#2
Christian Science Monitor
August 26, 2015
Ruble turning to rubble? No signs of panic in the Kremlin.
Most Russians still blame the West, not their own government, for their intensifying economic pain. President Putin's approval rating has remained around 90 percent.
By Fred Weir, Correspondent

MOSCOW-Nadezhda Manontova, a Moscow office worker, is starting to feel the pressure as prices for her modest daily food purchases creep up amid unrelenting inflation now running at around 20 percent. Like many Russians, she's been able to supplement her summer diet with vegetables grown in her own garden, so her main worry is how to feed her two dogs.

"You can't give them a piece of bread, you know?" she says. "I'm cutting my own budget just to get the cheapest things, like liver, for them. And when I look around and see what other things cost now ... I just wonder how on earth people can afford it?"

For Russians, now entering the second year of a rolling economic downturn largely brought on by systemic weaknesses, plunging oil prices, and the Kremlin's sanctions war with the West, the relative prosperity of the past decade is clearly ending. Many are reacting like recession-hit people everywhere by changing their buying habits, staying home instead of traveling, and eschewing new consumer debt. Most public opinion polling suggests they are digging in for worse.

"Russians have never lived well, and many believe it's not a good idea to get used to a prosperous life," says Alexei Grazhdankin, deputy director of the Levada Center, Russia's only fully independent public opinion agency. "They've seen really catastrophic times, like the 1990s when the economy dropped by 50 percent, so they're inclined to think that maybe things are not so bad now."

They are also not pointing fingers at Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is sailing high above the fray with approval ratings approaching 90 percent. Experts say the Kremlin has been largely successful in convincing Russians that much of their economic pain is a result of Western "enemy action" rather than bad domestic policies. And this week's news of crashing global stock markets and plummeting commodity prices - of which most Russians seem only dimly aware - will only play deeper into the Kremlin narrative that integrating with the West is a bad idea anyway.

No rush to reform

Perhaps the most intensely disappointed group of people are leading Russian economists, who care little about politics but have been warning since Russia's anemic recovery from the global meltdown of 2008 that basic structural reforms are needed to foster growth.

"The government hasn't done a bad job of handling the immediate crisis. It's been painful, but the falling ruble has saved the country's currency reserves and actually propped up corporate profits measured in rubles," says Vladimir Osakovskiy, an economist with Bank of America-Merrill Lynch in Moscow. "But the crisis hasn't been bad enough, and there's no pressure from below, to make them address the underlying problems."        

Russia's economy grew quickly in the first decade of this century. Its growth was largely fueled by strong global prices for Russia's main exports, oil and gas, but also enabled by liberal reforms that eased the business climate and sought to attract foreign investment, Mr. Osakovskiy says.

"They are perfectly capable of delivering reform if there is a political need," he says. "But so far, beyond a bit of budget-slashing and waiting for oil prices to rebound, they don't seem to feel any such need."

Little has been done to fight corruption, promote economic diversification to cushion Russia's oil dependency, raise weak labor productivity, promote better property rights, or enact judicial reforms.

But the public tendency to give the Kremlin a free pass may not last. Polling by the Levada Center shows that Russians' trust in government is not nearly so high, with only 4 percent of respondents in a July poll saying they trust top officials to always tell the truth about economic and social issues, and a further 13 percent thinking they usually do.

Putin's fine line

The general mistrust of officialdom is a useful tool for Putin, who is seen as an infallible figure who is not to blame for everyday troubles. But he's also walking a fine line. In the 1990s, then-President Boris Yeltsin failed to maintain his above-the-fray image. His popularity fell to single digits and Russia came close to economic and social collapse.

"Putin is not perceived as being part of the bureaucracy, but a higher, independent leader who tries to make them work properly," says Mr. Grazhdankin. "The mass media does everything to maintain this image, by displaying him inspecting regions, giving instructions officials, prodding them. People see on their own level how things actually work out, but they don't blame Putin."

But history suggests that could change, and perhaps quickly. Economists say the Kremlin needs to develop a strategy to deal with a long period of low oil prices and deteriorating social conditions. But leaders may not be feeling enough pressure to act.

"We're in a place now where the leadership thinks it has enough political capital to avoid carrying out any serious reforms," says Alexei Devyatov, chief economist for UralSib, a leading Russian investment bank, "while the population isn't feeling enough economic pain to demand it."

[return to Contents] 

 #3
Sputnik
August 26, 2015
Ukrainian State Oppression Against Protests Triples After Coup - Monitor

According to a group which monitors protests in Ukraine, repressions against protests in Ukraine more than tripled compared to the time period before the protests which led to Ukraine's 2014 coup.

State repressions against protests in Ukraine more than tripled compared to the period before Ukraine's Euromaidan protests and the February 2014 coup,  a Ukrainian protest monitor said in a release.

According to the Kiev-based Center for Social and Labor Research (CLSR), the number of violent protests in the 11 months prior to the 2013 Euromaidan and the 11 months after August 2014 more than tripled. The monitor found that the peak of government repressions against protests peaked between April and June 2015, with 57 out of every 100 protest facing government violence.

"Worrying is the high frequency of repressions against protests with government critics and demand for lustration, against protests with socio-economic and political demands," the release said.

The percentage of violent protests also more than doubled in the compared time periods, according to the monitor. At the same time, oppression against what the monitor called "anti-communist" protests decrease while violence at the protests more than doubled.

The monitor also found that even without protests that it labeled "separatist," the number of negative government reactions to protests more than doubled in 2015.

 [return to Contents] 

 #4
Russia Beyond the Headlines
www.rbth.ru
August 26, 2015
Kiev under pressure from EU over Minsk accords, insist Russian experts
Recent talks between the Ukrainian, French and German leaders on the implementation of the Minsk peace agreements in eastern Ukraine's Donbass region saw Paris and Berlin express their continued support for Kiev, but Russian analysts say Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is under pressure to make compromises.
Gevorg Mirzayan, special to RBTH

Russian experts say that Kiev is being pressured by the EU to do more to meet the terms of the Minsk peace deal on Ukraine signed in February, following talks between Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande on Aug. 24.

The press conference after the talks in Berlin between the three leaders - to which Russian President Vladimir Putin was pointedly not invited - was extremely reserved and on the whole, pro-Ukrainian. Merkel and Hollande reiterated their support for Kiev and criticized Russia and the Donbass militias for breaching the terms of the Minsk peace agreements. However, in spite of this, Russian analysts insist that the talks themselves were not so pleasant for Poroshenko, with Europe unwilling to fully support Kiev.

"Europe would be satisfied with broad autonomy [for the Donbass - RBTH], as well as some compromise figure at the head of this autonomy," said Alexander Guschin, professor at the Russian State University for the Humanities. "The Europeans agree that Russia should participate in this process, either publicly or behind the scenes."

However, this option does not suit Kiev. "Poroshenko says that the current version of the amendments [to the Ukrainian Constitution - RBTH] is already a big concession, it is the maximum of what he can do and that he can have the Verkhovna Rada [the Ukrainian parliament - RBTH] pass," said Guschin. "The Minsk agreements require more of him, yet Poroshenko himself views these accords not as a roadmap, but only as a way to gain time."
 
Putin absence not a snub

Sergei Utkin, director of the Strategic Evaluation Department at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Center for Situations Analysis, says that Putin's absence at the meeting, which was called following a recent upsurge in fighting along the frontlines in eastern Ukraine, indicates that Paris and Berlin wanted to use the talks to pressurise Kiev.

"France and Germany are critical towards Russian policy on Ukraine and therefore during meetings in which Russian representatives participate it is difficult to pressure Ukraine and agree with some of the arguments that Russia advances with respect to Kiev," explained Utkin.

Utkin claimed that, contrary to earlier statements by Merkel, it is principally the Ukrainian government that needs to act in order to save the Minsk agreements, which currently represent the only grounds for establishing a settlement in eastern Ukraine. "First and foremost, this concerns the constitutional amendments and arranging the procedures for elections in the Donbass," he said.
 
No alternative to the Minsk format

While it benefits from the general backing of the EU, Kiev cannot afford to push Paris and Berlin too far. "Relations with the EU is one of the Ukrainian government's priorities and its success partially depends on the conditions of those relations," said Utkin. "The EU's opinion of the Ukrainian reforms' success is authoritative for many Ukrainian citizens. In general, Kiev cannot afford to quarrel with the EU."

According to Utkin, time and "the dynamics of the development of the negotiations process, especially within the contact group" will show whether or not Europe has been able to use these tools.

"The Berlin meeting confirmed that no one intends to renounce the Minsk documents, even though following them thoroughly in the established timeframe is becoming an unattainable ideal. The process of the talks itself, as in other conflict situations, helps reduce the tension, even if it does not lead to unequivocally interpreted results," said Utkin.

However, a sticking point is likely to remain the fact that Europe is calling on Russia to wield its influence over the Donbass rebels in order to force them to implement their side of the bargain - something which so far Moscow appears reluctant to do.

"Europe expects a concession from Russia, in particular, the cancelation of elections in the Donbass and perhaps even a change of the administration in the DNR and LNR [the Donetsk and Lugansk "people's republics," the two unrecognized entities formed by the rebels - RBTH]," said Alexander Guschin.

 [return to Contents]

 #5
Vice.com
August 26, 2015
'We Want Orders to Attack': Celebrating Ukrainian Independence Day on the Eastern Frontlines
By Jack Losh

Some of Ukraine's frontline soldiers toasted Monday's Independence Day with a bowl of yoghurt. "We'll make do with that instead of alcohol," Che, the commander of a 20-strong unit of grenadiers, told VICE News. "We are at the front. We won't be celebrating in any way."

More than 400 miles west, Kiev was marking the 24 years since the country's secession from the Soviet Union with celebrations, pomp, and a military parade. In a rather outlandish tweet, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko used the moment to compare Novorossiya (the term pro-Russian rebels often ascribe to the territory they hold in eastern Ukraine) to Mordor, the evil domain in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He insisted that both would remain in the realms of fantasy.

While the ceremony in the heart of the capital lacked the powerful military hardware that was on show last year, more than 2,000 soldiers were deployed in a march past Maidan Square, the hub of the protests that helped topple former President Viktor Yanukovich in February 2014.

It was, however, an altogether different affair in Pesky, a northern suburb of Donetsk close to the city's airport in the country's east. This ghost of a town, formerly one of the city's more exclusive neighborhoods, is now reduced to ruins.

Months of fierce combat have emptied the community of its inhabitants from a pre-war population of around 3,000. It lays claim to one of the deadliest front lines in the conflict - the antithesis of the colorful celebrations that occurred further west.

As the crackle of heavy machine-gun fire echoed over the deserted streets, Che's men seemed relaxed enough in the leafy garden of an abandoned home, surrounded by ammunition crates and assault rifles. The building's roof had been blown apart. A large, empty cage, once occupied by some exotic animal, lay empty, and vast plumes of wild marijuana bloomed from the wreckage of a greenhouse.

"Today is our national holiday and the integrity of our state is in our hearts," said Che. "It's been 24 years since we realized our independence but the Russian politicians still want to influence us. They cannot forget that we should be free of them. It is up to Ukraine to choose its own destiny, nobody else."

An imposing mansion stood across the road; its once-impressive interior was in disarray. Clothes and detritus littered every room. A chandelier lay shattered where it had fallen. The wealthy owners had fled months ago to be replaced by pro-Kiev soldiers. They, too, have now vacated. From the attic, a hole blasted into the roof by a mortar round afforded a wide panorama of the town. "Stick your head out and wave to the snipers," one soldier joked.

Outside waited Dmitry Voychenkov, a 48-year-old infantryman sporting an impressive Mohican and clad in a T-shirt emblazoned with a Rastafarian lion. He got behind the wheel of a customized, camo-patterned camper van and drove nonchalantly into the frontline village, accompanied by Jefferson Airplane and Soviet reggae. Whenever he passed a group of soldiers, he would honk a comedy horn attached to the side mirror.

Despite the festivities being enjoyed elsewhere, he explained that this was just another day on the job. "Today we woke up, wished each other happy Independence Day then carried on with work," Voychenkov said, who moved to Ukraine in the mid-1990s from central Russia. "Nothing's changed."

He had the air of an aging hippy, ostensibly drawn less to killing than peace and love. What attraction did war offer such a character? "Well of course, this is why I'm here - to fight for peace.

"My wife's son is a similar age to independent Ukraine. They were born not so far apart. It's been interesting to follow both their progress - her son's and my country. First they needed mama and papa when they were young. Now they are finding themselves and continue to grow."

He spoke during a lull in fighting, which has lasted several days here. "I had concerns about today," he admitted. "It's been too quiet the past few days and when it's quiet, you know that something bad's going to happen."

On the extreme perimeter of Ukraine's front line, a small unit of snipers surveyed no-man's land from the top floor of a bombed-out building. Nothing stirred in the fields below but their rifles were primed.

In the gloom of this sandbagged eyrie, the mention of Independence Day failed to provoke a spark of emotion from one of its occupants. Where did he expect Ukraine to be next year when it marks a quarter of a century of independence? "We'll be in exactly the same place," Vasily muttered.

His fellow fighter, a 26-year-old called Bardan with a laid-back air and goofy grin, chimed in: "There's a big difference between Independence Day here and at home. There, you can go for a walk with your family, enjoy the occasion. Here, you can only go to your positions."

Bardan looked around at the devastated room and seemed to catch the sound of his own voice. "But now we feel at home here," he quickly added, eager to dispel any impression of self-pity. "This is our home. People can get used to any situation."

More than 16 months into the conflict, the official death toll hovers close to 7,000, though it is likely to be much higher. Both Ukraine and the pro-Russian rebels had earmarked Monday as a possible springboard for a renewed offensive to break the deadlock. Waves of propaganda bore Independence Day scare-stories to civilians and soldiers on both sides. But as the day progressed, this was proven to be less than prophetic.

One pro-Kiev newspaper had carried a report of an alleged conspiracy for rebels to dress up as Ukrainian troops and fire on civilians in government-held territory as part of a false-flag operation. Meanwhile, rebels all along the front lines of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics [the DNR and LNR, respectively] had been braced for a major Ukrainian attack. The heightened war rhetoric in the pro-Russia media had fuelled their fears of an impending assault.

Alexei Markov, deputy commander of the rebel Ghost Brigade near Luhansk, earlier told VICE News of his belief that "full-scale war" would soon erupt on the frontline. With leave canceled and all men brought to the front, his fighting force appeared to be on a war footing. He said the brigade had "intelligence" that Ukrainian troops were "preparing for a big offensive".

Spetz, a special forces commander for the rebels operating south of Donetsk, also told VICE News of his fears that Ukrainian forces would "attack the entire Donetsk and Luhansk area" in a "huge mobilization" on Independence Day.

But the men's fears failed to materialize, at least in Pesky - widely regarded as one of the more likely sites for an offensive from either side. As the afternoon progressed, a group of soldiers stood around smoking inside a half-finished church, its roof damaged by bombs. One, Viktor, said: "It's a solid structure. With God's blessing, it should keep us safe."

Another pro-government soldier spoke of his frustrations at the deadlock. "It's boring when there aren't any explosions. We want orders to attack. We have lots of ammunition for handguns and machine guns but these are only good when you're up close."

Scavenging packs of dogs were the only signs of life on the road out of town. Major buildings lay in ruins and, apart from the occasional burst of machine-gun fire, the once-thriving community was silent and eerie.

Despite the utter ruin that war has wrought upon Pesky, a stubborn few civilians remain. One couple in their late 60s, Anatoli and Svetlana, have refused to flee from the bombardment of shells and rocket attacks, so far defying the mortal danger that living in such a grim, frontline location presents.

"It's Independence Day but we don't know what it means to us," explained Svetlana in the shade cast by grapevines in the couple's garden. "We're caught between two warring sides."

She plucked two large bunches of grapes and offered out handfuls. Around them, summer flowers lit up their garden. The couple's faces remained etched with stress and fatigue but unfurled with laughter as Anatoli, a former builder and factory worker, wrapped his arm round his wife's shoulder and pulled her in close.

An armored personnel carrier tore past on the road outside. Svetlana exhaled. "I see these men with their guns and my heart sinks to my feet. How can I feel independent while this continues? We didn't ask for the DNR, we didn't ask for these Ukrainian soldiers. We just want peace."

 
#6
Reuters
August 26, 2015
Ukraine, separatists to strive for full ceasefire from September 1

Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists, in a gesture to shore up a tenuous ceasefire, agreed on Wednesday to strive for an end to all truce violations from next Tuesday, the OSCE and rebel representatives said.

The two sides agreed in February to a ceasefire between their forces in eastern Ukraine in parallel to a political process, including plans for local elections and establishment of a special self-management status for separatist-minded regions.

But sporadic clashes between the two forces, in which artillery and other weapons have been used and civilians, Ukrainian soldiers and separatists have been killed, have to undermined it.

Both sides have blamed the other for the violations.

"The three-sided 'contact group' considers it important to reach a solid ceasefire from the beginning of the next school year," Martin Saidik, an official for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, told reporters in Minsk, Belarus.

The so-called 'contact group' in which representatives of Ukraine, Russia and separatists groups take part, meets under the auspices of the OSCE.

"There was a proposal to end shelling from September 1. Today there is a hope that from September 1 we will succeed fully in ending the firing. At the moment all sides have expressed the intention of abiding by this idea," rebel leader Vladislav Deinego said.

Earlier on Wednesday, a Kiev military spokesman announced two Ukrainian soldiers had been killed in attacks by separatists in the previous 24 hours,

More than 6,500 people have been killed since the conflict erupted in eastern Ukraine in April last year after Russia annexed the Crimea in response to a pro-Moscow president being toppled by street protests in Kiev.

 [return to Contents]

 #7
Russia Beyond the Headlines
www.rbth.ru
August 27, 2015
Sept. 1 ceasefire in Donbass agreed at meeting in Minsk
A meeting of the Contact Group in Minsk with representatives from the Donetsk and Lugansk "people's republics" has ended with the parties agreeing to a ceasefire effective from Sept. 1. However, experts are not convinced this a breakthrough on the path to peace.
Eekaterina Sinelschikova, RBTH
 
The participants of the Contact Group on Ukraine - Ukraine, Russia, OSCE and representatives from the unrecognized Donetsk and Lugansk "peoples' republics" - have agreed to implement a fresh ceasefire in eastern Ukraine from Sept. 1.

The group, which made the agreement at a meeting in Minsk on Aug. 26, is also preparing an agreement to withdraw weapons of a caliber greater than 100 mm (anti-aircraft weapon systems, machine guns and anti-tank weapons) from the frontlines.

However, the current dialogue would be hard to describe as a breakthrough, says Andrei Kortunov, general director of the Russian International Affairs Council, since "all the prevailing problems, the interpretation of the Minsk agreements, the radicalization of elements within the militias in Eastern Ukraine, remain."

"So far, the chances are that we can only expect that there will be no escalation at the beginning of the fall, which many are talking about," Kortunov told RBTH, adding that a complete ceasefire should not be expected on Sept. 1.

"Both sides, as before, have forces that are not interested in a ceasefire. Besides this, it seems that all participants really can't see alternatives to the Minsk agreements," he said. "Without a doubt by the end of the year Minsk 2 [the Russian term for the previous ceasefire agreement signed on Feb. 12 - RBTH] will be called a failure and they will decide to start over again, extending the timeline for its implementation," says Kortunov.

Nonetheless, the resumption of work by the Contact Group and the ceasefire agreement is some small progress, said RBTH political scientist and director of Global Strategies (Kiev) Vadim Karasev.

"But that is all it is so far," he said.

The likelihood of a high-level meeting during the United Nations General Assembly at the end of September has already been announced by Russia's presidential aide Yury Ushakov and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

 [return to Contents]

#8
DPR claims Ukraine holding approx. 450 prisoners of war

DONETSK. Aug 27 (Interfax) - The self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic allows for the possibility of carrying out a new prisoner swap with Ukraine next week.

"According to the official data, 450-460 prisoners of war are being held by the other side in addition to civilians. These are those who have been reported," Viktor Anosov, a representative of the DPR military police, has told reporters.

An exchange is possible next week but it will be twice smaller than the one arranged on Wednesday and Thursday, he said.

"We are not applying any violent methods to the captives," Anosov said.

The militia and Ukraine held a '12 for 12' prisoner swap on Wednesday and Thursday. The exchange was made in two steps amid tensions escalating in direct proximity to the exchange point.

Advisor to the Ukrainian Security Service head Yuriy Tandyt told the 112. Ukraine television channel that ten of the twelve Ukrainians released from captivity on Thursday were military men and two were civilians.

In his words, the DPR and the LPR are holding over 150 captives. "Some 155 people are still be held, and I think this [release] process will continue in the upcoming days," Tandyt said

[return to Contents] 

 #9
Donetsk republic military police accuses Kiev of torturing prisoners

MOSCOW, August 27. /TASS/. The chief of the self-proclaimed Donetsk republic's military police claimed the Ukrainian side has tortured Donetsk republic's servicemen while they were held captive.

"A medical examination of Donetsk prisoners revealed that all captives were tortured, one of them had a heart attack," Viktor Anosov said.

On Wednesday evening Kiev handed 12 prisoners to Donetsk under the prisoner swap program envisaged by the Minsk agreements. The Donetsk People's Republic has handed 11 captives to the Ukrainian side on Thursday morning. One of the 12 soldiers refused to return to Ukraine.

Prisoner exchanges in the 'all for all' format are one of the key provisions of the Minsk agreements signed in the Belarusian capital on February 12 after marathon talks between the leaders of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine.

 [return to Contents] 

 
#10
www.rt.com
August 26, 2015
'Old guard' pragmatists criticize Western policy on Ukraine
By Dmitry Babich
Dmitry Babich is a political analyst with Sputnik radio

Recent weeks have been marked by a new phenomenon in the Western expert community: US and EU policies on Ukraine were criticized by the kind of people, whom it is simply impossible for the mainstream press to write off as "pacifists" or "Putin's apologists."

Instead of being on the fringes of US or EU politics these critics belong to the "center" and represent growing anxiety over the West' actions in Ukraine.

In his interview to The National Interest magazine, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger described the Western version of Vladimir Putin's unprovoked attack against Ukraine as "not conceivable" and warned that the hawks in Washington may "face the consequences" if they continue trying "to break the back of the Russian government."

Dimitri Simes, the president of the Center for National Interest, went even further, accusing Barack Obama of conducting "foreign policy by bumper sticker" and calling on the American president "to find a way to induce Moscow to collaborate in finding a settlement in Ukraine," and "to establish an unappealing but strategically useful modus vivendi with Russia."

These two people can hardly be called "useful idiots" - the name The Washington Post's Anne Applebaum (misquoting Lenin) gives to "idealistic" Western sympathizers of Russian foreign policy. She could call on the British Labor candidate Jeremy Corbyn during the ongoing mud-slinging campaign against him, because Corbyn participated in the peace movement in the 1980s and thus can be suspected of being an idealist.

But calling Mr. Kissinger a "useful idiot", with his Cold War experience and a record of diplomatic victories over the Soviet Union - this would be too much of a stretch even for Applebaum.

The team of pragmatic critics of Western support for Ukraine's President Poroshenko includes not just Americans, but also former German chancellors Gerhard Schroeder and Helmut Schmidt. One might add to it Luc Ferry, the former French education minister, who accused the West of "inventing itself an enemy" in Russia, by presenting the tragedy of Ukraine as a confrontation "between good Ukrainians and bad Russians."

And if Gerhard Schroeder has long ago got accustomed to getting insults from the Western press because of his agreement to work for the Russo-German Nord Stream energy project, the American and German journalists will need to stretch themselves to find abasing motives for the position of the 96 years old ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt. Speaking about the possible Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine, Schmidt said he "would consider it an error, if the West started acting as if [such an invasion] were necessarily the next step."

The problem is that the West is already acting as if Russia indeed invaded Ukraine, and not the three per cent of Ukrainian territory controlled by the Donbass rebels, but the entire country.

A good indication of this sort of conduct on the side of the West is the recent announcement by the US Vice President Joe Biden that Washington would give Poroshenko $500 million more for the "training" of the Ukrainian National Guard (which consists of paramilitary battalions known for their cruelty and ethnic bias) by US instructors. This announcement, made in an official letter to the Ukrainian parliament, can be added to last year's resolution of the US Congress, which authorized Obama's administration to provide $350 million worth of military equipment to the Ukrainian army. The supposedly "non-lethal" equipment, mentioned in the resolution, includes anti-tank systems and "crew weapons," while the friendly "training" includes classes in marksmanship. And after that Obama and Biden defy all the lie detectors talking about their "help" to the people of Donbass and "friendship" with the people of Russia. With such friends, who needs enemies?

In his speech during the recent military parade in Kiev, Poroshenko said that by the end of the year the Ukrainian army would get over 300 armored vehicles and 400 combat vehicles, as well as 30,000 missiles and other munitions. Earlier, the Ukrainian Military Prosecutor's office revealed that up to 8,000 Ukrainian servicemen defected to the rebels, most likely joining their ranks, since these "traitors" may face criminal charges in the regime-controlled areas of Ukraine.

The conflict which started under the ousted president Viktor Yanukovich as a dispute over the timing of Ukraine's joining the Association Agreement with the EU - has been blown by the West to the size of a major security threat to all of Europe, not just to Russia.

In fact, this is the reason why Kissinger, Schmidt, Simes and other pragmatists are getting concerned. It is not humanism, but the instinct of self-preservation that is at work here. Total impunity for the past failures in Iraq, Libya or Syria is pushing US officials into even more dangerous adventures in Europe. As Dimitri Simes noted in his article "Foreign Policy by Bumper Sticker," "it is difficult to recall a nominee for any high-level national security position who has failed to win Senate confirmation, or even encountered significant criticism, for advocating or implementing ill-fated interventions. In contrast, many nominees have endured withering criticism for purportedly "soft" stances on exercising American global leadership by force."

With such Senate requirements, which candidate will defend the peace?

 [return to Contents] 

 Russia Insider
August 26, 2015
Ukraine: Such a Disappointment for a Girl
Hope and change blasted and gone. What to do?
By Patrick Armstrong
Patrick Armstrong received a PhD from Kings College, University of London, England in 1976 and retired in 2008 after 30 years as an analyst for the Canadian government, specializing in first the USSR and then Russia. He was a Political Counselor in the Canadian Embassy in Moscow from 1993 to 1996. He has been a frequent speaker at the Wilton Park conferences in the UK.
[With links here http://russia-insider.com/en/ukraine-such-disappointment-girl/ri9389]

Remember the girl who wanted lacy undies rather than the shapeless grey scratchy polyester bloomers that the puritanical Putin orders all his female subjects to wear? Although, come to think of it, given gas prices, gas shortages and gas thefts, something warm, no matter how unattractive, might be more practical for a Ukrainian girl today than frilly bits of silk. Well, anyway, apparently she, Olga Znachkova, is trying to get work in Russia. Things didn't work out for her - or for millions of other Ukrainian girls - quite the way they were advertised, did they?  (Of course, she's an actress and it is more than possible that she was hired for the job as was I'm a Ukrainian. But we can still feel for her letdown, can't we?)

But spare a thought for another Maidan Girl - the Baker herself.  What must she be thinking? She did the cookie thing in December 2013 and helped manufacture the new Ukrainian government over the next couple of months. What was she hoping for?

A smooth overthrow of Yanukovych followed by a smooth transition to her hand picked government; the smooth acquiescence of the whole country; an economy that you could pretend was smoothly improving; smooth reductions of corruption perceptions (remember Saakashvili and the traffic police? Something like that); a smoothly quiescent Moscow; smooth US Navy port visits in Sevastopol; smooth track into NATO; Joe Biden's son smoothly getting rich on fracking. A victory for the US, good return on the $5 billion investment and a BIG loss for Russia. Smooooooth. All done and dusted long before today.

Instead, she manufactured another neocon disaster with nothing smooth about it at all. The US Navy won't be visiting Sevastopol. When even Saakashvili says it will be years to get back to the pre-Maidan numbers, you know there is no pretending away the economic catastrophe. Russia is not cowed; it is cutting itself loose from the West. The Russia-China alliance, the worst possible outcome for US power, tightens day by day (speaking of port visits, I don't think she had Chinese warships visiting Novorossiysk in mind). Ukraine will not be fast tracked into NATO. It is torn apart in war. The present government's popularity ratings are rock bottom. The useful actors of the Maidan riots threaten to overthrow the government. The allies hold to the task but it takes ever more effort on Washington's part. The sanctions against Russia probably cost Europe more than Russia: Russia can find new importers or make its own but the EU can't find new markets. The US military is nervous about the prospects of a real war with Russia. The people who live in NATO states - as opposed to their suborned rulers and media outlets - have little enthusiasm for the endless cataclysm (and even less as the outcome of the neocon catastrophes in Libya and Syria arrive for extended visits in their countries). And it can only get worse. Well, on the bright side, Pussy Riot did humiliate a fictional Russian President. And Joe Biden's son would be getting rich in the fracking business in Ukraine, if there were any fracking business left. Not much, is it?

Nuland still dreams, and never more than in her testimony six months ago: "even as Ukraine began building a peaceful, democratic, independent nation across 93% of its territory, Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine suffered a reign of terror." Peaceful, democratic, independent (you, Dear Reader, are invited to Google the contemporary reality of these concepts). But the reality is different. While the Western media usually obediently types out the script it is given, every now and again something leaks through the barrier. Three recent examples: Demoralised Ukraine troops start to lose faith in Kiev, Kiev forced to fight its own fascist militia and Ukraine Is Too Corrupt for Debt Deal to Work.

Personally, I don't think there was a Plan B. (By the way, has any one of the neocon foreign policy catastrophes of recent years had a follow-up plan or any - even fleeting - consideration of the consequences? I believe that ISIS is another outcome of neocon insouciance and I am gratified to see that the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency agrees.) One has to comprehend how profoundly ignorant Obama and his circle are about Russia: just a year ago we heard "But I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything. Immigrants aren't rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years old. The population is shrinking." No big deal, nothing to worry about unless "nuclear weapons are back in the discussion of foreign policy". (Which, a year later, as it happens, they are). The Obama team has many other misconceptions. No wonder Nuland expected this feeble, failing semi state - this "gas station masquerading as a country" - to roll over.

So I don't think there was a follow-up plan - the lacy undies and the naval base were a done deal, so to speak; all that was lacking was the completion of Plan A. (Here's an interesting post from someone who did think about the consequences. Eighteen months ago. A lot more perceptive than anything out of Washington, don't you think?)

I would go so far to suggest that the utter collapse of the dreams of Znachkova and Nuland and the lack of an alternative plan drives the increasing shrill statements and themes in the Western MSM. This was not supposed to happen: Nuland & Co, thinking it was weak, fragile and powerless, expected Russia to back down; it was all supposed to be completely over by August 2015. All they can do is to repeat themselves over and over again.

Hope louder! Russia, of course, has always been doomed (here's Time in 1927) and it was altogether finished in 2001, but it seems that the intensity of the doom saying has been stepped up as if wishing so made it so. Has an 'open society' doomed Russia to fail? (September 2012); Russia Is Doomed (March 2014); Why Putin's Adventure in Ukraine Is Doomed (April 2014); Putin's Nationalism and Expansion Strategy Is Doomed to Fail (September 2014); Sorry, Putin. Russia's economy is doomed (December 2014); Remember Russia? It's still doomed (January 2015); Morgan Stanley thinks Russia's doomed (February 2015). Shout louder! they can't hear you in Moscow.

More threats and futile gestures! "Dragoon ride"; "A message to Russia" in Bulgaria - 4 tanks, 3 guns and 6 recce vehicles (!); "unacceptable to the international community". It's no wonder that some US military leaders are starting to get nervous.

More sanctions! A half century of sanctions didn't bend Cuba but they will bend Russia - just one more round and Putin will come crashing down.

More hysterical assertions! Umpteen thousand Russian troops in or near Ukraine! MH17 tribunal! Another invasion of Ukraine strangely unobserved by the gigantic American intelligence apparatus! More submarines in Sweden! Dangerous air activities near NATO warships peacefully sailing in the Black Sea or Baltic Sea! Santa Claus! Giant hogweed! Corbyn! Brutal goat deaths! Nasty thoughts! Manufacturing slowdowns! Putin's crazy!

Back in 2013 Olga and Vicky could taste it, wear it, phone it, see it. Where are the lacy undies? Why isn't the US Navy in Sevastopol?

 [return to Contents] 

 #12
Russia Beyond the Headlines/RBC Daily
www.rbth.ru
August 27, 2015
'It's all guesswork': Russian entrepreneurs on the falling ruble
As the Russian ruble hit another record low on Aug. 24, the heads of several major Russian companies spoke about what the devaluation means for their activities
 
Alexander Borisov, CEO, Polysan Scientific and Technological Pharmaceutical Company
We are somewhat nervous about our future. We have to import some raw materials and equipment, so we depend heavily on currency fluctuations. Under current conditions, our ruble profits are shrinking. We can't count on major investments, so, for example, we are not able to start expanding our production plant. I think this situation of uncertainty will last until the end of the year.
 
Denis Fyodorov, CEO, Gazprom Energoholding LLC
We are going to see how the situation plays out, wait for the government to take some steps. This pertains particularly to our service contracts, which envisage all payments in euros. About a month and a half ago we started working out various strategies for our company. But we have recently tightened our belts so much that any further attempts to do so threatens our reliability. So it is all about the state now, it has to assume at least some of the responsibility.
 
Roman Trotsenko, board chairman, AEON Corporation (investment group engaged in multiple industries and operating in Russia, Germany, the Netherlands, Ukraine and Kazakhstan)
Over the next six months we will see the ruble fluctuate within the range of 60 to 80 rubles against the U.S. dollar. A weak ruble is not really a problem, it is rather these constant fluctuations that cause inconvenience: Companies have trouble planning their actions because of such volatility. However, it is in fact a plus for the economy, as the situation allows an entire sector, namely the manufacturing industry, to become more competitive. But this will take time. As for us, we have little debt, and it is mostly ruble debt. We prefer to think of ourselves as a company operating in Russia and in rubles.
 
Maxim Tadevosyan, deputy director, Rambler&Co
Our main task is to develop an efficient business model regardless of what is happening on the market. The instability will eventually be done with, and we have reserves to survive it and move on. We keep our eyes on the big picture - for instance, we are not cutting our investment projects back, although these will only start paying off in three to five years. We stick to the strategy we have previously chosen. We are not making any forecasts for the end of the year. As for now, we see that the display advertising generates more revenue in the second half of the year than in the first. There is, however, a risk in that if the current currency situation does not change, the revenues coming from large car industry and real estate companies will be reduced.
 
Andrey Ryabinsky, majority shareholder in the MITs property development company
Most of the major enterprises determined their priorities and financial strategies in the past year, and we are no exception. MITs is a large developer, and we make affordable housing. Thanks to a stable demand and the housing subsidies, our market remains stable. The costs of construction and the solvency of the population is another issue. Such drastic and prolonged changes in currency exchange rates force the developers to raise prices, one way or another.
 
Alexander Korsik, president, Bashneft
[Talking about oil prices] is guesswork, there is no simple answer here. We made provisions for some measures back when we were planning for this year, and we are sticking to this plan. Some of our projects - like the exploration and acquisition of new assets - can be canceled or postponed, if need be, while some of them will be completed no matter what. During the first half of the year, we abandoned several projects (we have postponed some exploration missions until next year, for instance), but in the second half, right before [the oil prices] began falling again, we relaxed a little bit. However, we can stop financing some projects at any time.

First published in Russian in RBC Daily

 [return to Contents] 

#13
Izvestia
August 7, 2015
Russian poet defends destruction of embargoed food
Article by poet and translator Igor Karaulov, Iberian Ham and the Law

From the PR viewpoint the destruction of food covered by the sanctions is an extremely unfortunate subject for the government. If you leave aside all the arguments for and against, it simply sounds bad, perturbing, and somehow awkward. It gives rise to bad associations. Finally, it provokes the people's masses to a torrent of homespun creativity. This is an extremely important factor, because in our time the popularity of a news item is determined mainly by how easy it is to make jokes about it.

The subject of the burning of food has given critically minded citizens a pretext for playing back what had seemed a well-worn record - the "Farewell to Iberian Ham" Polonaise. However, the ham itself, like a real intellectual, just like some kind of Masha Slonim, is bidding farewell but not leaving: Over the year of counter-sanctions stocks of Iberian ham at depots have not actually run out and the wretched stuff is scarcely even going bad. But why not say farewell yet again if you really want to? Many relatively young people have suddenly started developing memories of the blockade. Bloggers are frightening each other with a "food holocaust" and expressing horror over "the mobile food crematoria." Switching from this to their customary subject of the repressions to come is seemingly automatic: "Today they are burning food, and tomorrow they will be burning books."

From imagined bonfires of books it is no great distance to imagined inquisition auto da fes, and the engaged consumer will stroke his belly with satisfaction, sensing himself in advance in the place of Giordano Bruno [Italian Dominican friar burned at the stake for heresy in 1600, later seen as a martyr for science]. Soon they will be burning me, me, this progressive guy, like some kind of brie cheese. How's that for moral compensation for the confiscated parmesan? But these strange pictures are having an effect on many people - 250,000 citizens have already signed an online petition saying, don't destroy the food, it is better to give it to the needy - the orphans, the handicapped, the big families. It is hard to dismiss these natural feelings from people raised on the saying "Bread is precious, don't throw it away."

At the same time there have been those displaying a new kind of enthusiasm, prepared zealously and almost with pleasure to consign enemy food to the purifying flames for the sake of the Fatherland's spiritual regeneration.

Nonetheless, if you argue rationally, the dispute is over a purely technical decision, because the fundamental, political, decision was made a year ago. Nothing has changed in that sense. There are a number of countries which have treated Russia abominably. If there is an opportunity to punish those countries, then why not do so? Sanctions on the import of certain foods were chosen as the means of punishment. So these foods should not enter Russia. And how that is achieved is a secondary issue which in theory should be of no particular interest to us.

Destroying food is a quite widespread step in world practice.

Counterfeit clothing is destroyed - and no one worries that the poor and the homeless could have covered their shame in fake Versace shirts and improved their culture with pirated Elton John disks.

Poached food, including black and red caviar, is destroyed - these are noble foods with which lowly Iberian ham cannot compete. These delicacies are not distributed to children's homes and no one writes petitions on the subject. Food past its sell-by date is destroyed and hypermarkets like Auchan have special machines for the purpose. Moreover, consumers even get angry when they discover sausages or canned goods on the shelves that are past their sell-by date - even though as a rule they are still harmless - but no one demands that they be handed out to the poor - on the off-chance they get poisoned. And of course there is vast world experience in destroying contraband goods of all kinds. There can only be one question here: Is that route effective under our conditions? Can the notorious "crematoriums" bar the sanctioned goods' entry to Russia? If they can, then we can put up with the procedure's aesthetically displeasing nature.

But what did they actually do with these goods before the "food conflagration" edict? Did they try to send them back at the importer's expense so that the same trailer truck could try to cross the border again somewhere else? Or did they let it stew in the customs warehouse until it "went away" of its own accord?

Clearly the food often did in fact "go away" to the benefit of interested parties, finding its way into commercial networks and markets, otherwise how would we be starting to find tonnes and tens of tonnes of "banned goods" throughout the country a year after the introduction of the food sanctions?

Of course, one is sorry that food has been left to rot. But the question, "how can you burn food in a country that is going hungry," which is being heard here and there seems disingenuous. The people asking it either do not spend that much time in Russia or are getting their eras mixed up. Russia does not go hungry now. Russia went hungry in the early 1990s. Then the "Bush chicken legs" had their place. When a man had roasted his Bush chicken legs and gotten drunk on Polish "Amaretto" and fake "Absolut" or "Royal," life no longer seemed that pointless. Indeed, certain administrative efforts were needed to drive these products from the market - products which also looked like manna from heaven to some. We managed somehow without them. And the importers did not go broke, they simply started importing goods of better quality.

And now too Russia is not going hungry without contraband goods. We need food imports, but there are many countries in the world where importers can buy food legally, without bribing officials, without changing the labels, and without sneering cynically at the state.
 

 [return to Contents] 

 #14
West predicts BRIСS demise, experts disagree
By Lyudmila Alexandrova

MOSCOW, August 26. /TASS/. The Western media paints the prospects of the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in dark colors, predicting its hard days and inevitable demise but Russian experts say these predictions have nothing to do with reality. They say that a deliberately planned information campaign is underway.

Some Western media sources say the upcoming crisis will inevitably put an end to the association of the world's five most rapidly developing economies. Thus, the UK newspaper, The Independent, reported recently that capital outflow from the BRICS group had reached $1 trillion in the past 13 months. The author of the article said this suggested that BRICS was doomed.

The US Investor's Business Daily believes that BRICS has not lived up to the expectations as it has failed to become the engine of global economic development. India is the only country in the BRICS grouping, which is in a good economic condition, it said.

However, it is absurd to make conclusions about the BRICS' death on the grounds that China's growth has slowed down: it has been observed to accelerate and decelerate several times since the early 1980s, Professor of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry Andrey Volodin said.

"The crisis manifestations in the world economy, the consequences of which are felt in Russia, China and Brazil, will, on the contrary, facilitate the development of regional cooperation because old financial institutions have already become obsolete," the expert said.

The BRICS countries remain a promising grouping, although risky for investments, Free Press web portal cited Head of the Finances and Economy Sector at the Institute of Modern Development Nikita Maslennikov as saying.

"Structural transformations are taking place in the economies of these countries. Recent developments, including among the BRICS countries, are a general global trend," he said.

About $940 billion worth of capital quit the emerging markets from July 2014 to July 2015, the expert said.

"But it is not quite right to say that only the BRICS countries have lost a trillion US dollars. The Asian region and Latin America are also losing money," he said.

Professor of the Higher School of Economics Marina Larionova said she "completely disagrees" with the statements about the BRICS' dark prospects. Crisis manifestations in some BRICS countries and the recession in others won't compel them to give up the consolidation of their efforts, she told TASS.

"This can be evidenced by closer cooperation, including the Strategy of BRICS Economic Partnership adopted recently at the Ufa summit, and also the closer bilateral relations," the expert said.

"When the G20 emerged, everyone spoke about the imminent death of the G8. However, this did not happen," she said.

"The institutes have their significance and continue operating. Likewise, BRICS also has its significance, even if someone may not like it," the expert said.

"As for capital outflow, this is exactly one of the reasons explaining the desire of this grouping of countries to unite and safeguard their interests in the global economy," Professor of the Russian Presidential Academy of the National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) Valery Abramov told TASS.

For the purpose of strengthening their national currencies, the BRICS countries have established such financial institutions as the BRICS Bank, which is perceived as an alternative to the existing international financial organizations, the expert said.

"Developed countries do not like the attempt of these countries with major emerging markets to conduct their coordinated and agreed policy. Hence information campaigns against BRICS: all this is a reflection of financial wars and global competition," the expert said.

"Prospects for BRICS undoubtedly remain," RANEPA Associate Professor Alexander Savchenko told TASS.

"This is not a bloc, this is an agenda. Consequently, its existence consists in filling the agenda with ever new specific projects,' the expert said.

The information campaign against BRICS was not launched accidentally, Savchenko said.

"That is why, the Ufa summit signed documents on cooperation in information policy and culture aimed at disrupting the Western information monopoly. BRICS has strengthened its agenda and influence potential very powerfully," the expert said.

 [return to Contents] 

 #15
Moskovskiy Komsomolets
July 30, 2015
Russian academician assesses state of international relations
Andrey Yashlavskiy interview with Andrey Kokoshin, the former secretary of the Russian Security Council: Andrey Kokoshin: 'We have major interests in Europe. And we are defending them' - former secretary of Russian Federation Security Council - on 'Cold War', Iranian deal, Ukrainian crisis, and situation in Asia

Where is the modern world heading? Where is Russia going? Who are its allies, who are partners, and who are opponents? Which forces are defining the present and future of international relations? Has the "Cold War" returned? Andrey Kokoshin, academician at the Russian Academy of Sciences, dean of the world politics faculty at the Moscow Lomonosov State University, and former secretary of the Russian Federation Security Council, spoke to Moskovskiy Komsomolets about all of this.

[Interviewer Andrey Yashlavskiy] It seems that not that much time has passed since our last interview. But so much has occurred since then that even if we are not quite in a different world, we are in a world where completely different points are highlighted. But I would like to start our conversation with a more current topic - a deal with Iran was concluded in Vienna a few days ago. What has it brought the world and us in particular? And also: at one point our American partners when speaking about deploying air defence system components in Eastern Europe spoke about the threat from Iran. And what now, when has an accord been reached with Tehran?

[Kokoshin] The Iranian problem is one of the central topics in modern world politics since Iran is not just quite a large state but it is also a country located in a very important region of the world. And to a large extent, the stability of the world economy depends on the policies of this state and its relationship with its neighbours. And political-military stability as well. Of course, if Iran possessed nuclear weapons this would have many and varied consequences of a destabilizing nature. Saudi Arabia, which has long-standing close links with Pakistan, would most probably acquire nuclear weapons. There is information that the Saudis at one time helped Pakistan substantially with virtually free supplies of oil, thus helping to create the Pakistani nuclear bomb. It is clear that there would be a very nervous, sharp reaction from Israel, which has long been raising the issue of a military solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. Iran is our neighbour across the Caspian. And far from everything is calm in this sector of the Caucasus. Azerbaijan has quite a difficult relationship with Tehran, although it is not directly linked to the nuclear problem. But additional instability around Iran could also influence this area. Russia does not need a new nuclear state close to its borders. So resolving the nuclear issue in the form that it is in at the current stage will of course have a stabilizing influence at the political and military-strategic level. And in the long term it will influence the state of the world economy positively. A serious crisis in the Middle East, especially involving the nuclear factor, would have a negative influence on the world economy and on world finance. And this would be bad for everyone, including us. As for America's plan to deploy elements of air defence in Europe, you correctly raised the issue of whether the problem would look quite different now in connection with the solution of the Iranian nuclear problem. We now have additional arguments to raise this problem with our partners in a new context.

[Yashlavskiy] But will it not end up with them simply saying to us: yes, we have settled the Iranian problem but there is the Ukrainian crisis, there are Russia's actions?

[Kokoshin] I do not think that this is a serious argument because air defence is not in any way linked with the situation in Ukraine in a military or military-technical sense. No inter-relationship can be seen here. But it is hard to predict how America and its allies will behave. Perhaps they will come up with some other arguments. Although this issue has been dragging on for a long time now, about ten years - but it remains in limbo.

[Yashlavskiy] Returning to Iran, there is the opinion that for Russia the dividends from this deal from an economic point of view are doubtful (Iranian energy products will flood the market). But I would like to talk about something different - recently, when diplomats talk about the few points of contact between Russia and the West, the Iranian nuclear problem is mentioned alongside the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, etc. Have we not lost this point of cooperation with the conclusion of the deal?

[Kokoshin] The problem can always arise again. Iran's policy may change. Tehran may interpret the problems of Iranian nuclear security differently. We know that under the previous president of Iran this issue was regarded somewhat differently. So I think that international cooperation on the Iranian nuclear problem may again prove to be important. Iran may cooperate with Russia even more actively in its nuclear-free capacity. Iran has assets worth many billions that have been frozen abroad - I think that these funds will to a certain extent also be spent on developing trade and economic relations with us. Although Iran will of course develop them both with the countries of the European Union and America - companies dreaming of this cooperation have been in existence there for a long time now. I would like our companies to be significantly more active here.

Iran's significance will always be great. It is very important in the international fight against terrorism. Some Iranian figures have stated that one of their country's most important functions is to prevent the Islamic State (a terrorist group banned in Russia -Moskovskiy Komsomolets), which is active in Iraq and Syria, and also the Taleban in Afghanistan, closing ranks in a single structure. Cooperation in this area will be useful to everyone. And if the Iranian nuclear problem recedes from the foreground, this will not have that much influence on the nature of our relations with the West. We have many other problems that we should cooperate on. It is not for nothing that Putin said we are not partners but allies of America in the fight against terrorism.

[Yashlavskiy] And nevertheless, the words and deeds both of Russia and the West remind me of the Cold War atmosphere. At the same time many experts and diplomats I have spoken to say: "What do you mean! What Cold War?" What do you think about this subject?

[Kokoshin] Cold War is not just a state. It was a certain doctrine that was formulated by Western leaders for an active confrontation with the Soviet Union. And it was called "cold" because in reality there was the intention to conduct an active, tough fight in the entire area. But without letting things go as far as a Third World War. It was a matter of local wars -there was the very large-scale Korean war, the war in Vietnam where the American group numbered 530,000 plus all the subsidiary and support staff totalling around 200,000. Plus the South Vietnamese troops, very large forces. There is nothing of that sort now, thank God. For the moment I would beware of using the term "Cold War" with regard to our relationship with America and the West. Although, of course, it leaves much to be desired.

[Yashlavskiy] Nevertheless, we see confrontation in the field of sanctions, and very tough propaganda, and ideological confrontation - the like of which we have not seen in recent decades.

[Kokoshin] There are many parameters not simply in the confrontation but the struggle between America and Russia. At an international conference I recently heard a major American figure saying: "We have confrontation with China and with Russia everywhere possible. And in actual fact China acts everywhere possible to the detriment of America's interests." And this is despite  the fact that China and America have a completely different level of economic inter-dependence than Russia and America, and many common interests in world finance and world economics. So we are not alone here. No, of course, there is not the bloc confrontation that there was, say, in the 1950s-1960s, but America does not only have a difficult relationship with us. This is to a large extent also typical of its relationship with China.

[Yashlavskiy] East Asia is now becoming a new centre of tension: arguments between neighbours because of disputed islands are intensifying. And America is also watching what is occurring very attentively...

[Kokoshin] Of course, this is potentially a zone of serious conflicts. In the East people have very long historical memories. If you go to China's main art museum almost the biggest picture there is a terrifying portrayal of the mass murder of the civilian population by Japanese soldiers in Nanking: a mountain of civilian corpses and a Japanese officer is wiping blood from his sword. From the well-founded Chinese point of view, Japan is one of the states that unleashed the Second World War, it occupied a significant part of China, and it conducted a very harsh occupation policy. And at the same time Japan is trying to have claims on the Diaoyudau Islands (the Japanese call them the Senkaku -Yashlavskiy). And America is the main military ally of Japan. So the conflict potential here is significant.

[Yashlavskiy] When speaking about the 20th century "Cold War", you mentioned the bloc confrontation. Now, it seems, there is no such thing: NATO exists but there is no Warsaw Pact. But many people think that bloc confrontation is possible today - on the part of the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization], SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], or even BRICS.

[Kokoshin] These are all different organizations. BRICS is more of a large-scale club focusing on world financial and economic problems. This organization has almost no structure, it does not have its own administration. As for the SCO, here everything is different: a developed organizational structure, there are regular meetings not only of heads of state, but also of heads of government, the council of foreign ministers, regular meetings between security agency officials, a regional antiterrorist centre, regular antiterrorist exercises on a scale that would enable this organization to deal with the Islamic State that has tens of thousands of militants armed with heavy American military equipment seized from Iraq. Many other countries, which obtain the status of observers or dialogue partners, reach out to the SCO. Well, and the biggest event of recent times was the start of India and Pakistan being accepted as full members of the SCO. Iran is on the waiting list. It may play an important role in stabilizing the region. We are all concerned about what might occur in Afghanistan - if a significant number of Islamic State activists end up there, then that will be very bad both for the Central Asian countries, and for China, and for India, and for Pakistan. We all have a common interest here. And this is not a global fight against terrorism but a fight against specific radical organizations operating in the region. The SCO is a regional force, which is capable of solving its own most urgent and topical problems within the framework of the specific region without the involvement of external forces (of the same America). The most important thing is that people do not interfere.

[Yashlavskiy] And in terms of our relations with our great neighbour China, there is the view that it is not simply our natural partner but our ally. Calculators are immediately switched on to calculate - what is the total population we and China have, how much territory, the total potential is calculated. But is everything that good in reality? After all, there are lots of hidden dangers in bilateral relations.

[Kokoshin] There are many fewer of these hidden dangers than in the relationships between many other states. China is our real strategic partner. And recent events have confirmed this once again. Beijing has taken an active position to effectively support Russia in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. This also found expression in conducting joint naval exercises in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean - something that has not happened before. In the context of the relationship imposed on us by the West, this is worth a lot. Of course, all countries have differences and divergent interests. We probably have problems with economic interests in Central Asia where China is conducting very active policies - we should also be more active there. China is a power-hungry country, which has an acute need of alternative sources of energy resources. Beijing is seeking to drastically reduce its dependence on importing hydrocarbons from the Persian Gulf region. And China is turning to sources of oil and gas in Russia and Central Asia. China has very large investment resources. The expression "Economic Belt of the Silk Road", which the Chinese leaders are actively promoting, has now emerged. It may potentially be useful and interesting for Russia, if things are organized correctly.

[Yashlavskiy] We have moved towards Asia in our conversation - and Russia is increasingly looking eastwards. But what are our prospects in the West? Will we manage to avoid the scenario where links with Europe are reduced to a minimum?

[Kokoshin] We have major interests in Europe. And we are defending them. To a certain extent the conflict with the EU countries and America is occurring because we are seeking to achieve re-integration in the post-Soviet space. And we are being denied this right - and we are having to fight for it. The conflict surrounding Ukraine was to a significant extent linked to the question of how the re-integration process with this country would take place within the framework of our general formula for Eurasian integration. Confrontation with the West here, in one form or another, was almost inevitable. It is another matter that this could have been different in nature. But it took quite a harsh form linked to the fact that our Western partners took the decision to change the regime in Ukraine - so that the country was with the EU and not with Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. This is quite a major reason for us, to put it mildly, not agreeing with them. For us to actively defend our interests. But constant major efforts need to be made to normalize relations. And this is possible on the basis of the recognition by the EU and individual European countries, America, and political forces that what has occurred has already occurred. It is an event that has happened.

[Yashlavskiy] Are you talking about Crimea?

[Kokoshin] Both about Crimea and what is occurring in the Donetsk Basin. The prime minister of Luxembourg said last year: a fait accompli. We must be realistic - no-one will be able to make Russia turn in the opposite direction. And all in any way serious figures understand this. I have heard at conferences from eminent American experts that America does not really have any strategic interests in Ukraine. Realistic American figures think that the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region are much more important for America. But the emotional component involved for many American politicians appears to have outweighed the rational considerations of the realists...

 [return to Contents] 

 #16
Moskovskiy Komsomolets
August 18, 2015
Russia, Ukraine preparing for long standoff - daily
Mikhail Rostovskiy, How Poroshenko Wants To Outplay Russia. Ukraine Confident That Time Is On Its Side

The Russian rouble is ridding itself of "reserves of hypodermic fat" in double-quick time. And the Ukrainian authorities are only pretending to fulfil the Minsk agreements. Is there a connection between these two phenomena? There is, and the most direct one too. I do not know whether a new round of full-blown war will occur in the Donbass in the near future, as many now fear. But what will definitely not happen in the Donbass in the foreseeable future is the political compromise between the parties to the conflict that is stipulated by the Minsk agreements. It will not happen, because such a compromise absolutely does not fit into the plans of Kiev's leaders.

It is believed in Ukraine's ruling circles that they have a choice: to get something right now, or to get everything, but a little later. And I think that you have guessed which choice Kiev's leaders have made. Ukraine is prepared to wait, if at the "end of the tunnel" it has a chance of obtaining everything.

Which of us did not play the "Who will blink first?" game in childhood? I did. And I distinctly recall how painful it was if a stubborn rival suddenly appeared and the game became protracted. To withdraw one's gaze and admit defeat? You did not want to do this - all the pleasure of the game was lost. Not to withdraw one's gaze and to continue to play? This often meant serious physical and mental discomfort on its way to becoming the most real pain.

On becoming an adult, I stopped playing the "Who will blink first?" game. But unfortunately, the "Who will blink first?" game has now caught up with me and "thumped me on the head" - me and all of us. What is happening right now between Russia and Ukraine is the most real global interstate game of "Who will blink first?" - a game that, in the opinion of each of the parties to the conflict, its opponent is doomed to lose.

"Sooner or later this regime in Kiev will either collapse under the burden of popular discontent, or it will change its ways" - I do not know how many times over the past year I have heard a similar thesis from the lips of my high-ranking interlocutors in the Russian capital.

This point of view is supported by roughly the following arguments: You will not get far on bare "revolutionary enthusiasm" alone. The longer things go on, the more the Kiev ruling circles will realize that neither America, nor the European Union intend to inject billions of dollars or euros into their country "just for a thank-you." This means that the paralysis of the Ukrainian economy will only grow. And this, in turn, will give prepare for long standoff a powerful incentive to come to terms amicably both with the rebellious Donbass, and with Russia.

Has this kind of logic the right to exist? It may well be that it does. But here is the circumstance that at the moment is cancelling out all the calculations of Moscow's strategists. In the Kiev corridors of power, it is believed that time is on their side, and not on Moscow's.

Without massive support from Russia, the insurrectionist republics of Donbass are not capable of continuing their existence. That is one. In the conditions of the growth of the economic problems in Russia itself, the "burden" of supporting the militiamen becomes more and more difficult for official Moscow with every passing month. This is two. Ukraine needs only to remain patient until the moment when this "burden" becomes too heavy for the Russian Federation to bear, and then Kiev, without any special efforts on its part, will obtain everything that it wants. This is the third and final logical premise that lies at the basis of Kiev's political strategy.

This is why Ukraine is "in no hurry" to fulfil the Minsk agreements. Ukraine is not even thinking about fulfilling them. It intends only to simulate their fulfilment - but in such  a way that the blame for "the violation of the Minsk peace process" can always be pinned on Russia or the militiamen.

The possibility of the full or partial lifting of Western sanctions on Moscow is Kiev's worst nightmare. Ukraine will do anything to stop this from happening. And "anything" in the case in question amounts to ensuring that the Minsk agreements should be continually under the threat of frustration.

And economic trends in the world and in Russia itself, in the opinion of Kiev's strategists, will do the rest for them. Each fall in oil prices, each "weight loss" by the rouble, fills the hearts of Ukrainian politicians with joy and confidence: We are on the right track! Steady as she goes! Only a little bit longer, and the enemy in the person of the Kremlin will be broken!

Is it possible to sum up the interim results of this game of "geopolitical Who will blink first?" Is it possible already to understand whose logic is winning? According to my impressions, so far everything looks roughly as follows: Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is already a walking "political corpse". The head of government has lost a great part of his political authority. And his replacement is only a matter of time. The positions of President Poroshenko are still entirely firm. Although his potential successors are also being talked about - people are naming, for example, Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadovyy.

But if the process of the erosion of the authority of the Kiev leadership, just as Moscow had hoped, has already started and is proceeding at a fairly good rate, another Russian calculation is so far not proving true. The public demand for the improvement of relations with Russia and for conciliation with Donbass has still not materialized. In the eyes of a very serious part of the Ukrainian population, official Moscow remains an enemy with whom there should be no negotiations and to whom no concessions should be made. And if this is so, what difference does it make for Russia which personage is at the helm in Kiev?

And so, at the present moment in time Ukraine is by no means minded to "withdraw its gaze" during the game of "Who will blink first?" with Russia. But Moscow is not minded to admit defeat either. Vladimir Putin, in my opinion, is ready, if required, to "play for the long term". Especially seeing that, the way things are currently, this "long-term game" does not threaten political stability in the country. The population of Ukraine has consolidated itself in the face of the "Russian threat". In a similar way, the population of Russia - with the exception of individual segments that do not influence the general picture - is prepared to consolidate itself in the face of pressure from the West.

The global Russian-Ukrainian "game of Who blinks first," it would appear, will continue - even against the background of the "gathering of clouds" in the economies of both countries.

 [return to Contents] 

 #17
Kiev refuses to offer Moscow better debt restructuring terms

KIEV, August 27. /TASS/. Kiev does not intend to offer Russia the terms of its debt restructuring better than those for other creditors, Ukraine's Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said on Thursday.

The Ukrainian premier confirmed that Russia had not joined the creditors' committee that Kiev had agreed on its debt write-down with.

"But we're stating that Russia won't get other terms," Yatsenyuk said.

Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko said on Thursday Kiev had agreed with creditors on writing down $3.8 billion out of its $19.3 billion debt,.
"It was decided to reschedule the repayment of the remaining $15.5 billion to 2019," she said.

Ukraine had taken efforts since March 2015 to agree with creditors on the restructuring of payments under its Eurobonds worth $20 billion.

The media reported early this week that the Ukrainian government and the creditors' committee had agreed on writing down 20% to the face value of Ukraine's Eurobonds.

Initially, the Ukrainian side insisted on writing down twice as much, i.e. 40% of its debt. A 20% debt write-down means that Ukraine will save $3 billion on debt repayment.

If the Ukrainian government had not agreed with the creditors, Kiev could have imposed a moratorium in September on debt repayment. Kiev will have to repay Eurobonds worth $500 million already on September 23. This would have automatically worsened the prospects for Ukraine to repay its $3 billion debt to Russia in December. Russia has said on many occasions that Ukraine should redeem its $3 billion Eurobond on schedule.

The Ukrainian financial authorities have said on many occasions they consider Russia's $3 billion loan as a commercial debt and insist on its restructuring. Meanwhile, Russia insists the loan is a state debt and requires its full redemption.

Debt restructuring results are crucial for Ukraine to get new loan tranches from the IMF.

Russia made a decision in late 2013 to invest up to $15 billion in Ukraine's sovereign Eurobonds. Soon afterwards, Russia bought Ukraine's first Eurobond tranche worth $3 billion with a two-year maturity and a coupon rate of 5% per annum and coupon payments every six months.

Russia subsequently decided against investing the other $12 billion in Ukraine's bonds.

 [return to Contents] 

 #18
www.rt.com
August 27, 2015
Ukraine agrees 20% debt haircut with creditors, Russia refuses to take part

Ukraine has agreed a restructuring deal to reduce its debt burden by about $3.6 billion. Moscow has refused to agree to Kiev's terms according to Bloomberg.

US-born Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who was granted Ukrainian citizenship when President Petro Poroshenko appointed her last December, has agreed with a creditor committee led by Franklin Templeton (which owns about $7 billion of Ukrainian bonds) on a 20 percent write-down of about $18 billion worth of Eurobonds, the first of which mature in less than a month.  

Russia won't participate in Kiev's debt restructuring, said Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov after the news broke.

December's payment of $3 billion in Eurobonds to Russia is the largest due for Ukraine this year. Most experts believe the Ukrainian government has not enough money, so default is considered likely.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk said that Russia didn't accede to the creditors' committee and wouldn't receive better terms than the other lenders under any circumstances.

Ukraine has been negotiating the restructuring of its debt since March. The country has repeatedly warned about the possibility of a moratorium on foreign debt payments if creditors didn't agree to the restructuring, including a write-off of about 40 percent.

Bloomberg forecasts Ukraine's economy is expected to contract 8.7 percent this year.

 [return to Contents] 

 #19
Bloomberg
August 27, 2015
All You Need to Know About Ukraine's $18 Billion Debt Agreement
By Natasha Doff

Ukraine reached a bond-restructuring agreement with about half of its private-sector creditors on Thursday after five months of negotiations. Below are the details of the terms of the agreement and what happens next.

Which bonds are included?

The deal covers $18 billion of Ukraine's foreign debt, including 11 government Eurobonds and three state-guaranteed Eurobonds issued by the Ukrainian Infrastructure Fund. Not included is about $4.6 billion of quasi-sovereign bonds, $2.8 billion of which has already been restructured.

What are the terms?

The principal value of the securities will be written down by 20 percent, or $3.6 billion. Interest payments will be set at 7.75 percent across maturities and all due dates are pushed back by four years. The coupon reflects an increase from the current average of 7.2 percent, Ukraine said.

The exchange will be made on a bond-by-bond basis, Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko said in a interview late Wednesday, meaning holders of current 2015 notes will receive new securities that mature in 2019 and holders of the 2023 bond will receive new notes maturing in 2027.

How do GDP warrants work?

The deal also includes a so-called GDP growth warrant that will kick in from 2021 through 2040. The main conditions for triggering the instrument are that nominal gross domestic product must exceed $125.4 billion, compared with a projected $84.3 billion in 2015. Real GDP growth, meanwhile, must be 3 percent or higher for the warrant to be activated, according to the following parameters:

a) 15 percent of the value of the GDP growth between 3 percent and 4 percent
b) 40 percent of the value of the GDP growth above 4 percent

Between 2021 and 2025, total payments are capped at 1 percent of GDP

For more details on GDP warrants, click here

What happens next?

Ukraine's Finance Ministry is planning to start the bondholder approval process no later than Sept. 15, after pushing legislation through parliament. On most bonds, creditors then need to be given at least 21 days notice to review the terms before meetings can be called for a vote.

To pass the deal, 75 percent of bondholders must vote in favor at a meeting in which two thirds of creditors are represented. Quorum falls to one third at a second meeting if it isn't reached first time around.

Ukraine hopes to complete the entire voting process by the end of October, which means that a $500 million principal payment due on Sept. 23 and a 600 million euro ($678 million) payment due on Oct. 13 will be temporarily suspended.

What if some bondholders don't accept the new terms?

The Franklin Templeton bondholder group holds a majority of more than 75 percent in some of the debt, according to Jaresko, which means they will be able to push through the new terms on those.

In most of the bonds, the committee holds less than 75 percent, meaning that other creditors can obstruct an agreement. Ukraine won't be able to give better terms to holdouts, Jaresko said.

"Anyone can choose to decline," she said. "Then they have to choose to deal with whatever the consequences are and whatever the legal implications are of being a holdout."

Some bondholders, including Yerlan Syzdykov, who helps oversee $254 billion, including Ukrainian Eurobonds, at Pioneer Investments, have already said they will back a deal. Russia, which holds a third of the debt being restructured, said it won't take part.

What are Ukraine's options with the $3 billion owed to Russia?

Ukraine can either pay the bond in full, convince Russia to accept a restructuring or default. Each option has some downsides, including the potential of Ukraine losing IMF funding. You can read more about it here.

 [return to Contents] 

 #20
Fort Russ
http://fortruss.blogspot.com
August 26, 2015
Poroshenko's Real Fear is Peace in Donbass
Novorossia.su - translated by J. Arnoldski -
http://novorossia.su/ru/node/21973
"Ukrainian politician: Petro Poroshenko is afraid of peace in Donbass"

Kiev is not at all interested in resolving the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, since the situation distracts the attention of citizens from other problems. This was stated by Viktor Medvedchuk, leader of the civil movement "Ukrainian Choice."

In his article on the website of the movement, he noted many politicians have already expressed concern about the worsening of the situation in Donbass, including German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeir, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the official representative of EU foreign policy, Catherine Ray.

"But, despite the concern of the whole world, official Kiev, while publicly stating that it is striving to resolve the conflict in Eastern Ukraine exclusively by peaceful means, continues to increase the degree of tension in Donbass. Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk ceaselessly asks the West for lethal weapons, and the head of the National Security and Defense Council, Alexander Turchinov constantly pumps hysteria, scaring the people with apocalyptic paintings of foreign invasion," the Ukrainian politician emphasized.

According to him, the UN and other international organizations are willing to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Donbass, but Kiev does not seek to resolve the situation in the East: "It is not profitable to the 'war party' in power. Sowing discord and hatred, its representatives demand a tighter isolation of Donbass."

"Meanwhile, Kiev's delay in implementing the Minsk Agreement is beginning to tire Europe," Medvedchuk noted.

"However, the actions of the post-Maidan leadership clearly demonstrate that a peaceful settlement of the conflict in the east of Ukraine is not part of their immediate plans. On the contrary, by ignoring the Minsk Agreements and interpreting them to their advantage, the Ukrainian government is provoking the aggravation of the situation in Donbass," the leader of "Ukrainian Choice" added.  

According to him, the conflict in the east of the country helps the Kiev authorities divert the attention of Ukrainians away from more pressing problems.

"As soon as the opposition in Donbass ends, thousands of people will come to Kiev and demand a response from the leadership of Eurointegrators: Where are the European standards, where are the reforms in the fight against corruption? This post-Maidan leadership can't be allowed more time, as it values power more than human lives in Donbass," - the Ukrainian politician summed up. 

 [return to Contents] 

 #21
http://newcoldwar.org
August 26, 2015
Stunning poll results showing Ukrainians' disatisfied with government, economy and war
[Charts here http://newcoldwar.org/15039-2/]

The International Republican Institute in the United States has published results of polling of attitudes of Ukrainians on the key issues facing the country. The polling was conducted in the latter two weeks of July 2015 by Rating Group Ukraine on behalf of the IRI.

IRI poll 4The poll provides more evidence of deepgoing and growing political dissatisfaction and alienation in Ukraine. Absolute or relative majorities of Ukrainians now express unfavorable views of all major government leaders and politicians from major parties in Ukraine.

The people of the rebel region of Donbas are not included in the poll, which means that the levels of dissatisfaction of Ukrainian residents are even higher than what is reported by the IRI.

The poll results are unlikely to be reported in Western mainstream media, even though the poll is commissioned and published by a right-wing U.S. institute. That's because the results fly in the face of the "news" and editorial opinions peddled by Western media. It proves that media is lying to its readers and grossly misleading them when it inaccurately presents the war in eastern Ukraine as a virtuous war against an aggressive Russia that is supported by the majority of the Ukrainian people.

Media also chooses to be silent about the profound economic crisis that is wracking Ukraine as a result of the Kyiv regime's turn to austerity association with the European Union, and about the massive human rights violations accompanying the civil war of the Kyiv regime against the people in the eastern and southern regions of the country. The IRI poll shows extremely high levels of dissatisfaction with the economic crisis and the war.

The poll will also be ignored by the Russophobes in the governments and mainstream political parties in the NATO member countries who decry "Russian aggression" and "Russian imperialism" in Ukraine, and by the many pseudo-lefts in the international arena who are acting as echo chambers of that messaging.

Similarly stunning results of polling of the Crimean people in late 2014 and early 2015 were ignored by the same constellation of forces. That polling showed extraordinarily high levels of satisfaction with the democratic decision of Crimeans in March 2014 to secede from Ukraine. The polls contradict the ongoing stories of Russian "annexation" of Crimea.

The 71-page report International Republican Institute polling report can be read here. [http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/2015-08-24_survey_of_residents_of_ukraine_july_16-30_2015.pdf] Enclosed below are 11 selected charts from the poll:

 [return to Contents] 

 #22
www.brianmefford.net
August 25, 2015
Ukraine Update 8/25: Pre-Election Preview II & Italian Arrests (excerpt)
By Brian Mefford
H. Brian Mefford is a business and political consultant who is based in Kyiv, Ukraine. Named by the Kyiv Post Newspaper as one of the 20 "Most Influential Expats in Ukraine", Mefford has lived and worked in Eastern Europe continuously for more than 15 years.
[Full text here http://www.brianmefford.net/ukraine-update-825-pre-election-preview-ii-italian-arrests/]

Pre-Election Preview II: While the official campaign begins only on September 5th, Ukraine's politicians are already in full fledged election mode. Billboards and television ads across the country are touting various new political parties and candidates on a consistent basis. Of course, these ads don't actually ask for votes for specific candidates or parties (as that is illegal prior to the start of the actual campaign), but instead promote their party "brand" in preparation for the October 25th National Local Elections. Given the anticipated new powers that local government will wield following decentralization, these may be the most important local elections in Ukraine's history. As a regular feature of this blog, we are covering the key races across the country.

1.    Kyiv - Incumbent Vitaliy Klitchko is now set to run as the united candidate of the Solidarity Party of President Poroshenko. While the Solidarity Party has been owned by Petro Poroshenko since the late 1990's, it has now been revitalized to become the joint Poroshenko-Klitchko (and apparently soon, Yatsenyuk) vehicle for the October 25th election. With most government coalition parties seeing their rating dramatically drop from their heights a year ago during the Parliamentary Election, the appropriately named "Solidarity" Party was dusted off and selected as pro-government party for this election cycle. The utter collapse in the rating of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk's "People's Front" necessitates the need for the Premier to join the "Solidarity" project. In doing so, Yatsenyuk buys additional time for his continued Premiership as well, apparently maintains his party's quotas of Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Committee Heads, and gives his colleagues an untainted party label to run on. However it comes at a cost as Yatsenyuk is expected to get only about a quarter of the candidates on the Solidarity local lists, with the rest decided by Poroshenko. Earlier Klitchko cut a deal to get 30% of the list for Kyiv but essentially abandoned his organizations in the rest of the country. Officially under the agreement, the top candidates in each region will be decided by polling data. However with People's Front at three percent or less in the polls and UDAR mostly nonexistent outside Kyiv, that translates into Poroshenko having the most influence in the candidate selection.

While candidate registration is open until the end of next month, the race appears to be shaping up between incumbent Vitaliy Klitchko and former Premier Yulia Tymoshenko. Interestingly, UDAR received 25% of the vote in the 2012 Parliamentary Election in Kyiv at a time when they Poroshenko Bloc/Solidarity was inactive. In that same election, Motherland finished first in the capital with 31%. A third candidate, Samopomich's Sergiy Gusovskiy, is also a factor since the party received 21% of the vote in last year's Parliamentary Election in the capital. While the Kyiv City Deputy and famous restaurant owner is probably in third place at the moment, he can play a significant role in the likely runoff election on November 8th. Thus, candidate personalities aside, the three parties all have noticeable support in Kyiv city which will make the race quite competitive.

2.    Odesa - Incumbent Mayor Gennadiy Trukhanov experienced a setback this month with his close ally and friend, Igor Markov (see "The Peculiar Case of Igor Markov" below) was arrested in San Remo, Italy for an assault he is believed to have orchestrated in Odesa in 2007. While Trukhanov is not currently facing any criminal charges, Markov's arrest was a warning shot for the current Mayor. Trukhanov is facing a rematch with three time former Mayor Eduard Hurvits. The arrest and possible extradition of Markov to Ukraine, could affect turnout in the anticipated November 8th runoff. Markov consistently polled around ten percent of the vote in Odesa and depending on the reaction of the electorate to the arrest, Markov supporters will either be disillusioned and stay home - or highly motivated on Election Day. The key for Trukhanov is mobilizing pro-Russian voters without irritating Kyiv (and Governor Saakashvili) in the process.

In Odesa, more than in other Ukrainian cities, personalities are more important than party labels. For example, the popularity of Eduard Hurvits allowed him to win the mayor's office three times as a pro-European candidate, in a city with a pro-Russian electorate. However the new local election law prohibits candidates from running as independents and forces them to choose a party label. This provision will cost Hurvits votes in the election as all of the government coalition parties are in single digits in local polls. However, the party label requirement is also a complication for Gennadiy Trukhanov. The former Regions Party MP won as an independent last year in a controversial election. While Trukhanov clearly will not run with the Opposition Bloc, it is not clear if he is ready to run under Kolomoyskyi's Renaissance Party label either. Trukhanov and Kolomoyskyi have a long standing business relationship dating back to Trukhanov's time as Deputy Head of the Odesa Port, and Kolomoyskyi financial support was crucial to Trukhanov's victory in 2014. However with President Poroshenko and Governor Saakashvili on the warpath against Kolomoyskyi, if Trukhanov campaigns under a Kolomoyskyi party label, he risks the wrath of administrative resources being openly used against him. Another option is available via fellow Odesa MP and Head of the Bulgarian Community of Ukraine, Anton Kisse. Kisse is the Chairman of the "Our Land" Party has offered Trukhanov an opportunity to run under the "Nash Krai" label. "Our Country" is a constructive opposition party which will compete for votes with the Opposition Bloc in the east and south. For now, Trukhanov is buying time and building his name ID via the unregistered, eponymously named "Party of Trukhanov". The "Party of Trukhanov" is not yet registered with the Ministry of Justice however, and so Trukhanov will have to select from among Ukraine's 242 registered political parties in the coming weeks.

3.    Kharkiv - Incumbent Mayor Gennadiy Kernes remains a favorite for re-election in Kharkiv. However the entry into the race by businessman and former Deputy Governor Yuri Sapronov will make the race more competitive. Sapronov served as Deputy Governor under Yanukovych era Governor Mikhail Dobkin until resigning early last year. Sapronov is best known for owning Ukraine's largest golf course and his charitable fund. If Sapronov runs under the "Our Land" label (constructive opposition party), it could cut into Kernes support in the business community and attract new voters. With the Opposition Bloc ineligible to compete in local elections in Kharkiv this autumn due to a registration technicality (read: payback to Party of Regions for deregistering Motherland in Kyiv and Ternopol in 2010 local elections), Kernes is believed to be considering a run as the candidate from Kolomoyskyi's Renaissance Party. Other candidates considering a race include former Svoboda MP Ihor Shvaika, but he is clearly a technical candidate with no chance of victory in Kharkiv. The previous Governor (for the first year of the new government) Igor Baluta, may also enter the race as the candidate from Tymoshenko's Motherland Party.

4.    Dnipropetrovsk - Ukraine's third largest city of 1.1 million people will soon see its fourth mayor in a year when elections are held this autumn. While Dnipropetrovsk has produced an abundance of famous politicians in the past including Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, former President Leonid Kuchma, oligarch Viktor Pinchuk and former Premier Yuliya Tymoshenko, the most powerful persona in the city is oligarch Igor Kolomoyskyi. Kolomoyskyi's term as Governor was widely praised but his personal battle with President Poroshenko will make this autumn electoral confrontation additionally interesting.

While the political players are mostly the same in Dnipropetrovsk, the party labels are largely interchangeable. Last October for example, four term incumbent Mayor Ivan Kulichenko was elected to Parliament in Dnipropetrovsk District #28 (Lenin Rayon of the city) with the Bloc of Poroshenko. Previously he was elected with the Party of Regions in 2010 by a 40-14% margin over then Front for Change (Yatsenuk's Party in 2010) candidate Andriy Pavelko (now also an MP from the Bloc of Poroshenko but elected on the party list). His election created a vacancy which the city council voted to fill with 43 year old lawyer Maksim Romanenko, a former Party of Regions City Council Deputy and protégé of former Yanukovych-era Governor Oleksandr Vilkul. However Romanenko didn't last long as the local Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal case against him in March for the embezzlement of 100 million hryvnas. Romanenko alleged that the case was politically motivated and instigated by then Deputy Governor Gennadiy Korban. Korban, a close ally of Kolomoyskyi's, is the Chairman of the new Ukrop ("dill") Party and recently lost a special election for Parliament in Chernihiv. Romanenko was quickly sacked and replaced with Halyna Bulavka, the City Council Secretary. Bulavka was #75 on the Opposition Bloc party list last year and participated in the 2004 "Separatist Congress" in Syeverdonetsk. However ironically, in 2010 she was the Motherland Party candidate for Mayor and received seven percent against the winner Ivan Kulichenko. Her decision not to run for re-election opens the door to a competitive election this autumn.

One of the leading candidates for Mayor is Kolomoyskyi ally, MP Borys Filatov. Filatov, a former Deputy Dnipropetrovsk Governor, is currently an independent MP in Parliament following his easy 57-19% victory last October in District #27 (October Rayon in Dnipropetrovsk city) over an independent. Despite Gennadiy Korban's setback in with Ukrop Party in Chernihiv last month, Filatov is already working tirelessly to "brand" Ukrop into Dnipropetrovsk voters' minds. For example, the "Borys Filatov Foundation for Clean Water" is giving away free drinking water at various city locations throughout the summer. The water bottles under the accompanying tents are branded with the Ukrop "dill" logo.

Filatov will likely face his toughest challenge from Poroshenko Bloc MP and former four term Dnipropetrovsk Mayor Ivan Kulichenko. Kulichenko, age 60, is a formidable opponent and was elected in a special mayoral election in 2000, and then re-elected as Mayor in 2002, 2006 and 2010. However, as evidence of the old saying that "politics makes strange bedfellows", Kulichenko appears to have the backing of the local Opposition Bloc led by former Yanukovych Governor and current Opposition Bloc MP Oleksandr Vilkul. Vilkul served as Vice Premier Minister for the last two years of the Yanukovych regime. The administrative apparatus of Poroshenko combined with the financial resources of the Opposition Bloc (i.e. Akhmetov and Livochkin) may be sufficient to deliver a stinging defeat to Kolomoyskyi in his hometown. Another Poroshenko Bloc MP, Andriy Pavelko (whom finished second to Kulichenko in the 2010 Mayoral contest), was recently elected as Head of the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU) and is considered as the chief replacement if Kulichenko balks. Other candidates include former Head of the City Executive Committee and Our Ukraine member, Vitaliy Shebanov. Dagestan-born businessman Zahid Krasnov with the Civic Power Party also appears ready to enter the race. Krasnov is another former Party of Regions official who actually ran for city mayor in 2010 with Our Ukraine Party, and finished fourth (just head of Bulavka). Suffice to say, party affiliations mean little in Dnipropetrovsk as this race stands to be a major battleground between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskyi.

5.    Lviv - Incumbent Mayor Andriy Sadoviy, Chairman of the Samopomich Party remains a favorite for re-election. However, Poroshenko Bloc MP Dmytro Dobrodomov is now considering a challenge to the two term Mayor. Dobrodomov, an award winning journalist, defeated Ivan Vasyunyk from People's Front by a 43-37% margin last year in District #115 (Sykhivskiy Rayon). Another Poroshenko Bloc MP considering a race is Oksana Yurinets from Lviv District #117 (Frankivsk Rayon in Lviv City). It is not clear at this time who will be the "Solidarity Party" candidate backed by the President, but it is highly likely that they will field a challenger to Sadoviy. Svoboda Party is also mulling their candidate options against the incumbent mayor.

6.    Zaporizhya - Incumbent Mayor Oleksandr Sin is a potential rematch local businessman and City Council Deputy Volodymyr Kaltsev in this autumn's mayoral election. Sin may also face the 31 year old General Director of Zaporizhstahl (Zaporizhya Steel Company), Rostaslav Shurma. Shurma is Chairman of the Opposition Bloc in Zaporizhya oblast and an ally of Rinat Akhmetov. In lieu of a Shurma run though, Akhmetov may tap another Zaporizhstahl executive, Volodymr Buryak for the post. Buryak has been generously donating money to renovate the city hospital in recent weeks and may end up being the Opposition Bloc candidate. Following the war in the Donbass, many big Donetsk businessmen have tried to make Zaporizhya their new base of operations and Shurma is among them. Shurma has previously served as a Donetsk Oblast Council Deputy for the Party of Regions. However such efforts though are not welcomed by local businessmen who view the "Donetskies" are raiders and competitors.

Regardless of the resentment within the business community against the Donetsk emigration to Zaporizhya, incumbent Mayor Sin will have difficulty in his re-election bid. Sin was elected from Motherland Party in an upset victory in 2010 against the Regions Party administrative apparatus. However after he won the election, he quickly quit the party and became an independent. Some argue that it was out of necessity for the city to receive government funds from the Yanukovych government in Kyiv. However the betrayal still stings with many Sin voters. In the 2010 election, then Party of Regions candidate Volodymyr Kaltsev lost to Sin 37-31%. However in this election, Kaltsev is the candidate from the constructive opposition party "Our Land". The sense of betrayal by Sin may be enough to keep pro-European voters at home and lead to either a Kaltsev or Opposition Bloc victory this autumn....

Dates to Watch (for Ukraine unless otherwise noted):

August 27-28: Next Round of Gas Talks in Vienna: Ukraine continues to use reverse gas supplies from Europe to fill its' underground storage facilities. However with an expected harsh winter on the horizon, a deal will need to be reached soon with the Russians on a gas price for the third and fourth quarters of this year. Gazprom is talking about a $287 per thousand cubic meters price for the third quarter, and $252 for the fourth quarter. So far they have refused to sign anything longer than a three month agreement in hopes of a spike in energy prices.

August 31: Special Parliamentary Session on Constitutional Changes: Parliament has to pass decentralization on this date or the effort will fail and have to be postponed at best. Expect the Presidential Administration to lobby hard to secure the needed 226 votes for this measure. A second vote will need to be held in September to fully pass the constitutional change but that vote will require 300 votes (2/3) rather than a simple majority.

September 2: Last Practical Day that an Agreement with Bondholders must be Reached to Avoid Default: Even though most financial analysts are now betting on Ukraine securing a 20-25% haircut on debts to bondholders, the time is getting short to reach an agreement. Typically it takes three weeks notice to call a bondholders meeting to agree upon such a proposal. The refusal of bondholders led by the Templeton Group to accept minimal reductions in principal is the road block to reaching an agreement. Thus, the negotiations are going down to the wire...

September 5: Official Start of Campaigning for the October 25th Local Elections.

September 23: Ukraine must repay $500 Million in Foreign Debt. Ukraine made the August 24th payment of $60 million dollars to bondholders, but expect much more drama over the next month as Ukraine tries to win an agreement with bondholders to avoid invoking a moratorium on foreign debt payments.

October 18: Local "Elections" in the so-called Donetsk People's Republic: As if these elections were enough of a sham, the DPR authorities are now planning a referendum two to four weeks later on "accession to Russia". It appears these pronouncements are designed to gain leverage over Ukraine in the ongoing Working Groups.

October 25: National Local Elections for Mayor and City Councils. If elections are canceled in the Donbass, Deputy Speaker Oksana Syroid (Samopomich) has called for the mandates of local deputies to be canceled. Syroid stated, "There is still a city council consisting solely of Party of Regions members in Slovyansk. You know Mariupol's Mayor and his position...Therefore we can't leave the people with these local councils".

November 1: Local "Elections" in the so-called Luhansk People's Republic.

November 8, 2015: Runoff Election Date under the New Election Law

January 31, 2016: New EU Expiration Date for Donbass related Sanctions on Russia

February 2016: Stockholm Arbitration Hearings on Counter Claims between Naftogaz and Gazprom. Naftogaz is seeking $16 billion dollars and a decision is expected by June 2016.

June 23, 2016: New EU Expiration Date for Crimea related Sanctions on Russia

 [return to Contents] 

 #23
Sputnik
August 27, 2015
Politics for Sale: West Admits Money the Only Power to Matter in Ukraine

As it turns out, it is very hard for President Poroshenko to shed his businesslike nature, as he prefers making business deals even in politics; the head of the European Business Association in Ukraine says that the President and Prime Minister have been selling seats in the country's parliament for as much as $3 to $10 million.

Tomas Fiala, the head of the European Business Association in Ukraine and the founder and principal shareholder of Dragon Capital Group, an investment bank in Ukraine, have said that President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk have been selling seats in the parliament for a price of somewhere between $3 and $10 million.

In his interview with the German news outlet Der Spiegel, the businessman said the buyers are the business people who want to lobby their interests from within the walls of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament.  The politicians, in turn, use the money to finance their own election campaigns.
Fiala explained that Yatsenyuk simply lacks his own money for the purpose. Poroshenko, on the other hand, is keen on not losing money on his political career, holding tight onto his fortune.

As the result, both have become hostage to a sadly established system of bribery and corruption.

They put forward decent people, such as military heroes and people with good reputations as the frontrunners for their parties, but the rest of the seats those parties obtain in the elections are sold off to the highest bidder.

The investment banker says that these are well known facts in Ukraine, and admitted to by both sides in private discussions. If the Attorney General's office were truly independent from any political influence, it would not be difficult to investigate these allegations.

Earlier this year Fiala criticized the leadership of President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, citing an old Russian saying: "the fish rots from the head". In other words, the corruption that is rampant in the country emanates from the very top of the political ladder.

Interestingly enough, the US-based magazine Foreign Policy had a similar diagnosis of Ukraine's new government, which only last year touted itself as being a radical, revolutionary solution to the problems that have plagued the country since its independence.

In its latest edition, the journal strongly criticized the failure of the President to deliver on his electoral promise to tackle corruption in the country.

"The grim reality is that the real rot within the Ukrainian state has always begun at the top, from a corrupt and cynical nexus of high-ranking politicians and business magnates - and it is precisely here that Poroshenko's efforts are failing to gain traction," it reads.

"Ukraine's reforms are not threatened by the kind of petty bribery common to many countries, but by high-level corruption on a scale so great that only three out of 15 countries in the former USSR have worse records, according to the anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International."

Representatives from the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Agency will go to Ukraine for an exchange program to share their experience with Ukrainian colleagues, news portal Ruposters.ru reported, citing Roman Nasirov, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Taxation and Customs Policy.

"The central problem is the president's failure to follow through on his promises to combat the pervasive influence of the oligarchs - politically well-connected business tycoons whose domination of key sectors of the economy is amplified by their ownership of influential media assets," it therefore states.
The magazine also warned that "Ukrainians are growing increasingly disillusioned, nationalist populists are gaining popularity and calling for Poroshenko's ouster."

What it will lead to still remains to be seen.

 [return to Contents] 

 #24
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and replies to questions at the Russian Terra Scientia Educational Youth Forum on Klyazma River, Dvoriki, Vladimir Region, August 24, 2015

Good afternoon,

Thank you for inviting me here. It's really nice to be in a place where you're encouraged to think and search for creative ideas. It's great that this tradition is being kept up by Russian young people, the Presidential Executive Office and the Government. I am taking part in this process in my capacity as foreign minister, and I'm very grateful for this opportunity.    

This is a very picturesque part of Russia. The Vladimir Region is inseparably linked with the development of the Russian state. During a recent presentation of the Vladimir Region held at the Foreign Ministry, Governor Svetlana Orlova and her colleagues showed the region's value at its best. It was clear that the local people respect the history and traditions, but that they also willingly take up new projects and achieve positive results in areas that the region and the Russian state as a whole depend on for development.

I believe that it's indicative that this forum is called Terra Scientia on Klyazma River. It is very important to analyse and understand the meaning of global changes, the rapid change in science, technology, the economy and the social sector, as well as international affairs. Understanding the essence of events is no less important that doing your job honestly and diligently. As far as I can see, this audience consists of professionals, mostly in the social sciences. So I think you know a lot about this matter. The feelings you get from learning about global events, which I expect to be expressed through your comments and questions today, are very important for us in our daily work to formulate Russia's policy in this or that area as part of the implementation of Russia's Foreign Policy Concept.

Today, our foreign policy interests, as I see it, are related to a battle of ideas, including the battle over the choice of development models and values, or attempts to impose a definite choice. We see the end to a long period of historical, economic, financial and political domination by the West. It lasted hundreds of years. This period involves an intrinsic contradiction, considering the evolution of new centres of power, including in Asia Pacific. The objective trend includes the development of a polycentric world order, which will be a lengthy process. It is probably not easy to admit that one's domination, which lasted many centuries and was nearly absolute, is coming to an end.

We see attempts to preserve this domination artificially, including by pressuring other countries and using sanctions and even military force, in violation of international law and the UN Charter. This is adding an element of chaos to international relations, turning entire regions and countries into pockets of terrorism, violent extremism and many other negative things, which we see happening, unfortunately, over much of the Middle East and North Africa.

We firmly believe that the only practical formula for settling these issues has nothing to do with military interference or any other way of forcing a certain mode of behaviour, which may seem right to the enforcer, on others, but that this formula is based on respect for the right of nations to personal identity and the diversity of the modern world. Both in nature and in society, diversity is the key to prosperity and progress. Overall, principles that should be strictly applied to current issues were sealed in the UN Charter and must be respected.

This year, we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the United Nations. In the next few months, the UN General Assembly will hold a special anniversary session marking the organisation's 70th anniversary. All of us know that the United Nations was born on the ruins of World War II in order to prevent a repetition of similar tragedies and disasters, and so that no one would ever try to count on one's own unique nature and provide itself with a carte blanche for specific actions contrary to and in violation of other states' interests.

We are witnessing one more contradiction in the modern world, namely, the striving of the United States and its allies to raise the issue of democracy inside specific countries, one way or another. They are doing this in a context they deem correct. At the same time, they refuse to even discuss the issues of democracy in foreign affairs. Our Western partners don't perceive the very notion of democratising international relations. They believe that everything is good the way it is. But this is not the case in reality. Yes, we have the United Nations and its Security Council, but continuing attempts are being made to act unilaterally, and they are trying to justify these attempts by the fact that the UN Security Council is allegedly paralysed. This is not so. Over the past two years, the UN Security Council has passed about 80 resolutions which are being effectively implemented. Russia and China have vetoed some documents that run counter to the interests of resolving the Syrian crisis and that specify support for the armed opposition which has proclaimed its intention to overthrow the country's legitimate president with the support of foreign sponsors. Therefore one should not take offence at such episodes. We vetoed other documents in response to attempts to politicise such serious issues as the need to thoroughly investigate the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash and others.

The contradiction between this stubborn promotion of the Western perception of democracy regarding the state system of other countries and the simultaneous refusal to conduct real discussions on the practical democratisation of international relations is another typical feature of the modern era.

But it appears that everyone should also think about their own interests. Those who are trying to usurp the right to control other nations will inevitably curtail their own domestic democracy, all the more so as our Western partners are already creating the required infrastructure for this change of policy. This refers to comprehensive internet systems that ensure total control over individuals, and the Western media is discussing this issue with great alarm. You know about such discussions in Europe, Latin America and other regions.

As I said, the Middle East and North Africa have turned into breeding grounds for terrorism and violent extremism. Illegal immigrants from this region are now engulfing Europe, and this is becoming the biggest headache for the European continent. Terrorism and illegal immigrants are the result of attempts to preserve one's dominant positions in foreign affairs by interfering in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.

In 1999, our Western partners, above all NATO members led by the United States, trampled on all the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. OSCE members then collectively bombed an OSCE member-country in violation of all the principles that form the foundation of this organisation and the United Nations Charter. That was followed by bomb attacks on Iraq with its subsequent occupation and on Libya in violation of the mandate approved by the UN Security Council. Now they are trying to do the same with Syria. As a result, many regions of Syria and Iraq have been taken over by the so-called Caliphate proclaimed by the Islamic State, a group that keeps changing its appearance, but becomes ever more menacing and sinister with each change.

It all began with conniving at the Taliban, the mujahiddin, who then fought against the Soviet Union. In order to annoy the Soviet Union and prevent it from defeating those groups, they gave a lot of assistance to those extremists who subsequently mutated into al-Qaeda. This was a more serious terrorist organisation, one not entirely focused on Afghanistan. They also turned an almost blind eye to it, in the hope that it would help replace some of the regimes that the West did not like. What happened with the terrorist movements in recent years is perfectly evidenced by the Islamic State. The group declared that its goals were not limited to the territory of Iraq and Syria; it plans to establish a Caliphate (they are already printing and distributing maps) stretching from Portugal to Pakistan, definitely intending to seize Mecca and Medina (two top Muslim shrines) and proclaim the "right" version of Islam that meets ISIS requirements. The ISIS thugs (you have all probably seen the shocking footage) perform public executions of so-called infidels on live television. This alone has convinced us that, when we see terrorism, whatever its manifestations, we must fight it without resorting to double standards or using extremists to achieve someone else's political objectives. Firstly, it is immoral. Secondly, the people who try to do this will never be able to control the extremists. Remember September 11, 2001, when the followers of the mujahiddin, whom the US had supported in Afghanistan, attacked Manhattan and committed such terrible crimes that Americans still shudder at the recollection.

That is why we are against the use of force or sanctions. We are in favour of addressing any problems through an equitable and respectful dialogue based on a balance of interests. There are several successful examples of this: the chemical disarmament of Syria after an agreement was reached with the Syrian government, and the settlement of Iran's nuclear issue.

While speaking about fighting terrorism, President Vladimir Putin proposed two parallel tracks: form a coalition to combat ISIS and support all those fighting it, while at the same time intensifying negotiations on a political agreement that would help resolve the Syrian crisis. We urge everyone who is fighting ISIS to join forces. But our Western partners, as well as some countries in the Middle East say: "Yes, it's a good idea, but we can't cooperate with the Syrian army because they are not legitimate, so we cannot proceed until we change the regime there." A year and a half ago they cooperated eagerly with the Syrian government on the removal and destruction of chemical weapons. Aren't these double standards again, Syria being legitimate not long ago, and the UN Security Council adopting resolutions that welcomed Syria's agreement to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention and cooperate with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in the removal and elimination of the poison? Nothing has changed. The Syrian government continues fighting extremists. So these double standards are only in the way here. Instead of rallying with all those who are willing to fight terrorism, efforts continue to be diverted to change the regime, for the fifth year running, under the guise of fighting for democracy.

Do you remember how the Arab Spring began? It was actively welcomed by our Western partners as the peoples' final transition to democracy. I don't think that anyone in the West has used this term over the last couple of years or that the Arab Spring symbolises a transition to democracy. It has brought immense misfortune. Iraq is on the verge of disintegration. Libya has fallen apart. The threat of terrorism has spread from Libya to vast territories in North Africa and has reached deep into Africa where Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria are swearing fealty to the Islamic State. Therefore, the only way is dialogue, respect for a negotiating partner's interests, and the desire to find consensus, which inevitably implies compromises without diktat or ultimatums. These principles guide the activities of such relatively young organisations as BRICS and the SCO. I think if the same principles were accepted by our Western partners, there would have been no confrontation over the advance of NATO's military infrastructure towards Russian borders despite earlier promises to the contrary, nor would there have been the Ukrainian crisis, if things were done through the search for generally acceptable compromise rather than ultimatums, or a "black-and-white" understanding of developments, or the either-with- us- or-against-us dichotomy.

And, of course, we wouldn't have had the present-day confrontation, if many years ago our Western partners had responded to our appeal to come to terms on how we would perform our old-standing obligations to ensure strategic stability in the Euro-Atlantic area on the basis of equal and indivisible security for all, when no one would ensure his own security at the expense of the security of others. This principle was declared by the OSCE many decades ago and was later reaffirmed at the inception of the Russia-NATO Council. But all of that was done within the framework of political declarations, and since it was never implemented in practice by our Western colleagues, we suggested making this principle legally binding. They immediately took the sideline and even refused to talk to us, declaring that "the legal security guarantees can only be obtained from NATO." Thus, they gave up on the concept of a single and indivisible space of equal security in the Euro-Atlantic area, which had been proclaimed by their leaders. This NATO-centrism, this attempt to preserve the divides represent a systemic problem, while the rest, including the tragedy in Ukraine, is derived from this division into friend or foe.

We are always ready for a sincere, equitable and constructive dialogue with all those who are willing to work under these conditions, including with our Western partners, be it the EU, NATO, or the United States. They know this full well. But we will never renounce our principles, nor our identity, nor, as President Vladimir Putin stressed, the Russian Federation's independent foreign and domestic policy. Clearly, someone doesn't like that, as the President said, we don't trade on our sovereignty, but it can't be otherwise.

 Let me repeat: We are open to equitable and mutually respectful cooperation with anyone. We have promoted and will continue to promote the Eurasian economic integration processes. We will work to combine this process with Chinese integration concepts, specifically the Silk Road Economic Belt concept, as agreed by our presidents on May 8, when PRC President Xi Jinping was visiting Moscow at the invitation of Vladimir Putin to take part in the celebrations dedicated to the 70th anniversary of Victory and to hold bilateral talks. I am confident that the Eurasian Economic Union has the potential to become a link between the integration processes in the Asia Pacific region and what our colleagues in Europe to the west of the Eurasian Economic Union are working on. In any case, there is no feasible alternative to the course for unification. We will promote it.

Question: A student action group has decided to create an International Educational Convention in Rostov-on-Don. Can we as a region hope that representatives of the authorities would attend it? If so, what should we do to inspire their interest in the convention and a desire to attend it?

Sergey Lavrov: If you are at the planning stage, you should probably share more about your idea. If it is to have an international aspect, that would require the Foreign Ministry's assistance, and we would be willing to provide it. As I see it, you mostly need the assistance of the Ministry of Education and Science. I'm sure that they know about this at the ministry. If you plan to hold international events, you should invite guests to them, and if you want to facilitate the issuance of visas without any visa duties, which we can do, please feel free to ask for help. We'll certainly provide it.

Question: I have a question about self-sufficiency. People tend to hear and listen to what a confident person has to say. If we use this formula in international relations, we could say that some countries know the goals they want to achieve, and so they are listened to. When will our officials stop making excuses, appealing to external parties and using other countries' example as an argument? Can we become self-sufficient at this stage or in the near future in order to support our policy and our world outlook? I believe that if we do, other countries will be attracted to us, as with BRICS and other groups. China, India and even Venezuela can afford to protect their interests on the international stage and their views even when they clash with the views of the majority. Russia is the world's largest country and one of the most influential and strongest in the world. I believe we can afford to do what these countries do, and that this would only increase the ranks of our supporters. You are a highly respected person internationally. The reason for this is that you often speak simply and honestly, which audiences hear and accept, and which they want to hear. Other international leaders such as Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi said these things too and won respect. Can Russia become a centre of attraction by taking an honest and confident stance on the international stage?

Sergey Lavrov: I fully agree with you regarding a concept-based attitude to problems. As the saying goes, don't blame your faults on others. We must start working to become self-sufficient, all the more so since Russia is one of the few countries to which God, nature, ancestors and history have guaranteed this self-sufficiency. But we must use this wealth wisely and judiciously, as the President is urging us to do.

I don't agree with those who say that everything would have been great in Russia were it not for the sanctions. The President is encouraging us, the government and all other agencies to take a different approach. He tells us that we must never become dependent on others for vital necessities, be it food, medicines or the items that are vital to our defences. I have read many analytical reports, according to which some people will again try to blame our problems on the EU, the US, their intrigues and provocations, all the while waiting for oil prices to grow to a level that will bring back relative prosperity without the need for economic improvements. This is not the stance of the President or the Government; it is not the stance the Foreign Ministry presents on the international stage. When I reply to such questions from foreign media, I say that our work is based on the assumption that this period will be very long. And it will be.

Our Western partners like to provide odd interpretations of agreements and their own decisions. The Jackson-Vanik amendment denied the most favoured nation status to Russia in trade with the United States for as long as Russia continued to ban Jewish emigration from the USSR. The ban was lifted even before the Soviet Union collapsed. Since then, everyone who wanted to emigrate has done so, and the majority of those have returned to the Russian Federation of their own free will. But the Jackson-Vanik amendment was in force until Russia joined the World Trae Organisation. Had Russia not joined the WTO, the US would not have repealed it. The US preserved it under various pretexts that were not related to the migration issues, but because one Congressman wanted us to buy more chicken quarters, for example. This is not an exaggeration; this was their level. So, when my colleagues, including my American colleagues, say that the US sanctions will disappear overnight as soon as the Ukrainian crisis is settled under the conditions they consider right, but which have little in common with the Minsk Agreements, I feel sorry for them. They are either lying, or they know nothing about their leaders' policy.

Of course, we must not shut the door on the world. We advocate an open trade system. We are drawing the public's attention to plans for creating closed integration groups: The US is now working with Europe to create a trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership that will be closed to non-members. They are also working in East Asia to create a trans-Pacific investment partnership that will also be a closed club. Russia has not been invited to join the trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific partnership. China and several other countries have not been invited to join the trans-Pacific partnership. We are worried that this could objectively disrupt the WTO and undermine common international trade rules. So we will never encourage an autarchy. But, seeing how our Western partners behave, we must do everything in our power not to be dependent on them in situations where they decide  to "punish" us for some reason.

I'm getting to the second part of the question now. The policy of self-sufficiency is respected. But not all countries are self-sufficient and independent enough to be able to freely express their opinions on international issues. Some of them are pressured by the donors who provide economic assistance that is vital for their survival, while others depend on foreign trade. However, when a resolution on Crimea was moved for voting at the UN General Assembly, it was approved, but only by slightly more than a half of the UN member-countries. The other countries either voted against, abstained (these were the majority), or did not take part in the voting. This is indicative from the point of view of the current state of relations in the world, considering that these countries were put under enormous pressure by the West before the voting on that resolution.

You mentioned China and Venezuela. These countries have an independent foreign policy. Yet I believe that President Vladimir Putin is still the most popular foreign leader in the world. My belief is not based on conjecture but on objective results of the polls that have been held for years. You can sense this when talking to foreign audiences that don't represent the establishment but public organisations and bodies. The main reason behind Putin's popularity is respect for his independent policy, a policy that is not independent because he does as he pleases, but because he respects international law, rejects double standards and keeps his promises: agreements must be honoured. This is all about the Russian President. I believe that these are the main principles in foreign policy and in life in general.

Question:  Trade and economic relations between Russia and China have increased rapidly in the past few years. We've pursued a number of major projects together, including in the oil and gas industry. Among these is the construction of a pipeline from Russia to China. Novatek has consulted with our Chinese counterparts. How do you think Russia and China can cooperate in the Arctic? Perhaps, we should involve young professionals and researchers as interns in these companies? They are often willing to share their projects without any reward.

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, my best regards to Salekhard. I have very fond memories from a long time ago, when I attended a ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council up there. We were all very impressed by the city's fast growth and the level of comfort under the difficult polar conditions. I was especially pleased to be treated to stroganina (frozen fish or meat shavings) at the farewell dinner.

When it comes to the prospects for cooperation in the Arctic region, we are members of the Arctic Council and the Arctic Five of the Arctic Ocean states. The Arctic Council follows several approved principles that come down to simple things. First, the Arctic countries bear the main responsibility for the progress of the region, the development of natural resources that will ensure a careful approach to the environment which is very fragile there, and for most seriously protecting the rights of the indigenous people living beyond the Polar Circle in the Arctic areas of our countries. The council also decided that we would not isolate ourselves from other countries, but neither would we make the Arctic the common property of mankind as certain parties wish. By preserving the responsibility of the eight Arctic member-states of the Arctic Council, we are open for interaction and are ready to admit observers. Our only condition is that they will only be observers and will only be involved in Arctic Council projects that have been coordinated by the permanent members. China is one of the observers in the council and this approach extends to it too. China has quite good prospects here because it has the necessary resources, technologies, and scientific potential. But our Arctic cooperation with China does not have to be restricted to the Arctic Council. The Russian Arctic is an area where we can work with many partners bilaterally and the PRC is, of course, one of our priority partners.

As for specific progress on the initiatives you've mentioned, I'm not responsible for all of these as the foreign minister. But whenever there are any international aspects where we can help, please let us know. We'll do what we can.

Question: Major foreign companies organise creative competitions for gifted young people across Russia and then provide them with grants to study abroad. Do you approve of such programmes? Are they under control?

Sergey Lavrov: This question is not within my province, and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it is disappointing when intelligent, good students go abroad and don't return. However, when they leave, receive an education, come back home and start using the knowledge they received abroad to set up their own business or do their work, I can only welcome this. When they leave and don't return, it's disappointing; this is a loss for the country, and I believe that if they had the opportunity to fulfill themselves in Russia the way they would like to, then they wouldn't think twice about it. Such opportunities should be provided to them.

Here at the forum, I see young people who have already acquired some status and who have plans. Some have received an academic degree and some are beginning to work on programmes that are of technological and scientific interest. This forum is being closely watched by the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other branches of government, including the ministries that are responsible for creating the best possible conditions for our young people to study and work in Russia. Keep telling us what needs to be done.

Surely, number one issue is money, but there are also other ways of making your studies in your own country more attractive and those of using more modern approaches. Your advice is welcome. To reiterate, I do not have a professional interest here. I can only comment on this topic as a citizen. I believe that all that can be done should be done to ensure that our young people remain here and that they do go to study abroad, because we need these educational exchanges. More and more young men and women come to study at Russian universities. We would like our young people to receive such an education abroad, but, of course, we would also like them to use all this knowledge in their home country.

Question: There is a list of countries that Russian citizens are advised against visiting. Are student exchanges, including in the law enforcement system, possible under these circumstances? If so, what countries is this kind of cooperation possible and the most effective with?

Sergey Lavrov: Through my professional activities, I come up against just one aspect of this issue, namely regarding incidents that happen to our citizens abroad, when, contrary to the norms of international law and bilateral treaties and agreements (in particular, on the provision of legal assistance in administrative and criminal cases), our citizens are arrested arbitrarily and extradited to a country where they face prosecution. Practically in all cases, it is the United States. Everyone remembers cases where our businessmen Viktor Bout and Konstantin Yaroshenko were illegally extradited to the US. Recently, another Russian citizen, Roman Seleznyov - without the knowledge of the host country (Maldives) - was prevented from boarding a regular flight when he was returning to Russia, forced into an American airplane and taken to a US base from where he was then sent to US territory. There are many cases where our citizens are arrested on US warrants in Europe and then the European courts decide to extradite them to the US even though we provide arguments in favour of such a citizen returning to his home country, where the required investigative activities would be conducted.

A large share of these abducted people are those who in some way or other previously worked in the law enforcement system. I know that following a series of such unlawful acts against our citizens, my colleagues at the Federal Penitentiary Service and the heads of some law enforcement agencies took measures to limit their visits to countries where such provocations can happen. Naturally, we will continue to demand that all Russian-US agreements be honoured. In all of the cases that I have mentioned, in accordance with a 1999 treaty, the US was supposed to have informed us, issued charges against our citizens and, on this basis, continued to cooperate, but instead, it simply kidnapped Russian citizens.

With regard to exchanges between Russian and foreign law enforcement agencies, I can see no impediments there. Such exchanges are usually discussed and agreed upon among the heads of the relevant agencies, and then relevant documents are signed. I have not heard of any abuses with respect to such exchanges.

Question: I'd like to thank you for your remarks, and the organisers for the invitation and making the event so comfortable. I came to this forum to present the I Can project, a series of educational and motivational lectures for students from Tula and the Tula Region. In the future, I plan to take this project to the federal level. At the age of these children, it's important to have a role model who can show them that you can achieve anything, and that it depends only on you. I want to create a project where people with disabilities can pass along their knowledge and expertise. Here's my question: Who was your mentor when you were young? Who helped you succeed? I realise that this issue may not be part of your professional area, but I'd be grateful if you could support my project.

Sergey Lavrov: Thank you for what you're doing. You mentioned that you want to take this project to the federal level, but I think it deserves an international dimension. Moreover, let's face it, some other countries began to focus on this aspect of life much earlier than we. Fortunately, the situation is improving. We will stand by your side in promoting international contacts, and sharing experience and expertise as part of this programme.

With regard to your question about who helped me form as an individual, it's probably my mother, if we're talking about the time until I graduated from university. I had good teachers, too. When I joined the Foreign Ministry, there were people from senior management who helped me realise that I need to be proactive and never hesitate to come up with initiatives. I'm very grateful to them.

Question: Mr Lavrov, on your first day at work, what were the difficulties you had to overcome and what emotions did you have?

Sergey Lavrov: I remember that day, but there were no difficulties or emotions involved, because all emotions disappeared as soon as I learned that I had been hired by the Foreign Ministry and had to go immediately to our Embassy in Sri Lanka, a country that had just ceased to be called Ceylon. My position was with the Foreign Ministry's Department of South Asia. I spent one month getting ready for my assignment, and then went to Sri Lanka and started working there. Probably, it was just another day for me. My colleagues greeted me warmly, I remember that. I don't think there should be any excessive emotion involved - all you need to do is come and start working, rather than getting emotional.

Question: You said in one of your statements that no country or group of countries may interfere in the fate of the entire world. As we are all aware, the situation in Iraq is unfolding in ways that leave much to be desired. The Kurdish militia - Peshmerga - is at war with the Islamic State group. A group of countries, including the United States, advocates for the creation of a Kurdish state. Does Russia support the creation of a peaceful independent Kurdistan?

Sergey Lavrov: You are right, our position includes constant reminders to everyone that no one, no one country or group of countries, can impose their will on everyone else. Nations should determine their own destiny and should do so based on the UN Charter and through a national dialogue.

Iraq has gone through terrible times, when, under false pretenses, aggression was carried out against it in 2003, which was condemned not only by Russia, but many other countries as well, including Germany and France. As a result of this aggression, the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which was the alleged reason for the use of force, was not confirmed. The US administration behind the occupation dispersed all the security forces, which were mostly Sunni (the Ba'ath Party was at the helm at the time), and began to cooperate with the Shiite majority (Iraq is populated mostly by the Shiites). Then, for a long time, Iraq became a battlefield in the fight against terrorism, which ended without any coherent results. Foreign troops have been withdrawn, while Iraq has been left to fend for itself (with a certain number of advisers from the United States and other countries staying behind).

I have spoken with many of my colleagues who serve in the US administration and the US Senate and Congress, and they told me that invading Iraq and driving out all the Sunnis was a mistake. According to experts, the Islamic State group's most capable units are manned by former officers from Saddam Hussein's army. They are in no way associated with the ideology-driven Islam. They simply lost their jobs, and were hired to work for ISIS rather than the Ba'ath party, which they were members of, and which the US occupation authorities dispersed and banned. More often than not, historical events come back to bite you later. Now, the Americans are trying to convince the Shiite leaders of Iraq to treat the Sunni minority fairly, which they themselves kicked out from everywhere. It's rather ironic, so our approach is simple: we are not going to engage in such things and say that today we must crack down on the Sunnis, and tomorrow it's time for the Shiites to make some room for the Sunnis. This is social engineering, a way of manipulating the state from the outside, from afar. This is destructive to the point where no one has to be convinced of it. Therefore, we believe that all Iraqis - be they Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds - must agree among themselves on how they are going to live. Issues between Baghdad and Erbil (the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan), such as the distribution of constitutional powers and, in particular, the distribution of oil revenue, have not been addressed for quite a while, but then they were sorted out. Implementing agreements is difficult, but we see no other way of reaching a peaceful settlement in any country of this region except through national dialogue. We will never adopt the kind of stance that was recently quite unashamedly announced by US Vice President Joe Biden, who stated bluntly that Iraq should be split into Shiite and the Sunni parts, and the Kurds given all they want. This is a very irresponsible statement. Most importantly, it is unacceptable for anyone overseas to tell Iraq how it should go about reforming or dividing itself. We don't play such games. We are in favour of nations determining their own destiny. In matters relating to all Iraqis, we actively promote, support and encourage a national dialogue with the participation of all stakeholders.

Question: What would be your projection in terms of the further development of Russian-American relations in the context of the upcoming presidential elections in the United States?

Sergey Lavrov: The forecasts are of little value. We prefer to be based on real facts.

Of course, we are watching the US election campaign. It is believed that since the days of the Soviet Union, our country got on more easily with Republican presidents than with Democrats, as the latter tended to be idealists and more dependent on ideology in foreign policy matters, while Republicans were more realistic. Perhaps there's a reason behind this belief. But I will tell you frankly that I do not see a big difference. In any case, whoever becomes the president of the United States will need to define his or her policy towards Russia. It is an obvious fact that the current US policy towards Russia is arousing criticism and growing discontent, also among the Democratic Party. Republicans have criticised President Barack Obama for his choices in almost every area of foreign policy. Perhaps they are simply willing to pay any price to undermine the chances of presidential candidates from the Democratic Party. We'll see. No one has actually disrupted the dialogue with us, but we are not going to beg them either. In any case, once we receive a proposal to begin restoring - however slowly and gradually - the channels and mechanisms of cooperation and dialogue that were frozen by our American partners, I am sure that we will not jerk them around, but rather agree to communication being resumed. By the way, we are already receiving signals from the Americans in this regard. They are not very clear, but obviously there is an understanding that suspending the Presidential Commission with 21 working groups was not a constructive idea.

Question: What specific actions are necessary to stop the bloodshed in the Middle East and control ISIS? Is there a danger that other terrorist groups could take ISIS's place once it is down?

Europe has been flooded in a wave of illegal immigration from the Middle East. Is there such a threat to Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: President Vladimir Putin has focused much on the Islamic State group in recent weeks, including discussing it in detail in the course of his meeting with the successor to the Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defence of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman in St Petersburg on the sidelines of the International Economic Forum. It was also discussed during the visit of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, as well as during talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Sochi. Further on, President Putin discussed these issues with US President Barack Obama and a number of his Middle Eastern partners. This week, many of them are expected at the International Aviation and Space Salon MAKS-2015, where top-level contacts are also planned.

Our approach is simple and straightforward- given the rapidly spreading influence of the Islamic State group in areas that are not just part of the self-proclaimed caliphate (as there are agencies established that duplicate the functions of the government), something needs to be done about it. Our plan is to bring together all of those who are already fighting the terrorists - primarily the armies of Syria and Iraq, the Kurdish Peshmerga militia (our colleague from Iraqi Kurdistan should confirm that this is true), that are actively opposed to the Islamic State. In addition, the so-called moderate opposition groups, formerly the Free Syrian Army, are fighting in Syria. They are Syrians who are financed from abroad. President Vladimir Putin has suggested that, first of all, the armies of Iraq and Syria, as well as the Kurdish militias from these countries, should join forces. Second, the countries funding Syrian opposition groups should also persuade them to coordinate their actions with the army units and fight ISIS.

But all efforts seem to be hampered by the stubborn reluctance of some of our partners to deal with President Bashar al-Assad while he is in power, and their determination to direct the opposition armed groups to fight Syria's government forces as much as against Islamic State. This, apparently, is the fragmentation of efforts. Moreover, when our American colleagues train and finance the so-called moderate Syrian opposition forces in neighbouring countries, it turns out that a significant number of those whom they train to eventually go to fight are extremists arriving in the region from US prisons (there used to be such prisons in Iraq) or prisons in other Middle Eastern countries. They have either served their sentences or made a deal, and are now training to go to war with the Islamic State. But if so, it is not surprising that about half of them eventually change sides and end up on the side of those who they were trained to fight. According to some, some of the instructors who Americans hired for the job are former Jabhat al-Nusra militants, a terrorist organisation on the UN Security Council sanctions list.

Recently, I read a revealing confession of former Director of the US Defence Intelligence Agency Michael T. Flynn, who publicly stated that in 2012 the White House received an intelligence report warning that their planned actions in the Middle East could actually contribute to the emergence of extremely radical forces in that region (Syria, in particular).

Another aspect concerns immigrants and refugees, which constitute millions of people. This is the result of the Iraq war and troop withdrawal before the terrorist threat was neutralised, and of the Libyan bombings aiming to change the regime. Weapons supplied to Libyan rebels from Europe were used to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, and then those fighters went to dozens of other countries, including Mali, where those who supplied weapons to overthrow Gaddafi had to fight them. These are absolutely paradoxical metamorphoses.

So there must be no double standards. If you fight terrorism, do so honestly. But cooperating with extremists and criminals to overthrow an authoritarian dictator everyone has had enough of is a dead-end; it will boomerang on those who play these games. Human trafficking and immigration flows are going above all through Libya, which is wracked by confusion in the absence of a central government. In fact, there are two governments there: one that the UN recognises and another that it doesn't. These governments are negotiating with each other, but they don't control the country. There are very many separate groups there. Not long ago we helped liberate our guys, Ukrainians and Belarussians, there. We held talks through a special connection, but not at all with the two active political forces mentioned above. Without going into detail, I can tell you that it was some other group.

The situation with illegal immigrants is also dangerous. Illegal immigration has become a business in Libya, where no one is in control. There are special channels for sending these people to Europe.

Is this dangerous for Russia? According to some estimates, in absolute figures Russia is the second most attractive country for immigrants who are working and those who would like to work here. Of course, we'd like to see immigrants primarily from the CIS countries. We have a common history, language and mindset with the majority of them, although attempts have been made to create division lines between us. There is no reason to believe that the wave of immigration into Europe will affect the influx of immigrants to Russia.

As you know, strict measures are being taken, primarily by the Federal Migration Service and the Foreign Ministry, to create order in this process. Our priority is to prevent the illegal entry of immigrants and the deportation of those who have been working here illegally, with a restriction on their re-entry for a certain period of time. But the main thing is to help labour migrants out of the economic shadows, to offer them suitable terms for legal employment and residence, and to create pension funds for them. In the past, these people had their passports taken from them upon arrival in Russia, and other obstacles were created to prevent them from complaining. We have mounted a fight against these practices, and our partners, primarily our partners in the CIS countries, have seen the first results. The wave of immigrants that has swamped Europe will not affect the situation in Russia at this stage. I believe we have the resources to preclude any negative consequences of the [European] problem for Russia. At the same time, we are ready to cooperate with our European colleagues.

They have already approached us with a proposal to consider elaborating a Security Council resolution, which will ensure an integrated approach towards the problem of illegal immigrants coming from Africa to Europe. We agree and say that we are open to such joint work, but we need to understand their needs. They need a lot, though, including the ability to intercept vessels not only in open-waters but in Libya's territorial waters as well. They are even talking about ground operations in Libya. However, to do so, we need the consent of the Libyan state, which isn't there yet. Well, those who are now recognised by the UN as the legitimate Libyan authorities do not control most of the country's territory. Why did that happen? Because the countries that are now flooded by illegal immigration have actively participated in toppling the Gaddafi regime using illegal methods. As we keep reminding everyone about this, they say to us: "Come on, what got into you? Let bygones be bygones." They suggest thinking not about who is to blame, but rather about what to do now. However, the trouble is that there is already a pile of such errors. In Iraq, as I already mentioned, our American colleague said that it was a mistake. In Libya, too, it was a mistake. But we warned them each and every time about these mistakes, but they didn't listen to us. However, later they came to see us to discuss the Iraqi issue. They invaded Iraq despite the position of Russia, France and Germany and the Security Council resolutions, but then approached the Security Council with the proposal to adopt a reconciliatory resolution.

The same goes for Libya. They suggest adopting a resolution to start a national dialogue. We are willing to help, including in addressing immigration problems, but let's be honest about choosing our priorities. What's more important - pushing through a completely politicised, and, I would even say, "unscrupulous" resolution on establishing a Boeing tribunal at a time when we've been desperately trying for a year to start a fair and transparent investigation, while all of the key evidence is still being withheld? Why did they put this resolution to vote? Just to reinforce an artificially created image of Russia as a country that is directly or indirectly implicated in this terrible crime. Then, they tell us that Russia is blocking the investigation. Nothing is further from the truth. We were the only ones who spent the entire year following that tragedy demanding that the Security Council enforce the implementation of that resolution. No coherent reports have been provided. There was some sort of an interim report, in which last year's Security Council resolution wasn't mentioned altogether. The Dutch security authorities are currently conducting an investigation. They recently held several meetings. We asked them a few questions, such as why they only now released the news about the pieces of the Buk MLRS, which they found a few months ago? We ask them to show us these pieces, but we receive nothing is response. We asked them where they found these pieces, but they didn't tell us either. However, they have submitted to the UN Security Council a resolution that clearly and unambiguously supports those who accuse militias and Russia. It was even drafted so that the tribunal was supposed to follow Ukrainian legislation as opposed to international regulations. Then, why the tribunal? Ukraine is a sovereign state, and it can create any judicial mechanism of its own.

I digressed for a simple reason - they knew full well that we would veto the resolution. So, they put it on the table for us to veto it, so that they could point at us later. At the same time, they are asking us if we can help them in the Security Council to agree on things, so that they can deal with illegal immigrants. We say we can, but they should decide what's more important for them - fighting off waves of illegal immigration or engaging in propaganda in the Security Council. If it's the former, we are willing to cooperate. Recently, we have agreed on important decisions as to how to investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria by whoever it may be. We worked for three months. The Americans, who suggested doing this work together, could have just put this resolution on the table in its original, absolutely unacceptable form, and again received a veto on our part. However, this time they acted pragmatically and rationally and started talking with us. As a result, we reached an agreement, and everyone is clapping their hands, rejoicing that negotiations work. They do work, but you need to start with negotiations, not ultimatums. Therefore, we have nothing to worry about. My respect to Kursk, Rostov and other Russian regions, which take in Ukrainian refugees. I'm aware that these people, especially children and women, receive a warm welcome, that the federal authorities help them, and that the host regions carry a huge burden.

Question: May I ask you to return from the Middle East to our region and our neighbours? It is common knowledge that Russia is the main partner and strategic ally of Belarus. Many Belarusian citizens see Russia and the entire multi-ethnic Russian nation as their homeland. Nevertheless (maybe, this is related to the upcoming elections in October 2015), many media stories are noting that Belarus has started leaning towards the West, and that Belarus is currently modifying its stance on the Ukrainian conflict. Can you comment as an official statesman who can speak to the Russian position on this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: Thank you. This is a very good question because many people are now saying that Russia is turning towards the East, Asia and the Pacific because of current Western attitudes. This mentality is typical of those who understand no other logic than "friend or foe" or "either stick with us or oppose us." This is exactly what lies at the root of most problems in Europe and runs counter to political declarations that guarantee equal and indivisible security when no one opposes the security of others, and when everyone chooses their own friends in line with common and indivisible security. And most of our Western partners are still guided by a "friend or foe" logic.

I recall the very first Euromaidan in Ukraine in 2004. The then Belgian Foreign Minister Karel Lodewijk De Gucht, who later became the European Commissioner for Trade, said openly in the autumn of 2004 that the government and people of Ukraine should decide whether they want to stick together with the European Union or Russia. The very same calls were voiced during the Euromaidan rallies of 2013.

So our answer is very simple, and it is contained in the Russian foreign policy concept and the Belarusian concepts: We will expand our relations with anyone who is ready to do so on a basis of equality, mutual benefits and mutual respect. We have absolutely no prejudices. Moreover, we are interested in the normalisation of relations between Belarus and the West. All these years, during my entire tenure as minister, Belarus has been subjected to various Western sanctions which apply to Belarusian leaders and certain companies. During all our meetings with the European Union and the United States, we have maintained that this is a dead-end, that, instead of isolating, the country should be involved in specific projects.

We actively pressed for involving Belarus in the work of the Council of Europe, with some success, although Belarus has not joined it so far. We tried to involve Belarus (and such decisions were made at our initiative) in certain Council of Europe conventions that are open to non-CE countries, etc. To say that Belarus-Western relations are detrimental to relations with Russia means once again acting under the "either/or" concept that paints the modern world as black and white. On the contrary, our world is much richer and more diverse.

We have a plan of jointly agreed-upon foreign policy actions, and we draft this plan every two years with the Belarusian Foreign Ministry. The presidents approve this plan at meetings of the Supreme State Council. Each year, we hold joint meetings of both ministries' boards. To the best of my knowledge, this year's meeting is scheduled for October. So it's not logical to live with the mediaeval implication that "you no longer love me if you have another friend" in our interdependent and increasingly globalised world.

Question: First, thank you very much for your public discretion as regards Ukraine against the background of all this outrage. Thank you for not saying a single bad word about the Ukrainian people.

Sooner or later this policy of chaos and populism will be over and Ukraine will embark on the road of national development. Strong animosity toward Russians has been ingrained in the minds of Ukrainians at the reflexive level. Will the Russian Government or business community take some action to restore the status of a friendly nation?

There is some Committee for Ukraine's Salvation operating on Russian territory, which wants to serve as a counterbalance to the current Kiev regime. It is rumoured that it has won Moscow's support by having declared this from Russian territory. Members of this committee position themselves in much the same way by dividing the nation into "right and wrong". For them the West, which created all this chaos, is on the wrong side, whereas the victims and Eastern Ukraine is on the right side. Is it appropriate to pursue this path, which is drawing Ukrainians further apart?

Sergey Lavrov: You started by thanking me for not saying a bad word about Ukrainians and finished by mentioning the Ukraine Salvation Committee that has been established and is ostensibly pursuing a line towards splitting the Ukrainian people. These two comments are interlinked and I have never heard any bad words about Ukrainians from the Russian leaders, of course, and from the members of this committee who were shown on television.

They made fairly angry statements about the previous president and the current authorities. Commenting on such actions, we call a spade a spade. And we are calling for the implementation of the agreements made with the participation of France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

I'd like to recall the willingness to negotiate of the leaders who staged the coup d'etat. Now many statements are being made about the need to return to the Geneva format with US participation. In April 2014, US Secretary of State John Kerry, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Ms Catherine Ashton occupied this position at that time), the Acting Ukrainian Foreign Minister and myself met in Geneva. We adopted a statement on the need to start immediate nationwide dialogue with the participation of all regions and all political forces of Ukraine with a view to carrying out a constitutional reform. That was in April of 2014.

More than a year and a half has passed since that time. Ukraine's April 2014 commitment to immediately embark on constitutional reform has gone nowhere. Nobody is carrying out any reforms, although the plan was set out in the minutest detail in Minsk in February. Nothing is being done. This is not the fault of the Ukrainian people but of those who are responsible for these reforms: the President and the Government which, according to some estimates, is preventing the President from fulfilling his agreements. We will not hush up these issues because we also took part in these agreements.

I'd like to ask you to please let me know if you see some negative assessment of the Ukrainian people, and not just in government media but any Russian media (both in print and online). I don't remember anything like this. What is really a source of strong concern are the reverse actions of the Ukrainian leaders, who have set themselves the aim of changing "the genetic code", if you will. I am confident they will get nowhere.

When President Poroshenko says that we are not fraternal nations, that the Ukrainian nation is successfully marching toward Europe while the Russian people are in deep crisis, does he demonstrate a friendly attitude? Or when we are told (by President Poroshenko again) that the Minsk agreements have given the Ukrainian leaders leeway to rearm and consolidate their army? For what purpose? To fight against Ukrainian people in Donbass?

When right after the coup, having trampled underfoot the agreement signed by Viktor Yanukovych with the opposition in the presence of Germans, French and Poles, and endorsed by them, the Kiev authorities began adopting laws depriving the Russian language of the status (which isn't so high) that it should be granted at least in accordance with the relevant convention of the Council of Europe. When so-called Friendship Trains came to Crimea; when the Right Sector (notably Dmitry Yarosh) said that a Russian will never think like a Ukrainian in Crimea and will not glorify Bandera and, therefore, there should be no room for Russians in Crimea. All these statements shape human attitudes. But this was said not about the leaders of some part of a Ukrainian political party or force but about the people of Ukraine, a vast part of the Ukrainian people.

Actions against our actors, writers and movies are much in the same vein. And those black lists are completely unreasonable. We asked UNESCO experts whether there are any commitments to keep culture outside politics. At one time attempts were made to turn sport into an active part of politics. Now some people are trying to "rape" culture for the same political reasons. I don't think these attempts will succeed. Probably, for a certain period, and this is obvious now, seeds of something close to hatred have been sown. People are being irritated and are unable to critically perceive what is going on. I think more and more people in Ukraine realise that it is impossible to be permanently under external control, as President Vladimir Putin has said.

A day before the coup d'etat, Moscow was called up by the leaders of the United States and leading European countries, who asked us to support the agreement that the opposition signed with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, although in this agreement he renounced practically all prerogatives as the head of state. Under the agreement he committed himself to use neither police nor the army. Nonetheless, President Vladimir Putin supported this agreement, emphasising that we are backing it because the authorities and the opposition reached this inter-Ukrainian agreement of its own free will. When the coup was staged on the following morning, and administrative buildings, and the presidential and government residences were seized, nobody among those who asked us to support the agreement called Moscow - not even to apologise but at least to say, "Well, we asked you to support it but see what happened." President Putin told them that he will back the agreement on the condition the opposition refrain from inconsiderate steps, particularly the use of force. They said: "Yes, yes, yes, we'll do this by all means." But nobody even called or lifted his hands in dismay at what happened.

During the fairly recent unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (I believe it was last year), African Americans attacked the police. Blood was shed. Several African Americans were killed, and the police were hurt as well. The National Guard was summoned, which quelled the riot in a fairly tough manner. Human rights activists were critical of this, but President Barack Obama said that any form of violence against the police is unacceptable.

Later, I asked my American colleagues whether the principle that violence against the police is unacceptable also applies to what happened during independence rallies in Ukraine in February 2014. Furthermore, I reminded them that in the first half of February, when things were quite tense, some Western capitals, along with NATO Secretary General (Anders von Rasmussen back then), made several statements urging President Yanukovych not to use the army against civilians and rally participants. He didn't issue such an order. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, he signed an agreement with the opposition groups, in which he waived this right in writing.

Following the coup, new authorities came to Kiev. In addition to emotional unofficial appeals to promote everything Ukrainian, they started calling to push the Russians aside and away. Then, they officially announced an anti-terrorist operation aimed at a vast portion of their own country only because people there refused to accept this coup, and then threw the army at these territories. I asked my Western colleagues, "How about you urging Yanukovych not to use the army against his own people? Can you do this again, but this time say it to the new authorities?" They have laid low since then, and the most that the West could say at that time was to call upon the new Kiev authorities to use force proportionately. Just imagine. This is what we have to deal with.

We are deeply convinced that the Minsk agreements contain the key to resolving the Ukraine crisis, I really hope so. French President Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Ukrainian President Poroshenko meet in Berlin today. I hope that after all, the leaders of these major European countries, who signed the Minsk agreements on February 12, will think about their reputation, because it is at stake, and will make sure that Ukraine fully complies with these agreements in the agreed upon sequence. I think that, in addition to their reputation, France and Germany are sincerely interested in calming down the situation in Ukraine and making sure that there's peace, and that people stop suffering, because this situation is fundamentally at odds with all the underlying principles of the European Union.

For obvious reasons, I have digressed. We can never have any bad blood with the Ukrainian people. I have many friends who are ethnic Ukrainians, and we still get together and talk. I'm convinced that common sense will prevail. No one wants to fight for some vague ideas or dig ditches with barbed wire. If this is your country, why isolate yourself with an artificial wall and make a show out of it?

Once again, the Minsk-2 agreements have all the conditions for Ukraine to be able to overcome the crisis, so that all those who live in Ukraine, regardless of whether they are Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, Hungarians, Bulgarians or Poles, can feel protected in terms of their cultural rights and values. The decentralisation, which is so vigorously discussed, could provide them with the right to use their mother tongue and enjoy certain economic advantages as compared with complete centralisation, etc.

Question: What do you think about youth exchanges? What is their role in grassroots diplomacy? What would you wish for all the young people here so that they can continue to maintain such relations?

Sergey Lavrov: Without youth exchanges there will be no continuity. No one wants to create any kind of unions looking to the future, so that later, when everybody currently working retires, everything comes to an end. Therefore, youth exchanges must exist.

It is no accident that youth associations are formed within BRICS, the SCO and many other processes that take place on the international arena. Frankly, this is not the first time that I'm talking with young people who engage in such associations. You are not directly part of any of these associations, but I spoke with the young people from the BRICS and SCO associations, and it's clear that they have fun working there, they do some real work and engage in entirely new processes that reflect dissatisfaction with the pace of change in the international arena, where our Western colleagues are parting with their dominant positions very reluctantly. However, these objective processes continue. BRICS and the SCO would like to accelerate them, but they would like to do so without any confrontation, being fully cognisant of the fact that we live in one world, and that we must build neighbourly, equal and mutually beneficial relations with everyone, including our Western colleagues.

This should be a combination of being part of something new, which is being built through BRICS, the SCO and other processes, while understanding that it should be done not in confrontation with other actors who are losing their influence, but in conjunction with them. This is a huge field open to creativity, creative approaches, and searching for new ways of doing things that may help bring together and harmonise these two seemingly irreconcilable approaches.

I wish you success in all your endeavours. I think that those who choose international studies as their career never regret it.

 [return to Contents] 

 #25
Reuters
August 27, 2015
Why Russia's latest attempt at a land grab is a farce
By Paul Stronski
Paul Stronski, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, served as a senior analyst on Russian domestic politics for the State Department's Bureau on Intelligence and Research. He was also on the National Security Council staff, focusing on Russia and Central Asia.

In the wake of Moscow's aggression in Ukraine, many of Russia's neighbors in the Arctic are feeling antsy. Yet some observers' attempts to blast Moscow's recent claim to 463,000 square miles of the Arctic as an aggressive "land grab," evidence of another Obama administration foreign policy failure, or the creation of a next "front" in a New Cold War don't ring true.

This is less about President Barack Obama and more about Russian President Vladimir Putin and his efforts to consolidate power at home. Russian living standards are falling and the state budget is shrinking - due in part to the global isolation Moscow faces from its Ukraine policies. So, the Kremlin is increasingly resorting to theatrics and trying to "stick it to the West" in any way it can in an attempt to divert public attention from growing social and economic problems.
[DJ: Emphasis added.]

It is unlikely Russia will really succeed in this expansive territorial claim. Russia is just one of several Arctic states claiming territory - including the natural resources - through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This convention allows littoral nations to establish an exclusive economic zone more than 200 nautical miles off their coast if they prove this area lies over a natural extension of that country's continental shelf. Denmark, for example, submitted a claim to the United Nations last December; Canada is expected to do so soon.

Moscow made a similar claim in 2002, but was rejected by the United Nations for lack of scientific evidence. So, for the past decade Russia and other Arctic states have been mapping their coastlines to try to prove their continental shelves extend up to the North Pole. Because the science here is not exact, the United Nations will have to mediate between competing national claims.

When making this claim, Russia abided by international law - in contrast to its 2014 illegal annexation of Crimea and the subsequent war in Ukraine.

One obvious reason Russia and the other nations are making these claims now is that global warming has opened up the Arctic. There has been greater human activity, including oil and gas exploration, new shipping lanes that can reduce sea transit times between continents and adventure tourism in the far north. All could prove lucrative.

Russia's Arctic gamble, however, is also an attempt to focus the Russian public's attention from the Ukraine war - which isn't going terribly well - and the growing problems at home. The Kremlin's grand plans for establishing Novorossiya in Ukraine have collapsed. Russian proxies now control only two small separatist statelets.

They do so only with active help of the Russian military, which has given up all pretense of non-involvement in Ukraine. Russian mothers, who remember Chechnya and Afghanistan, are nervous about their sons being sent off to a third futile war in a generation. The Kremlin is increasingly worried about the political toll such casualties might have on Putin's hold on power. Because problems abound for the Kremlin.

The Russian economy is shrinking, hammered by a combination of weak oil prices and Western sanctions. It is confronting inflation and local budget deficits, as well as popular grumbling. Russian liberal elites are unhappy that the relationship with the West has gotten so toxic. Conservatives are displeased that the Ukraine war has not led to a decisive victory for Moscow. Meanwhile, China, now struggling economically, is clearly not going to be the economic lifeline that the Kremlin hoped for.

In addition, Russia's Arctic claim is another instrument in the Kremlin's tool-kit for standing up to the West. Consider, all the other Arctic states are either European or North American - and have joined in levying sanctions on Moscow. So this claim is a win-win for the Kremlin: If the United Nations sides with Russia, the Kremlin can present it as a victory for Putin's foreign policy; if it rejects Russia's claim, the Kremlin can spin it as yet another example of the West undermining Russia.

The United States need not be alarmist about Russia's Arctic claim or its ambitious plans for the region. Moscow's bark - for example, a new Arctic Commission to promote economic development and ambitious plans to increase its military footprint there - is likely to be a lot worse than its bite.

Because the money to implement all these ambitious plans is not there. The Russian economy is projected to shrink by 4 percent to 5 percent this year and again in 2016. When it again starts to grow, its pace is likely to be anemic. Cut off from international credit markets by Western sanctions, Russia cannot pony up or borrow the funds it needs to develop the region.

Western sanctions have also sharply reduced Moscow's ability to attract foreign investors. Western oil majors, for example, are explicitly blocked by the sanctions regime from working in the Arctic. Yet Russia needs the oil industry's cash and resources to follow through on its ambitious plans.

Nonetheless Moscow's moves should be a wake-up call for Washington to focus on its own Arctic strategy. The United States has the second-largest Arctic population after Russia. However, Washington cannot claim an exclusive zone off the coast of Alaska because it never ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea,, which dates back to 1982. Because it never signed on to the convention, Washington has limited say in the U.N. body that mediates these claims.

For years, the United States has under-invested in capabilities to navigate and patrol the Arctic. It has only two active polar icebreakers in its Coast Guard fleet. Only one of them, commissioned in 1976 and already past its 30-year service life, has the capability to patrol the Arctic year round. Overall, the United States has fewer icebreakers than Russia, Finland, Sweden or Canada.

Instead of focusing on Russian posturing, the United States should concentrate on its major challenge - becoming a real Arctic state by first funding and building modern icebreakers.

Otherwise, Russia's claim will not matter. Because the United States will lack the basic ability to navigate the changing Arctic over the long term.

 [return to Contents] 

#26
Khodorkovsky Calls for Civil Disobedience against Unjust Laws and Putin's Unjust System
Paul Goble

Staunton, August 27 - Mikhail Khodorkovsky says that Russian citizens are fully entitled not to observe unjust laws imposed not to promote justice but to protect the power of Vladimir Putin, a potentially dramatic development in the relationship between the Russian opposition, the Russian people, and the Kremlin.

In a blog post on OpenRussia.org today that has been widely reposted, the former businessman, political prisoner and now émigré political leader argues that recent court cases and recent laws show that "in [Russia], there is no legal system, neither for 'the others' nor for 'our own'" (openrussia.org/post/view/9227/).

"Many laws in effect in the Russian Federation are immoral and unjust. It is immoral and unjust to take away from invalid children the right to be adopted by foreigners and leave them in far from ideal orphanages. It is immoral and unjust to threaten to deprive all citizens of Russia access to Wikipedia which does not have any analogues as a world repository of knowledge."

Moreover, "it is immoral and unjust to label groups 'foreign agents' and drive out of the country the Dynasty Foundation which supports scholarship while at the same time [the pro-Kremlin] United Russia Party receives financing from offshore accounts."

Many people in many times and countries have discussed the proper relationship between law as a formal act and true law, and "a consensus on this has been worked out long ago. If a formal law is unjust, it does not correspond to true law; and that means that citizens have the right not to observe it."

As Khodorkovsky points out, "the genocide in Nazi Germany also was carried out according to formal law, but who would decide to condemn those Germans who opposed it and refused to obey such laws?"

"From this follows a quite simple conclusion," he continues. "Citizens of Russia have the complete right not to observe illegal and unjust laws like 'the Dima Yakovlev law' and the laws about the destruction of sanctioned products. They have the moral and what is most important the legal right to go around the blocking of websites by Roskomnadzor."

The current situation in which Oleg Mironov was condemned unjustly and therefore "not in correspondence with real law, reflects "the nature of the Russian law enforcement system or more precisely its absence.  That system has been transformed into simply 'a protection' one" for the authorities.

Those who commit even insignificant violations but whose actions are not in accord with the leaders of the country are punished severely, Khodorkovsky continues, while those who commit major crimes but do so with the agreement of those in power escape without any punishment at all.

"Regardless of our political views," he argues, "we all as a society very much need a state which is capable of adopting understandable, truly legal and just laws and a state which will observe these laws and not use them as clubs against those the powers find unsuitable." Russians need "a state based on law and not on propaganda and the unlimited power of one man.'

"A strong state about which many dream is not a state which can deal as it likes with any political opponent but one which is capable of ensuring that law is observed on the territory of the entire country."  Khodorkovsky adds: "without a state based on law and justice and not personal power, we will not make it better."

Keeping people behind bars who threaten no one violates the principles of mercy which should be behind all legislation, he concludes.  "The desire 'to punish' only distracts the attention of society from the true causes and the truly guilty." What Russia needs are laws and a legal system based on justice and its universal application.

That is not what Vladimir Putin offers Russians now, Khodorkovsky reiterates, and Russians thus have every right to violate his unjust and immoral laws and his equally unjust and immoral application of formal law.

 

 [return to Contents] 

 #27
RFE/RL
August 26, 2015
Report With Tally Of 'Russian War Casualties' Causes Stir
by Mike Eckel
[DJ: Nataliya Vasilyeva (AP Moscow correspondent) tweets: 2 day of Western officials retweeting a Forbes report quoting a Ukrainian web-site quoting a non-existent Russia news web-site re Ukraine. The main problem here is, of course, where was the Forbes online editor when the story was published, why nobody bothered to check sources? The ease of spreading rumors in the digital world is astonishing.]

A Russian-language website has caused a stir with a report asserting that more than 2,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Delovaya Zhizn, which translates as Business Life, published the information online in March, as part of a larger story of how the Russian federal budget was compensating relatives of servicemen killed in the line of duty.

The report went unnoticed until Ukrainian websites and Forbes magazine's online edition drew attention to it this week. Two former U.S. ambassadors to Russia and Ukraine -- Michael McFaul and Steven Pifer, respectively -- tweeted out mention of the report.

The issue of Russian soldiers fighting in eastern Ukraine is critical for the Kremlin, which has routinely denied that its military forces are involved in the conflict between Ukrainian government troops and Russian-backed separatists, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. In some cases, the Kremlin has said that any Russians fighting in Ukraine are merely volunteers.

In May, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree classifying Russian military casualties in peacetime "special operations" as a state secret, and prohibiting their publication.

Research released earlier that month by Russia's political opposition tallied at least 220 Russian soldiers who had died in Ukraine. The United Nations has placed the death toll in the conflict that began in April 2014 at more than 6,400, including civilians and combatants, and said it may be much higher.

As of August 26, most of the original story was still posted on the Delovaya Zhizn site, though the material specifically related to Russian casualties had been removed. Cached versions, however, showed the article reporting that as of February 1, more than 2,000 families had received compensation for relatives killed in Ukraine. Another 3,200 soldiers wounded in battle had also received compensation, it said.

RFE/RL could not independently confirm the figures. A person who responded to messages sent to Delovaya Zhizn's e-mail address identified himself as Anatoly Kravchenko, and said that the website had received the casualty figures from relatives of dead servicemen as well as "insider information" from the Russian Defense Ministry, but declined to identify any specific sources.

The person also said the site had removed the information about casualties from the article after receiving a warning from Russia's media regulator, Roskomnadzor, saying that the site was in breach of Russian law and threatening consequences if the article was not removed or revised.

A phone call to Roskomnadzor's office in Moscow was not immediately returned.

In the period leading up to Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014, masked, camouflaged soldiers appeared abruptly around the Black Sea peninsula. The soldiers wore no insignias and the Kremlin repeatedly denied they were Russian servicemen.

Later on, however, Putin acknowledged that the soldiers were Russian and a holiday was established to honor them.

In an effort to discredit Russian claims, Ukraine has frequently distributed photos and videos of captured soldiers who identify themselves as active-duty Russian servicemen.

In a video released earlier this month by Ukraine's main security agency, a man captured by Ukrainian forces near the city of Donetsk said he had served 19 years in the Russian Army and appealed directly to Putin to secure his release.

 [return to Contents] 

 #28
Parlio.com
August 14-20, 2015
Q&A
Michael McFaul
Stanford Professor - Former US Amb. to Russia
[http://www.parlio.com/qa/michael-mcfaul]

What is Parlio?
Parlio is an online community committed to giving people the power to share their thoughts about issues that matter to them and communicate with some of today's most prominent intellectuals and public figures.

Michael McFaul
Hello everyone! I just joined Parlio and I'm happy to be doing this Q&A with the rest of the community.

I'm a Political Science Professor at Stanford, prior to that I was the former US Ambassador to Russia, Special Assistant to President Obama, and the Senior Director for the Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council. I am also the Director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford.

Looking forward to a thoughtful conversation!

This Q&A took place between 8/14/15 and 8/20/15.
    
Yuri Panchul    
Was the democratically elected president of Ukraine Victor Yanukovich (the goodness of his election was confirmed by the US back in 2010) impeached according to the procedure established by the Ukrainian constitution as of Feb 2014 - or was he just deposed in "extra-legal" manner by unconstitutional simple vote by the Ukrainian parliament in violation of the legal procedure of impeaching the president of Ukraine as defined by the Ukrainian constitution at the moment?
    
Michael McFaul    
Yanukovich left Ukraine. He himself left the office in an "extra-legal" manner. Sometimes in history, including our own, constitutions don't spell out what is to be done in every instance. For instance, I don't think there is a clause in the Ukrainian constitution that starts with the clause, "In the event that the elected president decide to leave the country for good, then..." The procedures taken after he left were imperfect, but probably the best that could be done given the circumstances.

Wael Ghonim    
Michael, welcome to Parlio! Looking forward to your contributions!

The International community's reaction to the Syrian crises is extremely disappointing. If you were the President of the United States, what are the actions you'd take to end the sufferings of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees? What would you do differently to put a quicker end to the ongoing civil war in the country?

Michael McFaul    
Wow Wael, that is a really hard question. I don't pretend to have a good answer. I do believe we (the Obama administration, since I was still in government at the time) , the West, and the world made some serious mistakes that contributed to this tragic situation, although of course, most blame must remain with Assad and his allies. I could go into those past mistakes, but you asked about the future.

Obviously, we should supply greater humanitarian relief to those suffering. These efforts remain grossly underfunded.

Second, we should try again to pressure the regime to enter into a negotiation about a political transition. We failed at this effort -- Geneva I and II -- when I was in government, but circumstances have now changed.

As part of that strategy, we should make greater effort to engage with element of the Assad regime who could become more serious about a transition in return of protecting tier property rights, staying our of jail, etc. Lots of transitions have such "birth defects" as Terry Karl famously called them when writing about Latin American in the 1980s/ But honestly, I am not optimistic.
     
Hanna Tyson    
What advice would you give to students who want to go into the foreign service and diplomacy?
     
Michael McFaul    
Just do it! The 5 years I spent in government -- 3 at the White House and 2 in Moscow -- were truly exhilarating. I love the Farm (and looking forward to Stanford football starting up again!) but also miss being in government. I came out of the State Department more impressed with the calibre of people there and appreciated of their career paths. If I had to do it all over again at your stage in life, I might have taken the foreign service exam and gone directly into diplomacy!

Rosemarie McConnell
Do you believe that it is the US's strategy to attempt to isolate Putin and Russia and deny Russia a sphere of influence? If not, what do you see as the reasons for the US involvement in the affairs of Ukraine?

Do you see any powerful people/forces in the US government advocating for better relations/less tension with Russia?

Michael McFaul    

I agree with Obama that sphere of influences may have been a useful concept for earlier centuries, but makes no sense in the 21st. That was are reasoning behind the Reset. We sought to cooperate with Russia to achieve win-win outcomes, and define issues in zero-sum terms. It work for a while, but then Putin came back to power, and he sees the world in zero-sum terms, especially with us. No one I know in the USG wants or advocates for conflict with Russia. But it takes two to tango. For more on my views on this topic see my latest article in the Washington Quarterly.
     
Zebulon Carlander
As a Swede, I am very curious to know: What do you believe are Russian ambitions in the Baltic Sea Region?
     
Michael McFaul    
They are big. We should be very focused on their activities there. For too long, not enough people in the region, including your country, believed that Russia could be a threat again. Follow Bildt on Twitter to learn more.

Yisroel Quint    
Ramzan Kadyrov, the strongman leader of Chechnya, has made statements that indicate he is willing to challenge the Russia government's authority in Chechnya (regarding the murderers of Nemtsov). Do you believe he is totally under Putin's control? Also, do you see him taking a more national role in the future?
     
Michael McFaul    
He is not totally under the control of Putin, or to be more precise, he is not totally under the control of the Russian federal government. Putin decided to give Kadyrov a lot of independence in return for Kadyrov's pledge to restore law and order there. That tradeoff may have looked smart a while ago, but has come back to haunt the Kremlin. The various theories flying around Moscow about Nemtsov's murder suggests more divisions among the ruling elite than is often assumed in Western accounts.
     
Alex Gladstein    
Hello Michael - in your opinion, who are the most effective civil society groups working inside Russia today? I'm including independent media, human rights groups, and anti-corruption organizations. What groups are doing amazing work and how can the outside world best acknowledge and support them?

Michael McFaul    
Alex, I shouldn't answer your question, as the very act of me naming them might cause them trouble back home! What I will say is that there are thousands of incredibly talented, courageous leaders in all of these areas you mentioned. They may be less visible now than they were a few years ago, but they have not gone away. They are still fighting for a more democratic future for their country. I remain deeply impressed with their efforts.

Mohamed Moawad    
As a former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, how do you look at outgoing top general Oderino's statement two days ago that Russia not ISIS is the most dangerous threat to the U.S. ?
     
Michael McFaul
I haven't read his statement, only press accounts of it, so I need to be "diplomatic"! In terms of capacity, of course Russia remains the country most capable of doing serious damage to the United States. They can still blow us up overnight. Russia also has more conventional capacity than is often assumed. Americans like to talk about Russia as a declining power. I think that is an incorrect assumption. However, in terms of intent, I believe there are limits to what Putin will do. He will not attack a NATO ally. He will not attack us. ISIS might. My biggest worry is us all stumbling into a conflict. Russia's current aggressive behavior in Europe makes that more likely.
     
Frank Kuzminski    
Professor McFaul, thank you for the opportunity to ask questions. What do you see as the future of U.S.-Russian nuclear security cooperation, particularly with respect safeguards and non-proliferation initiatives, given the cooling of relations over the last 18 months? Are there any other areas where the U.S. and Russia can foster a closer working relationship, such as terrorism or violent extremism?
    
Michael McFaul    
On nonpro, I tragically don't see any big breakthroughs coming. Putin didn't even come to the Nuclear Security Summit. On terrorism, there are more opportunities, but only if done quietly.

Louis McWilliams
How can the US productively counter increasing Russian aggression in Europe, and what role will Russia play on the world stage moving forward? Is there the potential for the instigation of another world war?
     
Michael McFaul    
On instigating a war, I worry for instance about a bar fight between ethnic Russians and ethnic Estonians in Narva, after which some hotheaded "volunteers" from Russia decide to come toe the aid of their Russian comrades in Estonia. Maybe it's just 5-6 men with guns. Maybe they genuinely will be "volunteers." How does NATO respond? That's my nightmare scenario. On U.S. strategy, check out these articles: Who Lost Russia (This Time)? Vladimir Putin Stoner/McFaul Washington Quarterly: http://tinyurl.com/orwnrjp
or Confronting Putin's Russia: http://tinyurl.com/pamt8ka

Hyeonseo Lee    
Russia seems to have strengthened ties with North Korea during the Kim Jong-un era. What does each country need most from the other? And what would it take for the proposed Russian gas pipeline through North Korea to be approved by the North Korean leadership?
     
Michael McFaul    
I'm sure you are more expert on this subject than I am. What do you think? On the pipeline, I think that will not happen for a long long time, if ever, not because of North Korean, but because of South Koreans. It's too expensive and too risky.

Isaac Hasson    
When defending the President's inability to deter Putin's aggression in Ukraine, you cite a number of historical examples where American presidents failed to deter Russian aggression on its periphery, most recently Georgia. But considering that Russia occupied parts of Georgia for a total of twelve days, isn't this an unfair comparison?

While you were Ambassador, our government pursued rapprochement with Russia. The President even mocked Governor Romney for calling Russia a geopolitical foe. In retrospect, it seems like it was Obama who had bad judgement, even if Romney's statement was a little hyperbolic. We had a "reset," we canceled long range missile defense in Czech Republic and Poland, you and President Obama talked about "a new relationship with Russia." Clearly, that has not materialized. In retrospect, do you believe that these concessions were worth it?
     
Michael McFaul
Glad you are reading my articles! Again, read the piece blow for a longer answer. On Russia soldiers in Georgia, they are still there! They didn't leave in 12 days. (Like most of the rest of the world, I consider Abkhazia and South Ossetia part of Georgia). We did not "cancel" missile defense in Europe. That's just not true. We made missile defense much stronger . Look up what EPAA has been doing. Bush planned to put in 10 GBIs. EPAA plan to deploy hundreds of SM3s. Russians are very upset. On Reset, we tried to work with Russia on issues of mutual interest, and go some big things done -- START, NDN, Iran sanctions, WTO. Putin came in and ended it. So we too pivoted away from reset. But read more here:
Stoner / McFaul Washington Quarterly Piece: http://tinyurl.com/orwnrjp
     
Kevin Ryan    
Should the U.S. base its relationship with Russia on deterrence or cooperation?
     
Michael McFaul    
both: selective containment, selective engagement. Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/orwnrjp or here: Confronting Putin's Russia: http://tinyurl.com/pamt8ka

Victor Santiago Pineda    
In what ways do you see cities changing or influencing foreign policy in the coming years?
     
Michael McFaul    
Will be big drivers: Ivo Daalder is the guy to read on this subject.

Hany Shoukry    
What's your best guess of the when, who, and how of the post-Putin era?
21 upvotes  Upvote
     
Alexia Parks    
Catherine the Great ruled Russia for 34 years. In conversations with Voltaire in 1771, she stated: "The nation's glory is my own, that is my principle." What are the trends and *unseen* forces shaping business, education and politics today that might foster the future rise of a woman as president of Russia?
     
Michael McFaul    
Wow! I don't know. As ambassador, though, I met many talented, smart, strong women who could easily do that job. I'm serious, dozens.
     
Ward Wilson    
In a world which had elected to eliminate nuclear weapons, which country would be the last (or most grudging) to give nuclear weapons up? And why?
     
Michael McFaul
Hard question. Russia or US. I was just rereading Obama's Prague speech in the spring of 2009. Check it out. So hopeful.

Joe Cerami    
How would you assess Angela Merkl's efforts in handling the crisis in Ukraine?
     
Michael McFaul    
The best we have.

Stephane Mot    
What are the greatest risks for Russia and the world in case of a sudden death of Putin? Knowing that Medvedev could pull a 'Maduro' for a while...

Michael McFaul    
I don't want to speculate about that. A colleague of mine once did and it got him into HUGE trouble back in Russia!
    
Jan Zilinsky    
I heard from classmates and even professors at university that "it is no longer necessary to study foreign languages." The justification is typically something like: "we now have superior translation technologies." How would you make the case for learning new languages today?
     
Michael McFaul    
When I am asked, what were the tools I learned in school that were most useful to me in government, my answer is (1) knowing Russian, and (2) knowing history. I cannot overestimate how empowering it was for me to speak Russian, both while working at WH and Moscow.

Michael McFaul    
OK, folks, have to go back to work now. It's been fun. Invite me back!

 [return to Contents] 

#29
The Kremlin Stooge
https://marknesop.wordpress.com
August 26, 2015
The Abyss Looks Back: Europe's Phenomenal Arrogance
By Mark Chapman

Today marks a special treat for the readers here, because it is the occasion of Lyttenburgh's writing debut. Lyttenburgh first appeared here just about this time in 2010, as Carpenter117. I don't know anything about him, I'm afraid, other than that he is Russian-born and lives in Russia somewhere. Whatever else he chooses to reveal is up to him. As I've mentioned in discussion, his English has improved tremendously, although it was always good; I first noticed him elsewhere, on Julia Ioffe's old blog at True/Slant, which was later absorbed by Forbes. Mark Adomanis was a regular at True/Slant, as well. There's just something about Ioffe's patronizing condescension that winds Russians up, I'm afraid.

Today's post deals with a somewhat higher authority, which is also prone to smug condescension far out of proportion to its own claim to authority - the European Council on Foreign Relations. They appeared in the pillory here not very long ago, as I recall, and I strongly agree that their demonstrated performance suggests decades, if not generations, of dedicated and enthusiastic inbreeding.

What do Russians really think about the way the western allies view them? About their patronizing pseudosympathy? Their one-upmanship snubs, like who doesn't get to sit at the popular kids' table at the high-school cafeteria? The outright fabrications as it needles Russia through its popular press while its regulatory councils take their own press's nattering for gospel?

Pull up a chair, and let's hear. Lyttenburgh? The floor is yours.

On Europe's Phenomenal Arrogance

A lot of august bodies have decided to share their thoughts on the current vis-à-vis between Russia and what is colloquially known as "the West". Most of such "musings" inevitably touches the subject of the current situation in Ukraine, due to it's being a "hotspot" in the bilateral relations. Most often we are graced by some strongly worded opinions from the veritable Legion of the Free and Independent Western press (™), or it might be even a Deep and Thorough Analysis by this or that think-tank, NGO or research facility, sharing with the hoi-poloi of the world their convoluted (and, therefore, unquestionably true) findings on the nature of things they probably didn't even have any previous personal contact with.

And then we have something... anomalous. And huge. I'm talking here about a report (well, "commentary", to be precise) of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a rather self- explanatory name for an organization. [http://inosmi.ru/ecfr/]

The Limits and Necessity of Europe's Russia Sanctions
[http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_limits_and_necessity_of_europes_russia_sanctions3091]

The picture below the title of the article shows Moscow's Kremlin and the snow-covered streets of Moscow. Because -apparently! - it is always gloomy and snowy in Russia. How you gonna argue with such a paragon of Western objectivity on Russia's portrayal as the Independence Day movie, where there is snow in Russia in July?!

You might say that I'm too nitpicky. Honestly, I'll cease and desist the very moment the West stops this kind of petty manipulation of public perception of my country.

The article from the very beginning says what it's about:

"To get a clearer understanding of the situation it might be useful to start from the other end - not to ask if the sanctions work, but to first look at the nature of Europe's problem with Russia and ask what it would take to fix it, or even whether it can be fixed by the West at all. That will allow us to see what role the sanctions can play in remedying the problem - and what the things that sanctions cannot accomplish are."

In short - this article is about judging Russia by the esteemed people of the EUrocracy, and determining - is it worthy of their "mercy". The author asks his audience,

"Do we want Russia to leave Donbas? Give back Crimea? Do we expect a regime change in Moscow? Or do we want Russia to start behaving "as a normal European country," i.e. one that tries to base its influence on attraction rather than coercion?"

with the straightest face possible. Suddenly, Russia became an object of EU decisions, as if Russia now is a member of the EU (it isn't) or that the EU is some super strong, unified world power capable of really compelling Russia to do it's bidding (again - nope).

Unfortunately, what follows is the author's opinion on "the nature of our Russian problem". The author had a mighty lot of predecessors willing to find a "final solution" for the "Russian problem". This particular individual, elevated well above his station by the simple fact that he writes for the ECFR, does the most "professional" thing possible - goes full ad hominem not only against Russian president Vladimir Putin (KGB reference included), but to the Russian people as well. You see, for the author of this "commentary", Russians are just "rent-seeking clients" mobilized against "enemy figures - real or imaginary". The Russian system of education (in the Soviet era, second to none - now "thankfully" reformed by the West worshiping "democrats") plus "the state-centric way history and international relations are taught at Russian schools and universities" has contributed to the fact that the EU is "having problems" with Russia.

As a person educated in Russia by the Russian system of education (including Higher Education) I can say that this kind of claim is inaccurate. In the Moscow State University (aka "Lomonosov's") our professors took a lot of effort to drive us to the "multi-vector approach" of the history and historiography, taught us of many existing schools of thoughts and research. No one indoctrinated gentle young souls into some Putin-worshiping cult. I can safely claim, from personal experience, that I was educated from a plethora of historical textbooks - including extremely "handshakable" ones, both in school (state run) and at the Uni. Still, I am who I am despite (and thanks) to everything that I've learned earlier. So, basically implying that the Russian state is "brainwashing" youngsters in the state-run higher education institutions is a big fat lie. One only need to look at MSU's (of Lomonosov) Journalism department to see teeming masses of "handshakables" and "not-living-by-the-lie-ers" in the making.

But the article is actually right in one regard - it admits the vast abyss that exists now between the Western perception of the current situation and the Russian one. The author is even sufficiently capable to articulate it correctly:

"What makes the current standoff so tense and dangerous is not the reach of Russia's territorial ambitions, as many suggest, but vice versa - the limited nature of them, and its psychological implications. Moscow sees itself as having given up everything: it has left Central Europe, it has left the Baltic States, not to mention Cuba, Africa and the Middle East, but now the West seems intent on 'taking' the last little bit that was left - 'brotherly' Ukraine. Of course Moscow takes it emotionally and tries to fight back."

But then, as tradition dictates, the author allows his own ideological bias to distort the rest of the narrative in what might have become an honest attempt to look at the current problem from both sides' perspective:

"The countries in Russia's neighbourhood - in what one can call the Eastern Partnership area - received their independence semi-accidentally in 1991, when it was promptly hijacked by corrupt elites. Now, their societies are starting to mature and demand better governance, rule of law and more say over their countries' futures. This manifests in a bumpy, but inevitable evolutionary process that the EU did not launch and does not control, but cannot do anything other than support. Moscow, on the other hand, is fixated on the elites it can control - and therefore bound to resist it. The clash is systemic, and likely to manifest repeatedly as long as the fundamentals remain unchanged."

Calling the multitude of processes that in the end resulted in the dissolution of the USSR "a semi-accident" is an admission of one's ignorance about the history of every single country of the so-called "Eastern Partnership area". The author also fails to mention that "societies" (the author obviously likes this term as much as he despises the term "the people") in some of these countries indeed have found an answer how to reach a "better governance, rule of law and more say over their countries' futures". One only has to look at Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. And let's not forget that Russia itself was "promptly hijacked by corrupt elites". And what the EU "did not launch... but cannot do anything other than support" were the forces inimical to these governments, which managed, indeed, to bring better governance, rule of law (which was non-existent before) and more say over their countries' futures (that's it - they will have more say about it, not some "advisers" from Brussels or Washington).

And then the article lists all the reasons why the West won't reach any agreement with Russia. The EU will continue to do what it pleases, not giving a damn about Russian concerns over "spheres of influence" because of "the OSCE charter, the principles of the Council of Europe, the founding documents of the EU and NATO and so forth"- even despite the fact that some members of Russia's elite are indeed ready to strike a deal with them. This sort of sincerity is kinda refreshing, I must say. When a person speaking on behalf of the West freely admits that they don't care about Russia's opinion at all, that any real equal dialog is pointless, this sounds both arrogantly prideful and refreshingly new.

But the article also discusses some methods to "fix the Russian problem"! Once again, I'm reminded of some other high-ranking citizens of the "United Europe" of old, who had similar plans. But the new generation is much, much more merciful to the undeserving "lessers":

"Ideally, Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if not our values, then at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion to win allies and make itself influential. Some experts suggest that to achieve that, we need a regime change in Russia. This would be true if our Russia-problem was rooted solely in the personality of Putin and the nature of his regime - but this is probably not the case. Russia's dominance-fixated mindset has survived multiple regime changes...

"What is needed, therefore, is something much more complicated: Russia's sincere and extensive rethink of the means and ends of its international behaviour. This is closer to an identity change, than to a regime change. And a lot trickier. While such things have happened in history, the circumstances that bring them about are generally unpredictable and tend to vary greatly - which means that this is not something that outsiders can easily bring about, and achieve a desired outcome."

One of the biggest reasons why Russians resisted so fiercely (and why the common people's memory preserved it through generations) the many-faced West is because of its desire to "re-make" and "re-model" Russia into forms more suitable to the West. Numerous nomads from the East were up to the usual stuff - pillage, burning, slave taking. But they've never dictated to the Russians how they should rule themselves or how they must worship. Only the West did it and by doing it have forever earned the special degree of distrust - confirmed once again by this "commentary" of the EU institution, not intended to be read by Russian "savages" at all. While the author generously admits that "perhaps" Russia doesn't warrant a "regime change" (which, you must understand, is sort of a norm for the Free and Democratic West - i.e. changing legally elected "regimes" for fun and profit) in Russia, he still argues for an "ideal" Russia without an independent foreign policy; he is arguing for Russia surrendering its security and economical concerns in the name of "appealing to Europe". Oh, and he also dreams of Russia which abandons any thoughts of allying itself with China because the EU are the good guys, and China is a "meanie".

The article is a true hodge-podge of some brilliant epiphanies (for a typical westerner) - when, say, the author argues that the West's blind support or Yeltsin in 1996 in face of the possible "communist revival" has been unwarranted and even harmful. But then, unfortunately, the author decides to touch upon the subject of Western sanctions, and here we might glimpse the true attitude of "what it's all about" concerning them:

"This implies a wider strategy that consists of boosting the security of the vulnerable EU and NATO members, defending the independence and sovereignty of the EaP countries, and keeping sanctions until the conditions for lifting them - implementations of the Minsk agreements or settlement of the Crimea issue - are fulfilled...

"... It is good that the sanctions are linked to concrete demands - return of Crimea and fulfilment of the Minsk agreements. This provides a relatively clear conditionality that Europe needs to stick to. While the Crimea-related sanctions will probably remain in place for the foreseeable future, as a settlement of the issue is not on the horizon, the Minsk agreements are supposed to be implemented by the end of the year."

This is very notable, because in just a few paragraphs a person close to the EU analytical stuff (at least) admits that:

Russia MUST "return" Crimea to Ukraine

b) Russia will be held personally accountable for any failures in implementation of Minsk agreement.

And despite the fact that the author tries to distract us with all his flowery words about "one does not need to make sanctions a 'barometer' of Russian behaviour in Ukraine" (because, As Everybody Knows It  (™) - "Russia is waging a war on the territory in the territory of Ukraine, and about Zero percent of locals actual contribute to it"), while demanding that the EU's policy " must consist of a refusal to roll back sanctions before Ukraine has gained full control of its eastern border". In short - the current Kiev government can do nothing regarding their responsibilities according to the Minsk-2 accord (with the blessing of the EU, it's implied), but Russia must be held responsible for EVERYTHING. And be sanctioned appropriately, should it falter in its duties. After all, "sanctions should be a slow squeeze that gradually reduces Russia's freedom of manoeuvre and thereby reminds it of its misdeeds and Europe's displeasure."

The conclusion of the article, despite the absence of any bellicose terms, reads (at least for me) as a declaration of War against Russia:

"Europe needs to be aware that our problem with Russia is long-term and multi-layered. It is clear that the sanctions are not a miracle cure to fix it all, but they need to be a small part of a bigger strategy. They are instrumental in restoring our credibility and possibly fixing a few near- or medium term goals. Getting that right, however, is important, as credibility is something Europe badly needs if it wants to influence processes in the future. Hence the necessity of sanctions - despite all their limits."

Actually, the majority of politically aware Russians won't find anything "revelatory" in this article. It's been a "Punchinello's Secret" that the EU will always skew more on the side of regime in Kiev while reviewing the "fulfillment" of the Minsk-2 resolution. The Official EU (as opposed to its individual members) will always see Russia as an aggressor and the guilty party by default. While the talks about "possible cancellation of sanctions" remain a sort of tasty carrot for some people (especially for some too eager to sell Crimea for a batch of the "true" Italian Mozzarella cheese), the fact remains - the EU will renew its sanctions against Russian at the end of 2015, no matter what.

The sheer gall of claiming that "...Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if not our values, then at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion to win allies and make itself influential" is astonishing. Since when did the so-called "United Europe" abandon the use of "coercion to win allies and make itself influential"? What has happened to the collective memory of the Enlightened Western Public (™) (Totally Entitled to Its Own Opinion Even Without Knowing A Thing) about the events that preceded the bloody coup d'etat in Kiev on February 22, 2014?

But, despite all its flaws, I actually like these kinds of "anomalous articles" that sometimes grace the pages of the Free and Independent Western Press (™). First of all - some admissions here signify that the so-called analysts in the West are not brain-dead and that they can still understand and articulate some basic things about Russia's perspective, in the language probably accessible to the vast majority of their target audience. Second - the article is refreshingly honest about the West's goals and objectives in the conflict with Russia.

Yes, there is some flowery prose here, but the core imperatives are hard to miss. And, yes, I'm using the term "the West" in rather broad definition here. Despite their best attempts to conceal this, it's rather obvious for anyone with a functioning brain that the EU sanctions against Russia applied (as they claim) due to "the unlawful annexation of Crimea", "support of militants in the Ukrainian East" or "Russia's as yet unconfirmed (but we are counting on it anyway!) complicity in the downing of MH17" have nothing to do with any point of the Minsk-2 agreement. In fact, right after the signing of this treaty, the EU decided to prove to the Whole Civilized World that it didn't bow down to Russia's demands, and issued yet another batch of sanctions.

But for every Russian who will read this article (and believe me - there will be a fair amount of them), after they get the essence of it, they will realize that this is not some op-ed by the typically "handshakable" Western outlet, that this "commentary" had been published by the Powers That Be of the EU - and that everything written herein bodes nothing good for Russia in the foreseeable future, no matter what. Russians, being the citizens of Russia, tend to react very negatively to some Western countries' decision to "deal" with them. And the reaction will follow. As it turned out, the Westerners of old (who also had some "long- term problems with Russia") were truly... mortified by such manner of counter-reaction.

 [return to Contents]