired of the war. They also said no matter how things looked on the surface, many had been personally touched by the war because they had neighbours or kin fighting in the east or living amid the ruins there.

Time and again, people explained they or their friends had given a lot of what little money they had to support the war effort. Their contributions had bought medicines and provided the troops with equipment such as night-vision goggles, which they gleefully noted had been purchased in Russia.

Still, the atmosphere in Russia is rather different. Putin has had his countrymen on a 24/7 rhetorical war footing for many months. He and his aides have raged constantly about how their Motherland is threatened with encirclement by the West and Washington was using Ukraine as a proxy to attack Russia.

Paradoxically, despite the seeming reverie and apparent lack of concern in Kyiv’s inhabitants over the fate of their compatriots in the east, Putin’s actions have unquestionably strengthened Ukraine’s national identity. Blue and yellow flags fly everywhere in the capital and unlike a few years ago, almost everyone loudly proclaims their love for their country.

The war has also bitten deeply into most pocketbooks. A car importer says his business is down 60 per cent from last year and even more compared to 2013. Because of the collapse of Ukraine’s currency, cars that once cost 160,000 hryvnia now cost 440,000 hryvnia.

A woman who works with a children’s publishing house producing books in Ukrainian and Russian says before Russia annexed Crimea last March, she earned US$1,000 a month. Today, it’s only $250 because sales to Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan have evaporated.

The International Monetary Fund reckons Ukraine’s gross domestic product will shrink by nine per cent this year, while inflation will go up 46 per cent. It has agreed to provide US$17.5 billion in emergency funding, but the bailout will only happen with this big caveat: The agency must be convinced the country is serious about economic reform and combating endemic corruption.

There was a perverse logic to how people in Kyiv defended themselves when asked whether they were truly fully committed to the war. A common theme was that “with so much uncertainty we have concluded that we must live for today.”

[Feral Cat]

[Feral Cat]

Pentagon chief gathers diplomats, brass for Russia strategy talk
STUTTGART | By David Alexander

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Thursday the situation with Russia had taken a "sad turn" and he was gathering U.S. military leaders and diplomats to assess the effectiveness of NATO strategy toward Moscow in response to the Ukraine crisis.

The gathering of two dozen U.S. military leaders and ambassadors based in Europe will take place on Friday in Stuttgart at the headquarters of U.S. European Command, which is responsible for U.S. forces in the region, U.S. defense officials said.

"We have something that has taken a sad turn recently, which is Russia," Carter told troops at U.S. Africa Command, which is also based in Stuttgart, in southern Germany.

"We were absolutely hoping for something different, but it appears that (Russian President) Vladimir Putin is taking his country in a different direction."

"I don't think that's a good way for Russia and at some point the Russian people will wake up to that, but they are not showing much sign of that now," he added. "The situation here (in Europe) is not as rosy as it might have seemed in the past."

Carter said that's why he had traveled to Stuttgart, "to take another look at what we are doing here."

The session will gather U.S. military leaders and ambassadors based in Europe to discuss how effective Western sanctions and military actions have been in deterring Russia and reassuring NATO allies, U.S. defense officials said.

"This meeting is intended to inform the secretary's thinking as he heads into his first NATO ministerial in late June," said Brent Colburn, a Pentagon spokesman. "One of the areas of focus will be Russia's actions over the past 18 months, including their operations in Ukraine."

The Western allies have imposed asset freezes and travel bans on a number of Russians. The United States launched Operation Atlantic Resolve to step up military exercises with NATO members in eastern Europe. The United States approved $1 billion to support efforts to reassure European allies.

"The … primary purpose is to assess and strategize on how the United States and key allies should think about heightened tensions with Russia over the past year," said a U.S. defense official on Carter's plane to Stuttgart.

Asked if the session would discuss providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, the official said Carter was still open to the idea and the issue could come up. The United States so far has resisted providing lethal arms to avoid escalating the conflict.

[Feral Cat]

Коротко - Керрі проти того, щоб Порошенко нагадував Хуйлу і НАТО про Крим. Нуланд - навпаки - за.
Обама в цьому плані підтримує Нуланд. 

On May 21, I headlined "Secretary of State John Kerry v. His Subordinate Victoria Nuland, Regarding Ukraine," and quoted John Kerry's May 12 warning to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to cease his repeated threats to invade Crimea and re-invade Donbass, two former regions of Ukraine, which had refused to accept the legitimacy of the new regime that was imposed on Ukraine in violent clashes during February 2014. (These were regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the Ukrainian President who had just been overthrown. They didn't like him being violently tossed out and replaced by his enemies.)

Kerry said then that, regarding Poroshenko, "We would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be."

Also quoted there was Kerry's subordinate, Victoria Nuland, three days later, saying the exact opposite, that we "reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine." I noted, then that, "The only person with the power to fire Nuland is actually U.S. President Barack Obama." However, Obama instead has sided with Nuland on this.

Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, bannered, on June 5, "Poroshenko: Ukraine Will 'Do Everything' To Retake Crimea'," and reported that, "President Petro Poroshenko has vowed to seek Crimea's return to Ukrainian rule. ... Speaking at a news conference on June 5, ... Poroshenko said that 'every day and every moment, we will do everything to return Crimea to Ukraine.'" Poroshenko was also quoted there as saying, "It is important not to give Russia a chance to break the world's pro-Ukrainian coalition," which indirectly insulted Kerry for his having criticized Poroshenko's warnings that he intended to invade Crimea and Donbass.

Right now, the Minsk II ceasefire has broken down and there are accusations on both sides that the other is to blame. What cannot be denied is that at least three times, on April 30, then on May 11, and then on June 5, Poroshenko has repeatedly promised to invade Crimea, which wasn't even mentioned in the Minsk II agreement; and that he was also promising to re-invade Donbass, something that is explicitly prohibited in this agreement. Furthermore, America's President, Barack Obama, did not fire Kerry's subordinate, Nuland, for her contradicting her boss on this important matter.

How will that be taken in European capitals? Kerry was reaffirming the position of Merkel and Hollande, the key shapers of the Minsk II agreement; and Nuland was nullifying them. Obama now has sided with Nuland on this; it's a slap in the face to the EU: Poroshenko can continue ignoring Kerry and can blatantly ignore the Minsk II agreement; and Obama tacitly sides with Poroshenko and Nuland, against Kerry.

The personalities here are important: On February 4, 2014, in the very same phone-conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, America's Ambassador in Ukraine, in which Nuland had instructed Pyatt to get "Yats" Yatsenyuk appointed to lead Ukraine after the coup (which then occured 18 days later), she also famously said "F--k the EU!" Obama is now seconding that statement of hers.

In effect, Obama is telling the EU that they can get anything they want signed, but that he would still move forward with his own policy, regardless of whether or not they like it.

Kerry, for his part, now faces the decision as to whether to quit -- which would force the EU's hand regarding whether to continue with U.S. policy there -- or else for Kerry to stay in office and be disrespected in all capitals for his staying on after having been so blatantly contradicted by his subordinate on a key issue of U.S. foreign policy. If he stays on while Nuland also does, then, in effect, Kerry is being cut out of policymaking on Europe and Asia (Nuland's territory), altogether, and the EU needs to communicate directly with Obama on everything, or else to communicate with Nuland as if she and not Kerry were the actual U.S. Secretary of State. But if Kerry instead quits, then the pressure would be placed on EU officials: whether to continue with the U.S., or to reject U.S. anti-Russia policy, and to move forward by leaving NATO, and all that that entails?

If they then decide to stay with the U.S., after that "F--k the EU!" and then this; then, the European countries are clearly just U.S. colonies. This would be far more embarrassing to those leaders than John Kerry would be embarrassed by his simply resigning from the U.S. State Department. It might even turn the tide and force the Ukrainian Government to follow through with all of its commitments under the Minsk II accords.

It would be the most effective thing for Kerry to do at this stage. But, it would lose him his position as a (now merely nominal) member of Obama's Cabinet.

The way this turns out will show a lot, about John Kerry. The nations of Europe already know everything they need to know about Barack Obama. If Kerry quits, he'll have respect around the world. If he stays, he'll be just another Colin Powell.

The ball is in Kerry's court, and everyone will see how he plays it -- and what type of man he is (and isn't).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/obama-sidelines-kerry-on-_b_7527342.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[savitar]

Коротко - Керрі проти того, щоб Порошенко нагадував Хуйлу і НАТО про Крим. Нуланд - навпаки - за.
Обама в цьому плані підтримує Нуланд. 

(click to show/hide)

On May 21, I headlined "Secretary of State John Kerry v. His Subordinate Victoria Nuland, Regarding Ukraine," and quoted John Kerry's May 12 warning to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to cease his repeated threats to invade Crimea and re-invade Donbass, two former regions of Ukraine, which had refused to accept the legitimacy of the new regime that was imposed on Ukraine in violent clashes during February 2014. (These were regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the Ukrainian President who had just been overthrown. They didn't like him being violently tossed out and replaced by his enemies.)

Kerry said then that, regarding Poroshenko, "We would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be."

Also quoted there was Kerry's subordinate, Victoria Nuland, three days later, saying the exact opposite, that we "reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine." I noted, then that, "The only person with the power to fire Nuland is actually U.S. President Barack Obama." However, Obama instead has sided with Nuland on this.

Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, bannered, on June 5, "Poroshenko: Ukraine Will 'Do Everything' To Retake Crimea'," and reported that, "President Petro Poroshenko has vowed to seek Crimea's return to Ukrainian rule. ... Speaking at a news conference on June 5, ... Poroshenko said that 'every day and every moment, we will do everything to return Crimea to Ukraine.'" Poroshenko was also quoted there as saying, "It is important not to give Russia a chance to break the world's pro-Ukrainian coalition," which indirectly insulted Kerry for his having criticized Poroshenko's warnings that he intended to invade Crimea and Donbass.

Right now, the Minsk II ceasefire has broken down and there are accusations on both sides that the other is to blame. What cannot be denied is that at least three times, on April 30, then on May 11, and then on June 5, Poroshenko has repeatedly promised to invade Crimea, which wasn't even mentioned in the Minsk II agreement; and that he was also promising to re-invade Donbass, something that is explicitly prohibited in this agreement. Furthermore, America's President, Barack Obama, did not fire Kerry's subordinate, Nuland, for her contradicting her boss on this important matter.

How will that be taken in European capitals? Kerry was reaffirming the position of Merkel and Hollande, the key shapers of the Minsk II agreement; and Nuland was nullifying them. Obama now has sided with Nuland on this; it's a slap in the face to the EU: Poroshenko can continue ignoring Kerry and can blatantly ignore the Minsk II agreement; and Obama tacitly sides with Poroshenko and Nuland, against Kerry.

The personalities here are important: On February 4, 2014, in the very same phone-conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, America's Ambassador in Ukraine, in which Nuland had instructed Pyatt to get "Yats" Yatsenyuk appointed to lead Ukraine after the coup (which then occured 18 days later), she also famously said "F--k the EU!" Obama is now seconding that statement of hers.

In effect, Obama is telling the EU that they can get anything they want signed, but that he would still move forward with his own policy, regardless of whether or not they like it.

Kerry, for his part, now faces the decision as to whether to quit -- which would force the EU's hand regarding whether to continue with U.S. policy there -- or else for Kerry to stay in office and be disrespected in all capitals for his staying on after having been so blatantly contradicted by his subordinate on a key issue of U.S. foreign policy. If he stays on while Nuland also does, then, in effect, Kerry is being cut out of policymaking on Europe and Asia (Nuland's territory), altogether, and the EU needs to communicate directly with Obama on everything, or else to communicate with Nuland as if she and not Kerry were the actual U.S. Secretary of State. But if Kerry instead quits, then the pressure would be placed on EU officials: whether to continue with the U.S., or to reject U.S. anti-Russia policy, and to move forward by leaving NATO, and all that that entails?

If they then decide to stay with the U.S., after that "F--k the EU!" and then this; then, the European countries are clearly just U.S. colonies. This would be far more embarrassing to those leaders than John Kerry would be embarrassed by his simply resigning from the U.S. State Department. It might even turn the tide and force the Ukrainian Government to follow through with all of its commitments under the Minsk II accords.

It would be the most effective thing for Kerry to do at this stage. But, it would lose him his position as a (now merely nominal) member of Obama's Cabinet.

The way this turns out will show a lot, about John Kerry. The nations of Europe already know everything they need to know about Barack Obama. If Kerry quits, he'll have respect around the world. If he stays, he'll be just another Colin Powell.

The ball is in Kerry's court, and everyone will see how he plays it -- and what type of man he is (and isn't).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/obama-sidelines-kerry-on-_b_7527342.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Керри и Лавров друзяки - ничего удивительного.

[Feral Cat]

Poroshenko Makes Putin Look Like a Wimp 
399 Jun 4, 2015 3:18 PM EDT
By Leonid Bershidsky

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, in his first state of the nation address, offered an impressively concrete plan for turning his country's economy around. Difficult as it may be to convert his vision into reality, it's a speech that Russian President Vladimir Putin should have had the courage to make.

In December, when Putin made his address to the Russian parliament, he had little to say about an economy in which bribe-seeking officials and an oppressive state are crushing the dynamism needed to get out of a deepening slump. All he offered was a cut in the number of inspections that businesses have to endure from all kinds of regulatory bodies and a four-year freeze on the existing tax regime. In speech that stretched to more than 8,000 words in English translation, he didn't speak a word about corruption or address how his billionaire friends have enriched themselves on government contracts.

Poroshenko's approach was so different that it's hard to imagine the two countries used to be almost one. Invoking Thatcherism and Reaganomics, he expressed dissatisfaction with his government's efforts to ease tax and regulatory burdens -- it has cut the number of business activities requiring licences to 26 from 56 and scrapped the obligatory certification of a number of products. "No one has felt yet that things are substantially easier and we need specific results like oxygen," he said.

He stressed the need for broad privatization, saying state companies' management "has already been privatized along with their revenue streams." Himself a billionaire (or as close to one as any Ukrainian can be under the circumstances), he said oligarchs would no longer get rich off Ukraine's once-huge fuel subsidies, which have already been sharply reduced.

Poroshenko complained that his government's anti-corruption campaign had so far succeeded mainly in making bribery more expensive by increasing the risk to bureaucrats. "The image of the state is formed in citizens' eyes by the tax inspector, the customs man, the cop," he said. "While they're on the take, people won't believe the sincerity of our anti-corruption intentions." He said further reforms were already under way in the police force and prosecution service, led by people who had achieved results in Georgia after its 2003 Rose revolution.

To be sure, Ukraine's economic predicament leaves it little choice but to embrace radical reform. Its gross domestic product declined 17.6 percent in the first quarter, compared with a drop of 1.9 percent in Russia. As Herman Gref, chief executive of Russia's biggest bank, Sberbank, joked in a recent interview, "reforms begin when money runs out, so we'll wait for that to happen." Still, relaxing government pressure, shaking up the corrupt bureaucracy and creating opportunities for private business in Russia could help offset the effect of the cool war and the country's international isolation.

Putin is missing his chance. Poroshenko, prodded by his Western allies and creditors, is eager to seize his.

It's hard to say whether Poroshenko can actually transform his country. Serhiy Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist and now a legislator with Poroshenko's party, recently wrote a long article about the Ukrainian oligarchs' continued sway over the country's economy. Businesspeople still complain of corruption reaching into the top echelons off government. And some of the measures Poroshenko proposes -- such as the old idea of anti-corruption sting operations -- are little more than populist noise.

Still, at least Ukraine is heading in the right direction. Putin, whose country is better off and much less anarchic, could have achieved much greater success with less effort -- but he's too intent on his grievances and territorial ambitions to care. If Ukraine manages to pull out of the deepest crisis in its history and re-emerge as a functioning democratic country with a liberal economic model,  it will do more to undermine Russians' passive support for Putin than any Western pressure ever could.

To contact the author on this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor on this story:
Mark Whitehouse at mwhitehouse1@bloomberg.net

[Feral Cat]

The Budapest Memorandum and the Russia-Ukraine Crisis
David S. Yost   

http://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-budapest-memorandum-and-the-russia-ukraine-crisis/

[Feral Cat]

Правнучка Хрущова написала

The Goebbels of the Kremlin

Nina L. Khrushcheva

MOSCOW – In Soviet Russia, everybody knew that they were being watched. Any deviation from officially sanctioned behavior would be treated with suspicion and most likely punished. The Soviet state saw itself as being at war with almost everything – foreign spies, class enemies, people wearing jeans or playing jazz. The regime’s dominant ideology was not Marxism-Leninism, but suspicion and animosity.

Not since the early 1980s, before the first rays of glasnost in Russia, have those dark times felt as close as they do now. Protecting society from enemies, foreign and domestic, is once again the order of the day. Indeed, an ethos of perpetual vigilance is central to sustaining President Vladimir Putin’s high popular-approval ratings. And no one plays a more important role in creating the necessary public atmosphere than Vladislav Surkov.

Once Putin’s chief of staff, Surkov served as Deputy Prime Minister from 2011 to 2013. He now formally advises Putin on foreign affairs, but is really the regime’s chief propagandist. He has been credited with the introduction of the concept of “managed democracy” in Russia, and he played a leading role in nurturing the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. More recently, he was a guiding hand behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, inspiring the feverish media campaigns that have delivered near-universal public support for these moves.

Surkov is the man most responsible for nurturing pro-Putin sentiment, which increasingly resembles a Stalin-like cult of personality. Surkov is Chechen by descent, infused – like Stalin – with the saber-rattling mindset of the Caucasus. Under his watch, the central focus of the Kremlin’s communication strategy has been to sustain the perception that the West wants to destroy Russia. Thus, the conflict in Ukraine has been framed as a renewed struggle against fascism – and in defense of Russia’s true, anti-Western identity. The supposed threat to Russia today was underscored for the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, with billboards springing up across Moscow to remind Russians of the sacrifices that victory required.

Like the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, Surkov is not overly concerned about facts. Emotions are at the core of the Kremlin’s message; indeed, they are the tie that binds Putin to his subjects. This is why Surkov portrays Putin, who recently divorced his wife of 30 years and is rumored to have fathered several children with a former Olympic gymnast, as an avatar of conservative values, with the Orthodox Patriarch constantly at his side. The Kremlin’s campaign against gay rights has secured the support of the church, while reminding ordinary Russians that the state takes a watchful interest in their lives.

Today’s Russian propaganda combines quintessentially Soviet-style heavy-handedness and state-of-the-art technique. There have been no mass purges and few large rallies. Western values may be under assault, but Western goods are welcome. A common sight in Russia is a shiny German-made car with a bumper sticker recalling the glories of World War II: “On to Berlin” or “Thank you, grandfather, for the victory, and grandmother for the tough bullets.”

For the last two decades, Russians have been able to travel internationally without restrictions. Now, however, many seem ready to give up this right. Last month, the Kremlin warned the country’s citizens that the United States was “hunting” Russians abroad. A few Russians have indeed been arrested and extradited to the US: the arms dealer Viktor Bout, for example, who is charged with providing aid to terrorists, or the hacker Vladimir Drinkman, who is accused of stealing millions of credit card numbers. There is no credible threat to ordinary Russians, yet Surkov’s campaign is having a profound impact.

Rather than risking mockery with outlandish claims – a staple of Soviet propagandists – that Russia will one day surpass the West economically, Surkov taps a deeper and safer emotion: fear. Whatever Russians think of the country’s economic malaise – GDP is expected to contract by 3.8% this year, while inflation could top 15% – they are assured that they would be much worse off without Putin.

And Russians have fallen into line. A few years ago, it seemed that every tenth person wore a white ribbon, a symbol of protest against Putin. Today, one gets the impression that every third Russian is wearing the Ribbon of Saint George, an orange and black symbol of patriotism and loyalty to the Kremlin. Those who do not wear the ribbon can expect to be asked – and not very politely – why they choose not to.

It is an insidious and effective strategy, one that marginalizes dissenters and generates the impression of near-universal support for the regime. On my last visit to Moscow, I noticed that a friend, a singer in the Bolshoi opera, had tied a small Ribbon of Saint George to her white Mercedes. Though she is no fan of Putin, she did not want to stand out unnecessarily.

It is through small surrenders like hers that men like Surkov ultimately succeed. Citizens pretending to be loyal build a culture of conformity. With dissent suppressed, the authenticity of citizens’ loyalty becomes irrelevant. Indeed, like Goebbels, Surkov understands that when public life and private expression can be turned into theater, there is no difference between performance and reality.

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/vladislav-surkov-putin-adviser-by-nina-l--khrushcheva-2015-06#2OujXQDxg35HrDM1.99

[Feral Cat]

Ще один корисний ідіот Хуйла... 

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/putin-talks-ukraine-syria-and-u-s-relations-with-charlie-rose/

[Feral Cat]

МВФ вимагає від України заплатити Хуйлу 3 мільярди, які той дав Януковеджу. 

The IMF Bows to Putin in Ukraine 
273 Jun 23, 2015 12:34 PM EDT
By Leonid Bershidsky

Notions of justice and morality rarely apply to debt restructuring negotiations. Most parties want to get the best result that everyone can accept and move on. Nonetheless, what's going on with Ukraine's debt is disturbing.

The country's protracted battle with Russia, mismanagement under previous president Viktor Yanukovych, and a painful 2014 currency devaluation have wreaked havoc on its finances, impairing its ability to pay its sovereign debt. The government is thus insisting that private investors such as Franklin Templeton accept a "last chance" deal involving a 40 percent haircut and the possibility of receiving new bonds if the economy performs better than expected. The government is threatening a moratorium on debt repayments if the creditors don't agree.

At the same time, the government is acting very differently toward another major creditor: Russia, the country that helped get it into this mess. On Monday, Ukraine announced that it had paid a $75 million coupon on a $3 billion bond it issued to Russia last December. The debt, structured as a Eurobond registered in Ireland, is legally the same as that held by the private creditors -- a feature intended to protect Russia, because failure to pay would trigger early repayment on all the rest of Ukraine's Eurobonds. But last year, after Ukraine's "revolution of dignity," Russia sought to modify the bond's status: Finance Minister Anton Siluanov declared it the official debt of one country to another to avoid being part of any restructuring negotiations.

Now, Russia appears to have found an unlikely ally in the International Monetary Fund. Bloomberg reports today that fund staffers have decided to treat the Russian bond as official rather than private debt. At the same time, the IMF has been helping Ukraine put pressure on the private investors: A top fund official has suggested that Ukraine can stop paying them and still be eligible to receive IMF loans. IMF rules allow it to lend to countries that are in arrears to private creditors but not necessarily to official ones.

By taking Russia's side, the IMF is helping to destroy the private creditors' argument, backed by Moody's on Monday, that Ukraine doesn't need a reduction in the principal value of its debt. They say rescheduling payments would be enough to save $15.3 billion over four years -- the goal set out in the IMF's bailout program. The math doesn't work, however, if Ukraine has to pay $3 billion to Russia this year.

The IMF appears to be taking a pragmatic stance. Russia, after all, has shown that it has unconventional means of enforcing repayment. Its armed proxies control a sizable part of Ukraine's industrial east. If needed, regular Russian troops can inflict lasting damage on what remains of the country's export potential by shelling a few steel mills. If the IMF said it would keep lending to Kiev after a default on the Russian bond, there could be unpredictable consequences.

From the point of view of commonsense justice, though, Ukraine shouldn't owe Russia anything. It should be the other way around. The state-owned Ukrainian assets Russia expropriated in Crimea are alone worth much more than $3 billion. Even if Ukraine doesn't recognize the annexation of Crimea, Russia will be using the land, buildings, ships, equipment and natural resources for years without paying anything.

The IMF, however, seems poised to push Ukraine to pay the Russian bond in full. This is the same as telling the rest of the world that might makes right. You there at Templeton: Got tanks? No? All right, we want you to accept a principal reduction. The bear gets fed, while the herbivores get fleeced. 

To contact the author on this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor on this story:
Mark Whitehouse at mwhitehouse1@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-23/the-imf-bows-to-putin-in-ukraine

[Адам Жоржович]

The IMF Bows to Putin in Ukraine 
273 Jun 23, 2015 12:34 PM EDT
By Leonid Bershidsky

Бершицький - відоме хуйлятко, тому навіть якщо він запостить про "2х2=4" я б його сюди не тягав.

[Feral Cat]

На біса цього підора Міграняна запрошувати в США?
Це ж така сука Геббельс номер два.
Кілька років тому я йому публічно напхав в присутності сотні американських “інтєлєхтуалов“. Але зробив це культурно, і воно падло все одно обісране гнуло свою лінію - брехало в очі.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-russia-really-wants-13169


"I am absolutely sure that Russia is not going to yield anything," Andranik Migranyan told an audience at the Center for the National Interest.

[Адам Жоржович]

На біса цього підора Міграняна запрошувати в США?

А нахуя в зоопарк ходять? Мо цікаво людям на екзотичну тварюку подивитися, паличкою її потикати. 

[aag]

Це в якому зоопарку тварин тикають паличкою? Просто цікаво. Десь на кацапії?

[Адам Жоржович]

Це в якому зоопарку тварин тикають паличкою? Просто цікаво. Десь на кацапії?

Цікаві досліди з тварюками проводяться у всіх зоопарках світу, синку. 

[Feral Cat]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/10/china-russia-sco-ufa-summit-putin-xi-jinping-eurasian-union-silk-road/?utm_content=buffer1d0dd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

In the past decade, Beijing and Moscow have been more competitors than partners. But that relationship may now be changing as Russian and Chinese leaders are considering combining their two countries’ regional economic projects — the Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Road Economic Belt, respectively.

While meeting at a two-day summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Ufa, Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are reportedly discussing a framework that would merge China’s multi-billion dollar network of roads, railways, and pipelines through Central Asia with the Eurasian Union, the post-Soviet economic bloc that includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. The two projects would be combined under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and if the proposal is completed, it would make the opaque organization the preeminent economic body from Shanghai to St. Petersburg.

“For the first time there is a working group on this topic and at the moment the merger of the two projects seems feasible,” Alexander Gabuev, senior associate and the chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, told Foreign Policy. The proposal would combine the regulation of the Moscow-led bloc with the deep pockets of China, which has already invested more than $50 billion in Central Asia. Piggybacking on the Eurasian Union’s joint customs space could drastically reduce costs for shipping products from China to Europe, with goods only having to cross one unified tariff zone before entering the European Union.

“There is a strong commercial logic for this plan, it’s not just about geopolitics,” said Gabuev.

Formed in 2001 by China, Russia, and four Central Asian countries, the SCO was originally created to settle border disputes between members. Successful in its original task, the bloc has taken many forms in the following years, from development to counterterrorism, but has struggled to play a defining role on any one issue.

Leaders at Ufa approved applications by India and Pakistan to join as full members of the SCO on Friday, and Russia hopes Iran will join after United Nations sanctions on Tehran are lifted. “A reinvigorated SCO fueled by a China-Russia partnership could suddenly make the organization very relevant,” said Luca Anceschi, a Central Asia expert at the University of Glasgow.

State media in both countries are already trumpeting the cooperation proposal and the SCO, with the Chinese state news agency Xinhua calling it a blueprint for “cooperation and prosperity of the whole Eurasian continent.” That marks quite a departure from Moscow and Beijing’s previous tug of war over influence in Central Asia.

As Putin has found himself isolated from the West and his economy weakened by sanctions and falling oil prices, the Kremlin has aimed to bolster its relationship with Beijing. Russia’s pivot east has come mostly in the form of energy deals, exemplified by a gas deal last year worth more than $400 billion. Moscow also joined the Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank this year, and is in talks at the Ufa summit to start a new development bank under the SCO, a proposition that Moscow had previously nixed for fear of giving China too much power in its sphere of influence.

But under these new circumstances, Russia is recalibrating its position in Central Asia and other parts of the former Soviet Union. “The Eurasian Union has not been the success Moscow hoped it would be,” said Anceschi. Since coming into effect in January, the bloc has been marred by trade disputes between Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia and has not delivered the economic stimulus promised to its members. “The Kremlin knows that they won’t be able to compete with Chinese investment,” said Anceschi. “Russia simply can’t catch up.”

Russia is instead aiming to retain its influence as the security guarantor in the region, keeping its sway in the region through military bases in Central Asia, arms deals, and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a security bloc of former Soviet countries. This formula satisfies both China, which is wary of deploying troops beyond its borders, and Central Asian countries used to a Russian military presence.

“Under this arrangement, China would be the bank and Russia would be the big gun,” said Gabuev.

Despite the roadmap being drawn in Ufa, the agreement still faces major obstacles before coming into effect. According to experts, the Russian leadership is divided on anchoring itself so firmly to China. On one side, pragmatic technocrats within the Russian government view cooperation with China as an economic necessity given Moscow’s falling out with the West, its inability to match Beijing’s deep pockets, and the fact that Russia needs Chinese investment. But the Russian security organs remain wary of how an unimpeded China could erode Russian influence. At least for the moment, the pragmatic camp seems to winning the argument.

[Feral Cat]

It is clear that the Obama administration thinks it should and can make peace with anyone, whether they like it or not, and whether or not they actually change their odious behavior. These terrible deals with Cuba, Russia, and Iran—it’s like the old joke about the businessman who sells each unit at a loss but says he’ll make it up in volume. Cuba continues to jail journalists and dissidents. Putin’s forces are still illegally occupying Crimea and waging war in Eastern Ukraine while Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bullies the Ukrainian government into the concessions that Putin demanded in the latest Minsk ceasefire accord (which his troops ignore, of course).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/22/springtime-for-america-s-enemies.html

[Feral Cat]

To Support Ukraine, West Must Go Beyond Sanctions

23 July 2015
James Sherr



Providing critical military assistance to Ukraine would devalue Russia’s advantage in negotiations.

From the outset of the Ukraine crisis, the West has acted on the premise that economic sanctions would induce Russia to modify its actions. But while sanctions do constrain capacity, they do not constrain behaviour. Their immediate impact is bearable. Moreover, they do nothing to diminish Russia’s most usable and effective form of power: military force. Given the stakes, the case for strengthening Ukraine’s defences is compelling.

The Russian military offensive of August 2014 secured diplomatic concessions in Minsk that would not have been granted otherwise. An even more devastating offensive of January-February 2015, in blatant violation of the first Minsk agreement, produced a second Minsk accord even more flawed than the first. According to its terms, future election conditions, constitutional reform and the restoration of border control are subject to the agreement of the separatists, who have licence to withhold their consent indefinitely.

It is blindingly obvious to the Kremlin that the separatist enclaves are neither absorbable by Russia nor sustainable in the long term. They are useful solely as a bridgehead for securing Russia’s wider objectives in Ukraine: its ‘federalization’ (loss of sovereignty), ‘non-bloc status’ (enforced neutrality) and the abandonment of its European course. So far, military force has been the arbiter of this process.

But if Russia’s military card is devalued, so is the bridgehead. And there are good reasons to believe strengthening Kyiv’s military muscle would be effective.

Russia has underestimated Ukraine’s resilience. Ukrainian national sentiment and civil society have been strengthened by the war, especially in the east. It also has underestimated the capacity of Ukraine’s fighting forces.  Despite 16 months of armed insurgency and two military offensives backed by regular Russian troops, Russia’s separatist allies control less than five percent of Ukraine’s mainland territory.

Russia’s military system is potent but under strain. Its battle groups are not occupation forces. They strike hard and withdraw. The maintenance of 40-50,000 troops in theatre have placed demands on ground forces units as far away as Kazakhstan and Vladivostok. There is reluctance to risk prolonged exposure of ethnic Russian servicemen to hostile Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine.

Nevertheless, Ukraine’s armed forces lack the means to prevail in high-intensity combat against well-armed Russian troops. They are burdened by the hangover of a largely unreformed defence system, by distrust between volunteer units and higher command echelons, and by a deficit of competent command and staff officers above unit level. Yet they are also dangerously outmatched in hard capability. In the Debaltseve offensive, Russia brought into the field advanced weapons systems against which Ukraine had no countermeasures.

Kyiv needs capabilities that will protect its forces and slow down the battlefield.  If opposition forces are likely to face effective resistance and protracted combat, they will be less likely to attack. And the equipment needed to achieve this — secure communications, electronic counter-measures and long-range passive counter-battery radar — are neither ‘lethal’ weapons nor politically high-profile. Yet, in their absence, even a well-trained and highly motivated force risks evisceration in battle.

Much has changed since President Obama first declined Ukraine’s request for non-lethal assistance, and NATO allies are now contributing to Ukraine’s defence in a variety of ways. The problem is that the contribution is unsystematic, uncoordinated and unevenly matched to Ukraine’s needs.

In many quarters, it is now axiomatic that a refocusing and enhancement of Western assistance will ‘provoke’ Putin into a dramatic escalation of the conflict.  The risk exists.  Yet there is nothing in Putin’s record to support this assumption.  What has repeatedly provoked him however is weakness and bluff.

In a contest with high-risk players, there is no such thing as a risk-free policy.  Failure to modify an ineffective policy invites at least as much danger as a more robust course. Today’s dangers are created by Russia’s political aims, its military actions and its increasingly febrile and conspiratorial view of the world. So far, within these ominous parameters, the Kremlin has behaved according to a rational calculus. In this calculus, no respect is shown to opponents who are stronger, but unwilling to use their strength.

To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback
- See more at: http://www.chathamhouse.org//node/18207#sthash.tKacrTj0.dpuf

[Feral Cat]

Vladimir Putin’s Good-Cop, Bad-Cop Act

Russia's leader wins President Obama's praise for his role in the Iran nuclear deal. But ongoing disputes from Syria to Ukraine raise doubts about the prospects for truly friendly relations.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/29/vladimir-putins-good-cop-bad-cop-act/?utm_content=bufferf9310&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Feral Cat]

Розгромна стаття про організацію зовнішньої політики Білого Дому
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...8744215181

Crucial delays can be as much about what a policy will look like as about what it actually is. During NSC-led meetings early last year over Ukraine’s list of requested military assistance, “most items were seen as ‘too military,’ ” a senior Defense Department official said. “We were not sure how far Russia was going to go” in helping a separatist takeover, “and whether this would provoke them.”

The Ukrainian military’s urgent need for blankets and packaged meals was easily agreed at the start. The question was how to get them there.

Over multiple NSC meetings, “there was a lot of discussion about optics,” the official said, and whether to send the items by military cargo aircraft or overland.

Eventually, it was decided to ship the supplies by European-licensed trucks, to avoid the provocative sight of U.S. military transport planes on the ground. But a few weeks later, this official flew into Kiev airport for a meeting with Ukrainian officials, only to spot several large, grey C-130 U.S. military transports on the runway. Vice President Biden was visiting, and the planes were there to deliver his communications equipment and sensitive gear.

“Things like that color moods and sour people,” the official said of the lengthy debates. “When you litigate all the small stuff, it makes the big stuff even worse.”

Debates over Ukraine’s request for heavy weapons have now gone on for well more than a year. The White House has not said yes, but it has never said no.

[Feral Cat]

Investigators say they believe the same Russian hackers that carried out attacks on the White House and State Department last year and the attempted penetration of the Pentagon last month were responsible for a major cyberattack that shut down the Joint Chiefs of Staff email for the past 11 days, The Daily Beast has learned. 

In all of the attacks, hackers broke into unclassified email networks by sending legitimate-looking emails than turned out to be malware or “spear phishing” attempts. In April, President Obama’s unclassified emails were among those compromised, along with the State Department.

Ten days before the July 27 hacking of the Joint Staff system, the Pentagon sent an email warning “at least five” DOD computer users had been targeted, which was first reported by The Daily Beast. The notice linked those attacks to penetrations of unclassified networks at the White House and State Department that began last year. The Joint Chiefs then suffered what one defense official called the “most sophisticated” attack on its unclassified network, one that has shut down communications ever since for the 4,000 employees on the Joint Staff unclassified server.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/08/06/russians-hacked-joint-chiefs-of-staff.html

[Feral Cat]

The Pentagon took down the Joint Staff unclassified email system after Russian hackers attacked the emails of 4,000 military and civilian personnel. The email has been offline for the past 11 days.

US officials called the hack the “‘most sophisticated’ cyberbreach in U.S. military history.” In fact, the level of sophistication is so high the officials did not rule out is a “state entity” took part in the hack.

They also told The Daily Beast they are “creating mock hacking scenarios” before the personnel can access the system. The hackers used a “spear phishing attack” to obtain personal information on numerous users.

The attack occurred on July 25, only 16 days after Marine General Joe Dunford, a nominee to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services that Russia is the greatest threat to American national security. Dunford placed Russia above China, North Korea, and the Islamic State because of its “rapidly expanding military.”

“My assessment today, senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security,” he declared.

Relations between Russia and the West soured immensely after Moscow invaded Ukraine in March 2014, annexed Crimea, and issued threats against other former Soviet republics. The European Union and America passed numerous sanctions against Russian companies and oligarchs while NATO added more security to Eastern Europe nations who fear they might be Russia’s next target.

US State Department spokesman Mark Toner fired back that Secretary of State John Kerry does not agree.

“The secretary doesn’t agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States, nor China, quite frankly,” retorted Toner. “You know, these are major powers with whom we engage and cooperate on a number of issues, despite any disagreements we may have with them. Certainly we have disagreements with Russia and its activities within the region, but we don’t view it as an existential threat.”

Kerry has also made similar claims, despite working close with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the past 16 months. Kerry denied many times that Russian soldiers are stationed in east Ukraine until February, even though he constantly faced a mountain of evidence. He added more pain to American allies when he admitted Russian propaganda worked on him.

“The question asked earlier about… how they present things and the lies about their presence in Ukraine and the training, I mean, you know, it’s stunning but it has an impact in places where it isn’t countered,” he said. “Propaganda works.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/06/report-russian-hack-on-pentagon-the-most-sophisticated-in-military-history/

[Адам Жоржович]

Hey, Putin, have you seen how much China is investing in Ukraine?


On July 6, the Financial Times reported that Ukraine has become the largest corn exporter to China, surpassing the United States. This was surprising, as America has historically possessed a near-monopoly on corn exports to China. Ukraine’s increased role in providing food for China also extends beyond corn. Since the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea, Ukraine has increased its agricultural trade with China by 56 percent.

That’s paradoxical. On the one hand, China has not explicitly condemned Russian aggression in Ukraine. It has even tacitly rewarded Russia for its anti-Western defiance by buying more Russian oil and gas, though it has balanced those purchases with the expansion of energy contracts with Central Asia. On the other hand, China has helped keep Ukraine’s war-ravaged economy afloat with investment and trade. Chinese capital has contributed greatly to the revival of Ukraine’s once-formidable agricultural sector.

Deeper analysis of China’s contradictory Ukraine policy makes it clear that China’s strategy in the post-Soviet region is to remain pragmatically non-aligned. China recognizes the benefits of balancing its trade linkages with Russia and Ukraine, and is keen to embrace lower-cost imports from Ukraine’s crisis-ridden economy. The fact that China is keeping its diplomatic and economic strategies separate means that Ukraine can pivot towards China to help rebuild itself economically from the ashes of war. Chinese capital can facilitate the expansion of Ukraine’s growth industries like information technology and real estate construction, in addition to making China a reliable new market for Ukraine’s agricultural exports.

Ukraine’s pivot to China could also ease its long-term economic dependence on Russia. Even though the countries are at war, Russia remains Ukraine’s largest single trade partner. Increased Sino-Ukrainian economic cooperation could also compensate for the West’s reluctance to offer Ukraine large-scale economic assistance.

The conventional wisdom that the Ukraine conflict has caused Russia and China to collude against the West is flawed. Rather, Ukraine has become a site of economic competition between both great powers instead of a basis for sustained strategic cooperation.

....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/24/hey-putin-have-you-seen-how-much-china-is-investing-in-ukraine/