How Strelkov lost the plot

In the Moscow Times, Allison Quinn gives an interesting insight into the workings of the mind of  the Russian separatist leader Igor Girkin, aka "Strelkov":

Despite Strelkov's prominence as one of the top fighters in the Ukraine conflict, however, Zakharchenko implied he was generally not regarded highly by his fellow fighters.

An example of Strelkov's ruthlessness involved a plan to destroy nine-story buildings in Slovyansk, a strategy that Zakharchenko said triggered a "wild scandal."

This destructive scheme, the product of the fantasies of a "war-re-enactor" (Girkin's peacetime profession and hobby), seems to have endeared him to the men under his command in Eastern Ukraine just as little as his plans to execute them for looting.

Lavrov Statement at 69th Session of UNGA

Unofficial translation
Check against delivery
STATEMENT
by H.E. Mr. Sergey V. LAVROV,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
at the 69th session of the UN General Assembly

September 27, 2014

Distinguished Mr. Chairman,

There is a growing evidence of a contradiction between the need for collective
and partner efforts in the interest of elaborating adequate responses to challenges
common to all and the aspiration of a number of states for domination and revival of
archaic bloc thinking based on military drill discipline and erroneous logic of "friend
or foe".

The U.S.-led Western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy,
rule of law and human rights within individual countries, acts from directly opposite
positions in the international arena, rejecting the democratic principle of sovereign
equality of states enshrined the UN Charter and trying to decide for everyone what is
good or evil.

Washington has openly declared its right to unilateral use of force anywhere to
uphold its own interests. Military interference has become a norm - even despite the
dismal outcome of all power operations that the U.S. has carried out over the recent
years.

The sustainability of the international system has been severely shaken by
NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia, intervention in Iraq, attack against Libya and the
failure of operation in Afghanistan. Only due to intensive diplomatic efforts the
aggression against Syria was prevented in 2013. There is an involuntary impression
that the goal of various "color revolutions" and other projects to change unsuitable
regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.

Today Ukraine has fallen victim to such an arrogant policy. The situation there
has revealed the remaining deep-rooted systemic flaws of the existing architecture in
the Euro-Atlantic area. The West has embarked upon the course towards "vertical
structuring of humanity" tailored to its own hardly inoffensive standards. After they
declared victory in the Cold War and the "end of history", the U.S. and EU have opted
for expanding the geopolitical area under their control without taking into account the
balance of legitimate interests of all peoples of Europe. The Western partners did not
heed to our numerous alerts on inadmissibility of violation of the principles of the UN
Charter and Helsinki Final Act, and time and again avoided serious joint work for the
establishment of the common space of equal and indivisible security and cooperation
from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The Russian proposal to draft the European security
treaty was rejected. We were told directly that only the members of the North Atlantic
Alliance can have the legally binding guarantees of security, and the NATO
enlargement to the East continued in spite of the promises to the contrary given
earlier. The instant switch of NATO to hostile rhetoric and to the drawdown of its
cooperation with Russia even to the detriment of the West's own interests, and
additional build up of military infrastructure at the Russian borders - made obvious
the inability of the alliance to change the genetic code it embedded during the Cold
War era.

The U.S. and EU supported the coup d’état in Ukraine and reverted to outright
justification of any acts by the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities that opted for
suppression by force of the part of the Ukrainian people that had rejected the attempts
to impose the anti-constitutional way of life to the entire country and wanted to
defend its rights to the native language, culture and history. It is precisely the
aggressive assault on these rights that compelled the population of Crimea to take the
destiny in its own hands and make a choice in favor of self-determination. This was
an absolutely free choice no matter what was invented by those who are responsible in
the first place for the internal conflict in Ukraine.

The attempts to distort the truth and to hide the facts behind blanket accusations
have been undertaken at all stages of the Ukrainian crisis. Nothing has been done to
track down and prosecute those responsible for February bloody events at Maidan and
massive loss of human lives in Odessa, Mariupol and other regions of Ukraine. The
scale of appalling humanitarian disaster provoked by the acts of the Ukrainian army in
the South-Eastem Ukraine has been deliberately underscored. Recently, new horrible
facts have been brought to light when mass graves were discovered in the suburbs of
Donetsk. Despite UNSC Resolution 2166 a thorough and independent investigation of
the circumstances of the loss of Malaysian airliner over the territory of Ukraine has
been protracted. The culprits of all these crimes must be identified and brought to
justice. Otherwise the national reconciliation in Ukraine can hardly be expected.

Russia is sincerely interested in the restoration of peace in the neighboring
country and this should be well understood by all who are even slightly acquainted
with the history of the deep-rooted and fraternal ties between the two peoples. The
way towards political settlement is well known: last April Kiev has already taken
upon itself an obligation in the Geneva Declaration of Russia, Ukraine, U.S. and EU
to immediately start a wide all-national dialogue with the participation of all regions
and political forces of Ukraine with a view to carrying out a constitutional reform.
The implementation of this obligation would allow all Ukrainians to agree on how to
live in accordance with their traditions and culture and restore the Ukraine's organic
role as a binding link between the various parts of the European space which naturally
implies the preservation and respect by all of its neutral and non-bloc status. We are
convinced that in the presence of good will and denial of support to the "party of war"
in Kiev which is trying to push the Ukrainian people into the abyss of national
catastrophe the way out of crisis is within our reach.

The way to overcoming the crisis has been opened with the achievement of the
cease-fire agreement in the South-Eastem Ukraine on. the basis of initiatives by
Presidents P.A.Poroshenko and V.V.Putin. With the participation of the
representatives of Kiev, Donetsk, Lugansk, OSCE and Russia, practical measures are
being agreed upon successive implementation of this understanding, including the
separation of the parties to the conflict, pull back of heavy weapons of the Ukrainian
army and militia forces, setting up monitoring trough the OSCE and preparation for
elections in the South-East. Russia is ready to continue to actively promote the
political settlement. However, it should be crystal clear that we are doing this for the
sake of peace, tranquility and wellbeing of the Ukrainian people rather than for
catering to someone's ambitions. The attempts to put on pressure on Russia and to
compel it to abandon its values, truth and justice have no prospects whatsoever.

Let me recall a history of not so far ago. As a condition for establishing
diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1933 the U.S. government demanded of
Moscow the guarantees of non-interference into domestic affairs of the U.S. and
obligations not to take any actions with a view to changing political or social order in
America. At that . time Washington feared a revolutionary virus and the above
guarantees were put on record on the basis of reciprocity. Perhaps, it makes sense to
return to this topic and reproduce that demand of the U.S. government on a universal
scale. Shouldn't the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the inadmissibility of
interference into domestic affairs of sovereign states and non-recognition of coup
d'état as a method of the change of power? The time has come to totally exclude from
the international interaction the attempts of illegitimate pressure of some states on
others. The meaningless and counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions is
obvious if we took an example of the U.S. blockade of Cuba.

The policy of ultimatums and philosophy of supremacy and domination do not
meet the requirements of the 21“ century and run counter the objective process of
development of a polycentric and democratic world order. Russia is promoting a
positive and unifying agenda. We always were and will be open to discussion of the
most complex issues no matter how unsolvable they would seem in the beginning. We
will be prepared to search for compromises and the balance of interests and go as far
as exchange concessions provided only that the discussion is respectful and equal.

The Minsk understandings of 5 and 19 September on the ways out of the
Ukrainian crisis and the compromise on the timeline of the entry into force of the
Association Agreement between Kiev and EU are good examples to follow, the same
as the finally declared readiness of Brussels to begin negotiations on establishing the
FTA between the European Union and the Customs Union of Russia, Belorussia and
Kazakhstan as it had been proposed by V.V.Putin back in January this year.

Russia has been consistently calling for harmonization of integration projects in
Europe and Eurasia. The agreement on political benchmarks and timelines of such a
convergence of integrations" would become a real contribution to the work of the
OSCE on the topic of "He1sinki+40". Another crucial area of this work would be to
launch pragmatic discussion free of ideology on politico-military architecture in the
Euro-Atlantic, so that not only NATO and CSTO members but all the countries of the
region including Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia enjoy equal and indivisible security
and not have to make a false choice of: "either with us or against us".

The new dividing lines in Europe should not be allowed, even more so that
under globalization these lines can turn into a watershed between the West and the rest
of the world. It should be stated honestly that no one has the monopoly on truth
and no one can anymore tailor the global and regional processes to one's own needs.
There is no alternative today to the development of consensus regarding the rules of
sustainable global governance in the new historical circumstances - with full respect
to cultural and civilizational diversity of the world and the multiplicity of the models
of development. It will be a difficult and perhaps tiresome task to achieve such a
consensus on every issue. Nevertheless the recognition of the fact that democracy in
every state is the "worst form of government, except for all the others" also took time
to break a way through, until W.Churchill passed his verdict. The time has come to
realize the inevitability of this axiom also in the international affairs where today
there is a huge deficit of democracy. Of course someone will have to break up the
centuries-old stereotypes and to abandon the claims to eternal uniqueness. But there is
no other way to follow. The consolidated efforts can be built only on the principles of
mutual respect and taking into account of the interests of each other as is the case for
example in the framework of BRICS and SCO, G20 and the UN Security Council.
The theory of the advantages of collective work has been supported by practice: this
includes the progress in the settlement of situation around Iranian nuclear program
and successful conclusion of chemical demilitarization of Syria. Besides, on the issue
of chemical weapons we would like to obtain authentic information on the condition
of chemical arsenals in Libya. We understand that our NATO colleagues after they
bombed out this country in violation of a UNSG Resolution would not like to "stir up"
the mayhem they created. However, the problem of uncontrolled Libyan chemical
arsenals is too serious to turn a blind eye on it. The UN Secretary General has an
obligation to show his responsibility on this issue as well. I

What is important today is to see the global priorities and avoid making them
hostages of a unilateral agenda. There is an urgent need to refrain from double
standards in the approaches to conflict settlement. Everybody largely agrees that it is a
key issue to resolutely counter the terrorists who attempt to put under their control
ncreasingly larger territories in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Sahara-Sahel area. If
this is the case then this task should not be sacrificed to ideological schemes or the
desire to get square with someone. Terrorists no matter what their slogans are should
remain outside the law.

Moreover, it goes without saying that the fight against terrorism should rely on
a solid basis of international law. The unanimous adoption of a number of UNSG
Resolutions including those on the issue of foreign terrorist operatives became an
important stage in this fight. And vice versa the attempts to act against the Charter of
our Organization do not contribute to the success of joint efforts. The struggle against
terrorists in the territory of Syria should be structured in cooperation with the Syrian
government, which clearly stated its readiness to join it.

From the very beginning of the "Arab spring" Russia urged not to leave it to
extremists and to establish a united front to counter the growing terrorist threat. We
warned against a temptation to make allies with almost anybody who proclaimed
himself an enemy of B.Assad: be it Al Qaeda, Jabhat an Nusra and other "fellow
travelers" seeking the change of regime, including ISIL, which today is in the focus of
our attention. As the saying goes, it is better late than never. It is not for the first time
that Russia makes a real contribution to the fight against both ISIL and other terrorist
factions in the region. We have sent large supplies of weapons and military equipment
to the governments of Iraq, Syria and other MENA countries and will continue to
support their efforts to suppress terrorists.

The terrorist threat requires a comprehensive approach if we want to eradicate
its root causes rather than be condemned to react to the symptoms. ISIL is just a part
of the problem. We propose to launch under the auspices of the UN Security Council
an in-depth study on the extremist and terrorist threats in all their aspects across the
MENA area. The integrated approach implies also that the long standing conflicts
should be examined, primarily between Arabs and Israel. The absence of settlement of
the Palestinian issue over several decades remains as it is widely recognized one of
the main factors of instability in the region that helps the extremists to recruit more
and more new Jihadists.

Another literally pressing area of our common work is the joining of our efforts
to implement the decisions of UNGA and UNSC on the fight against Ebola virus. Our
doctors are already working in Africa. There are plans to send additional humanitarian
assistance, equipment, medical instruments, medicines and teams of experts to assist
the UN programs in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

The United Nations established on the ruins of World War II enters the year of
its seventieth anniversary. It is an obligation for all of us to celebrate in appropriate
manner the jubilee of the Great Victory and pay tribute to the memory of all who died
for freedom and the right of each people to determine its own destiny.

The lessons of that terrible war and all the course of events in_ today's world
demand of us to join our efforts and forget about unilateral interests and national
electoral cycles when it comes to countering the global threats to all humanity. It
should not be allowed that the national egotism prevail over collective responsibility.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/69/meetings/gadebate/pdf/RU_en.pdf

Winning and Losing

Looking at some recent media opinion on the Ukraine conflict it’s easy to discern a number of tendencies, one or two of which coincide while others are beginning to diverge in a pattern that to some extent mirrors the divisions and differences currently being played out on the international scene. By examining this pattern it may be possible to obtain some idea of where Western policy on the crisis really lies: after all, the policy of national governments is not usually produced in a vacuum and often comes into being as a fusion of official discussion, "think tanks", and public media debate.

In the National Interest, Steven Pifer sees the crux of the present standoff in Russia’s denial of involvement in the conflict, a denial for which he seeks the reason. It may, he suggests, have its roots in the anxious desire of the Kremlin authorities to conceal from the Russian public the steadily rising level of Russian casualties:

If Mr. Putin continues or deepens his military involvement in Ukraine, and the casualties mount, what will that do to the support that his Ukraine policy has enjoyed from the Russian public? And could the potential erosion of public support finally lead him to a different course?

Here the outlined position is fairly clear: the West should wait and see if tensions caused by issues of domestic public opinion may bring Russia’s leadership to soften or modify its stance. On the other hand, it might be wondered whether a U-turn of this kind can really be expected from a Kremlin that is prepared to turn a blind eye to the downing of a civilian airliner, or convinced that the humiliation of Ukrainian prisoners of war on the streets of Donetsk does not represent a violation of human rights.

For Anatol Lieven, writing in the New York Times, the matter is simple and straightforward: in view of the fact that the Kremlin will not allow the Donbass separatists to be crushed, the West must take realistic steps:

The choice today is not between a united Ukraine fully in the Western camp, or a Ukraine which has lost part of its territory to Russia. As recent military developments have demonstrated, the first outcome is simply not going to happen. The choice is between a Ukraine with an autonomous Donbass region, along with a real chance of developing the country’s democracy and economy in a Western direction, or a Ukraine which will be mired in a half-frozen conflict that will undermine all hopes of progress. The way out of this disaster is obvious — if only Western governments have the statesmanship and courage to take it.

This is essentially an argument for appeasement, which the author makes little or no attempt to conceal. Meanwhile, in  another NYT opinion article, Ben Judah puts the West’s dilemma in a slightly different light: Russia and Ukraine are now at war and Putin, he tells us, has presented the West with “two dire choices”:

Either we arm Ukraine, or we force Kiev to surrender and let Mr. Putin carve whatever territories he wants into a Russian-occupied zone of “frozen conflict.”

While Judah’s sympathies undoubtedly lie more with Ukraine than with Russia, his real concern is apparently to confront Western Europe and America with the nightmare scenario of what he believes will happen if both elements of the choice turn out to be disastrous. Since arming Ukraine will be only a part of the solution – the arming will have to be backed up by the dispatch of American and British special forces, and even by a readiness “to deploy NATO troops if Russian tanks roll toward Crimea” to secure the building of a land bridge to the mainland – there is much doubt as to whether the West will be prepared to take this route. The alternative, then, is to make Ukraine surrender:

But we must not let thousands of Ukrainians die because we dithered. We must be honest with them if we are not willing to fight a new Cold War with Russia over Ukrainians’ independence. But if we force Ukraine to surrender, rather than sacrifice lives in a fight for which we have no stomach, then we must accept that it is a surrender, too, for NATO, for Europe and liberal democracy, and for American global leadership. That is the choice before us.

In response to this it might be argued that to put the matter in such stark and apocalyptic terms is an unproductive oversimplification: after all, the resolution of the present conflict is, by its very nature, bound to involve a number of factors that cannot be predicted with any certainty right now. There is also some confusion in Judah's use here of the term “Cold War” – given the context of the article, it seems more probable that the author really means “hot war”, but for some reason holds back from this. The real intention of the piece appears to be to cast the West as weak, indecisive and hypocritical.

Another recent article on the Ukraine crisis in which the West appears in an unflattering light is Keith Gessen’s report in the London Review of Books on a visit to Donetsk. This is a lively, autobiographical piece which seeks to portray the human reality of South Eastern Ukraine in closeup, including interviews with members of the anti-Maidan movement and the armed Moscow-backed  insurgency. The general drift of the article is to demonstrate that “these are people, too”; that however misguided their views and actions, they deserve a public hearing. Admirable and vivid though the character portrayal and description are (“But among the young professionals I also met a journalist from Lviv. She wasn’t just dressed better than anyone in Donetsk, she was dressed differently, as if on a civilisational level. She looked like she was from France.”), the reader may be somewhat taken aback at Gessen’s  summary of what he claims to have been told by “respectable people in Kiev” in response to the armed separatist threat:

Wouldn’t it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the shit out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place – why not kill them all?

At best, this seems like selective reporting – at worst, like a not too sophisticated attempt to blacken the name of all the Ukrainian people who support the Maidan and are trying to save their country.

By contrast, Timothy Snyder takes a passionately supportive view of Ukraine’s democratic independence movement. In Politico he perceives the origins of Putin’s foreign policy in a twentieth century English novel:

In Orwell’s 1984, one of the world powers is called Eurasia. Interestingly enough, Eurasia is the name of Russia’s major foreign policy doctrine. In Orwell’s dystopia, Eurasia is a repressive, warmongering state that “comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait.” In Russian foreign policy, Eurasia is a plan for the integration of all the lands from—you guessed it—Portugal to the Bering Strait. Orwell’s Eurasia practices “neo-Bolshevism”; Russia’s leading Eurasian theorist once called himself a “national Bolshevik.” This man, the influential Alexander Dugin, has long advocated that the Ukrainian state be destroyed, and has very recently proposed that Russia exterminate Ukrainians.

Of all the articles reviewed here, Snyder’s is perhaps both the most succinct and the most receptive to what Ukraine’s Maidan movement is trying to achieve:  above all, to break away from ways of perceiving the world that amount to "doublethink" and are characterized by the output of the Moscow propaganda machine, which simultaneously presents Ukraine as a “repressive state” and as a “state that does not exist”.

Perhaps the most puzzling recent article on the topic is one by Edward Lucas. Although a large part of it is devoted to a dissection and analysis of what the author calls “Russian revisionism” –new rules of international security that Russia is trying to impose on the rest of the world – its title is “Russia Is Winning”, a sentence that recurs in the body of the piece. The author’s vehement insistence that in spite of its obvious failure to persuade the world community of even a small part of its blustering claims  Russia is stronger and tougher than the West, tends to make the rest of the article seems somehow irrelevant: the lengthy and detailed suggestions on how to bolster Western security and the security of the Baltic States, the calls for the rebooting of NATO , the attack on the ‘Snowdenistas’ are like the a suddenly  deflated balloon when the reader is told that

Russia is an integrated part of the world economy and of international decision-making on everything from space to sub-sea minerals. It cannot be simply isolated and ignored. But that does not mean that we cannot raise the cost of doing business for the Putin regime.

 If isolating Russia is too difficult to achieve, and the West must “do business” with Moscow, albeit at an increased price, it’s hard to see how the rest of the author’s prescriptions can be fulfilled. One has the sense of a deep anger behind the extended paragraphs, and an intimation if not of despair, then of resignation. Since Russia is winning, the article seems to say, then the West will have to make the best of a bad job – the proposed measures are needed, but because of the West’s weakness of will and the “withering of transatlantic ties” many of them will not be implemented, and the West itself will ultimately suffer defeat.  It reads like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and its pessimism is not calculated to help and support either Ukraine or the West itself.  

Perhaps this is a misreading, and I hope that is so – but I can only give my personal reaction.

Ukraine Today

The new international Ukrainian television channel Ukraine Today is presenting genuinely interesting and lively broadcasts of news, information and documentary reporting, mostly in English.

Chronology of war

Ukrainian journalist Viktor Kovalenko's blog has a chronology of the liberation of Eastern Ukraine.

Kyiv is winning the war

In Politico Magazine, Chrystia Freeland writes:

In the fog of war, the ADHD of cable news and the smears of Russian propaganda have combined to obscure some important good news in this dismal summer. In the historic fight over the future of democracy in Ukraine, Kyiv is winning and the Kremlin is losing. That is good news for Ukrainians, but also for Europeans, for the rest of the world—and ultimately for Russians, too.

Read the whole article, here.

Russia "feared but not respected"

Michael McFaul:

"... the downing of Malaysia Airways #17 squandered in one day years of investment in changing Russia’s reputation abroad, including the $50 billion spent on the Sochi Olympics, which were intended to introduce the new, modern Russia to the world. Russia may be feared again, but Russia is not respected."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/putin-the-not-so-great-109711_Page3.html#ixzz39aIlIsAM

Tymoshenko was victim of government murder plot

The head of Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Committee, Tetyana Chornovol, has published transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations which show that Party of Regions MPs advised former President Yanukovych to kill Yulia Tymoshenko in prison. The tapes have also been released on YouTube, here.

Hat tip: Taras Kuzio

Ukrainians Become Ukrainian

At New Pathway, Alexander Motyl writes: 

For the first time, arguably ever, Ukraine has a solidly pro-Western, pro-reform elite and society, a patriotic, self-mobilized, active, and pro-Ukrainian civil society and population, an increasingly patriotic security apparatus and army, the solid support of the West and of key Western institutions, and a crystal-clear sense of who the “enemy” is – Russia.

Ukrainians have finally become Ukrainian, and their society and state are finally in the West. This is unprecedented and of world-historical importance.

What needs to change is of course the economy, the state apparatus, the society. The economy has to be made more market friendly, the state has to be trimmed, decentralized, made less corrupt, and subordinate to the rule of law, and society has to be made less corrupt and also subordinate to the еrule of law. Opening up the economy is “easy,” as are trimming and decentralizing the state. A few good laws can do the trick. Changing attitudes to corruption and rule of law will take time.

The End of a Brand

On his blog The Vault of the Future, Silicon Valley startup entrepreneur Max Skibinsky takes an undeceived view of today's Russia in the aftermath of the MH17 disaster, and explains some of the reasons for his reluctance to return there:

To understand Russia’s lightning fast descent into the abyss one has to understand a simple truth that many (myself included) suspected all along: Russia was and is a failed state. What is seen from the outside is just a facade imitating a functional country and government. High oil prices, residual infrastructure of USSR and internal mass propaganda machine maintained the illusion for more than a decade.

Not only is Russia a mafia state -- it's controlled by a vast propaganda machine that is even more all-devouring than the Soviet one:

Official TV propaganda lies professionally and constantly. There are no independent TV channels; everything is controlled by government stooges. The “news” teams employ special teams that do video editing and fabrications to present absolutely falsified accounts for TV transmission...

The best way to understand modern Russia is to imagine a steep pyramid. At the very top there is a clique of KGB-affiliated oligarchs, who manage a barely-competent class of middle-managers (who can and do steal a fraction of everything they touch) which in turn sits on top of a largely brainwashed and deranged mass population living on life-long government welfare. 

As the author notes, "this is the most toxic environment imaginable to incubate a startup ecosystem."

He concludes:

I think we came to the end of the line with regards to Russia as a name, culture, a global brand. For the time being the country future is destroyed, police state is well-entrenched and the narrative for the brainwashed locals would be xenophobic tale of struggle with the “West”.

Hat tip: Anders Östlund on Twitter: @andersostlund

MH17: Ukraine's PM Blasts Russian 'Bastards'

Take Russia out of Europe

Dmitry Tymchuk, on the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 flight MH17:

I sincerely believe that some part of the responsibility for this tragedy lies with the European leaders. In the case of the Russian aggression against Ukraine they have been too busy counting their money, forgetting that the world is very crowded and fragile. They forgot how small Europe is. And it cannot be that one country is the victim of aggression and consumed by war, while this is apparently of no concern to all the others. 

It's also time, I believe, that those in Europe and the U.K. who are involved with Russia at a general cultural and educational level made their position clear. Time that Russian propaganda organizations like RT (Russia Today) and Voice of Russia were taken off the air and closed, time that Russian PR agencies like the Russkiy Mir Foundation and Academia Rossica were shut down and their offshoots and branches in Western universities removed.

The Dictatorship

Yuri Felshtinsky, in a recent article discussing what he sees as Russia's current gradual preparation for a major war:

Сейчас уже понятно, что никакой элиты нет. Есть довольно жестко отстроенная вертикаль власти. В конце 15-летнего пути все, что мы имеем в России, – это диктатура. Это диктатура не сталинского типа, а скорее мягкая диктатура фашистского типа, как при Муссолини или раннем Гитлере. Диктатура при открытости границы – а при Сталине границы были закрыты, при рыночной экономике – а при Сталине никакой рыночной экономики не было, без концентрационных лагерей, без массовых политических репрессий. Но эта мягкая диктатура в любой момент может превратиться и в более жесткую диктатуру – просто по законам жанра.

It is now clear that there is no elite. There is a rather rigidly constructed power vertical. At the end of a 15-year-old path, all that we have in Russia is a dictatorship. It is not a Stalinist dictatorship, but rather a soft dictatorship of the fascist type, like that of Mussolini or early Hitler. A dictatorship with open borders - under Stalin the borders were closed. One with a market economy - under Stalin, there was no market economy. One without concentration camps, without mass political repressions. But this soft dictatorship can at any moment turn into a more hardline dictatorship - simply by the laws of the genre.

Putin's Russian World

At the annual conference of Russian Federation ambassadors and permanent representatives on July 1 Putin delivered an address "on protecting Russia’s national interests and strengthening the foundations and principles of international relations." 

This year, prompted by events in Ukraine that are being deliberately engineered by Russia itself, Putin's speech contained some unambiguous pointers to the future direction of Russian foreign policy and military strategy, which are now impelled by considerations of what the propaganda calls "national interest" and "rights to protective intrusion". From the English translation posted on the official website:

In Ukraine, as you may have seen, at threat were our compatriots, Russian people and people of other nationalities, their language, history, culture and legal rights, guaranteed, by the way, by European conventions. When I speak of Russians and Russian-speaking citizens I am referring to those people who consider themselves part of the broad Russian community, they may not necessarily be ethnic Russians, but they consider themselves Russian people.

What did our partners expect from us as the developments in Ukraine unfolded? We clearly had no right to abandon the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol to the mercy of nationalist and radical militants; we could not allow our access to the Black Sea to be significantly limited; we could not allow NATO forces to eventually come to the land of Crimea and Sevastopol, the land of Russian military glory, and cardinally change the balance of forces in the Black Sea area. This would mean giving up practically everything that Russia had fought for since the times of Peter the Great, or maybe even earlier – historians should know.

I would like to make it clear to all: this country will continue to actively defend the rights of Russians, our compatriots abroad, using the entire range of available means – from political and economic to operations under international humanitarian law and the right of self-defence.

It should be noted that in the translation designed for foreign consumption the phrase "Russian world" (русский мир), with its quasi-imperial overtones, is rendered by the more innocuous term "Russian community".

As Vladimir Socor points out in a recent article for EDM, the "right of self-defence" "translates into Russia’s paramilitary intervention in Ukraine’s east. Moscow rejects all proposals to disarm its proxy forces there, or evacuate them back to Russia, or disavow them, at least verbally". Socor continues:

This is the boldest application to date of Putin’s concept of compatriots’ “right to self-defence.” Moscow acts as if this is an inherent right in principle and an already acquired right in Ukraine’s east. 

Updates

I haven't had time to update this blog recently - however, I have continued to post Ukraine and Russia-related links to Halt in the Wilderness, the news and discussion group you are welcome to join if you feel so inclined.

The Interpreter vs. RT

The Interpreter's James Miller, on RT's sudden interest in his magazine:

It is curious...that The Interpreter – a magazine which is barely a year old (RT was established in 2005), has an extremely small staff (RT has over 2,000 staffers), and runs on a tight budget... — should increasingly come under attack by some of the network’s staff members and television guests.

Neo-Nazism now a part of Russia Today

The Interpreter online current affairs magazine recently ran a feature on a neo-Nazi who represents Germany on the Kremlin's propaganda TV channel Russia Today (RT). Now the Interpreter discusses another right-wing extremist who appears regularly on the same channel. It seems that the Moscow authorities have no qualms about associating themselves with some of the most vicious racist and extremist movements in Europe and the United States. A few years ago, I would not have believed that this was possible - but now it's plain for everyone to see.

The rise of antisemitism in Russia and the crisis in Ukraine

The Winnipeg Media Centre has published an analysis of the Putin regime's campaign of disinformation and defamation against Ukraine, the basis of which is an attempt to incriminate the Ukrainian government and people with the charge of organized antisemitism. In fact, as the analysis shows, the rise of antisemitism is taking place not in Ukraine but in neighboring Russia, where officially sponsored fascist and neo-Nazi ideology is creating a situation not unlike the one that existed in Germany during the 1930s. 

The analysis is divided into three sections:

The first section gives the view of the Ukrainian Jewish community and of organizations that monitor human rights. It is clear from these articles that Jews in Ukraine see neither the current Ukrainian government nor the groups that brought about the change of government as a danger.  On the contrary, they are unanimous in the view that the biggest threat to the safety and security of Jewish people in Ukraine comes from the militant separatists backed by the Russian state.

The second section presents articles by scholars who are following events in the Donbas area and in Russia. These researchers are among many who warn of an alarming rise in chauvinistic and xenophobic attitudes in Russia. They are particularly worried by the rise of fascist groups supported by the government, and by the development of a fascist ideology in circles close to Putin.

The third section presents articles that indicate what we can expect from governing circles in Moscow, and raises broader issues in connection with Putin’s propaganda campaign.

The Wavering Line

There are some interesting insights into the political status and prospects of Ukraine's president-elect Poroshenko in this (NB) Valdai Club article. A couple of excerpts:

Statements made by US politicians did not have much influence on Ukrainian voters. More likely, the electorate was swayed by technologies invented by a Ukrainian spin doctor, Igor Gryniv (who was behind the electoral success of Viktor Yushchenko and still earlier planned the establishment of the Reforms and Order and Our Ukraine parties). First of all, he cleaned out the minds of Ukrainian voters and made them accept Poroshenko as a “new politician.” Next he began publishing his growing ratings and convinced the public that his client took the lead in the race. All that remained was to give voters a motivation for support and urge a first-round vote.
-------------------------------------
The new Ukrainian government’s ability to steer an independent line with regard to the Russian Federation will depend on many factors, including the international situation. The world is volatile. Poroshenko, a flexible politician and diplomat, is unlikely to focus on just one line of behavior. I would not be surprised if the utterly pro-American politician Poroshenko turns into a no less enthusiastic pro-Russian politician, come a change of mood in the world. It’s almost like an old joke from the Stalin era: “Did you waver with regard to the Party’s general line? I wavered with the general line.”

Ukraine as Antidote

In the wake of the large gains by ultra-right wing parties in the recent European elections, Timothy Snyder suggests in the New York Review of Books that Ukraine could provide an antidote to the problem. A country that actively wants to join the European Union and is willing to work for it could help the body to rediscover its purpose:

In the Ukrainian revolution, people fought carrying the EU flag; in the Ukrainian elections, people stood in line for hours wearing EU symbols. The European Union has been enlarging since its establishment as the European Communities, and it will and should continue to do so. A promise of further enlargement would not be expensive: on the contrary, the incentives for reform and for investment would reduce the need for future aid.

By contrast, Snyder says, the voters who in Scotland, France, England, Greece, Austria, Bulgaria and elsewhere in Europe voted for a return to the nation state are living in a parallel universe, and really voted for a "separation from the world". Their detachment from reality is merely enabling Putin's scheme for the Russian domination of Europe - the Russkiy Mir - for these nationalists and advocates of "independence" also support Putin's aims and policies. However, "if Europeans voted the way Ukrainians did, Europe could count on a far more secure and prosperous future."

Russian right-wing mercenaries in Ukraine

The Winnipeg Media Centre has published a detailed survey of the leaders of Russian neo-Nazi and other extreme right wing groups currently operating in eastern Ukraine. These include the high-profile Strelkov-Girkin 'Donbass self-defence' group, but also many others that are less well known but are also trained in Russia and have a fascistic, anti-Semitic and militaristic orientation.

Ukraine: Real Deals

In Grani, Ilya Milstein writes about the aftermath and possible consequences of yesterday's Ukrainian presidential election (my tr.):

Meanwhile Tymoshenko has other plans. Her "Fatherland " party is initiating a referendum on Ukraine's accession to NATO, and it is only outwardly that this step appears risky, reckless and unwise. Well, yes, NATO does not accept states with unresolved territorial issues, but after all it is not a question of joining the alliance immediately. It is rather about scaring Putin, who has been scaring the Russians and giving himself nightmares about a terrible scenario: the entry of American cruisers into the peaceful waters of Sevastopol and the installation of American missiles on the territory of Ukraine. Now, if the issue is discussed in the Rada, the propaganda horror stories that were suitable only for justifying intervention in Crimea will acquire the traits of another geopolitical disaster.

Poroshenko himself is by no means a supporter of Ukraine's accession to NATO, but he can offer Putin an exchange. You get rid of Grandpa Babai and his RPGs, and I will calm Yulia. You stop supporting the bandits who are already building real concentration camps in our country and have effectively used them, and we will postpone the referendum on accession to NATO. You temporarily forget about Ukraine and stop blackmailing us with rising gas prices, and we will temporarily forget about Crimea. Agreed?

Kyiv's eastern strategy

Mychailo Wynnyckyj in Euromaidan PR:

Effectively, the strategy of Kyiv in the Donbas must gradually shift from waging a “hot war” to exercising “soft power” eastward – i.e. the goal must be to shift the line that formerly defined Ukraine’s electoral geography to the Russian border (or at least as far eastward and southward as possible). From this perspective, the war in eastern Ukraine becomes a civilizational war (i.e. informational, economic, cultural). The conflict is less about whether the population wishes to be Ukrainian or Russian (or about what language they speak), but rather about whether the Donbas will be a part of Europe or will continue to be (post)Soviet. Putin has made it eminently clear that he wishes to reinstate the USSR, and during the economic summit in St. Petersburg today he reiterated that he views the conflict in eastern Ukraine in geo-political terms (as engaging the US and EU), rather than as a local/regional struggle for ethnic or linguistic self-determination.

Russian army tries to break up Tatar rally

The Russian army has used military helicopters in an attempt to disrupt a small prayer rally of Crimean Tatars in Bakhchisaray, after the occupying forces banned all commemorations of the 1944 deportations under Stalin.

https://twitter.com/svaboda/status/467934317482876928/photo/1

There are similar reports from other areas of Crimea today.

Ukraine:Thinking Together

An international conference called Ukraine: Thinking Together («Мислити з Україною») is currently being held in Kyiv, with participants who include Timothy Snyder, Leon Wieseltier, Timothy Garton Ash, Adam Michnik, Slavenka Drakulić, Paul Berman and others. The conference aims to discuss Maidan and reactions to it in the context of wider questions of human rights and contemporary geopolitics, and the sessions can be followed in livestream here.

Language as a barrier to dialogue in Ukraine

Via openDemocracy

http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/polina-sinovets/language-as-barrier-to-dialogue-in-ukraine

Polina Sinovets  6 May 2014

The issue of language and politics has long been a problem in Ukraine. Recent developments and unrelenting Russian propaganda have made the problem centre-stage once more.

Recent events have reinvigorated the debate about the official and unofficial use in Ukraine of the Russian language, which has long been a part of Ukrainian society. Local political parties and external actors have used Russian and Ukrainian language cards during electoral campaigns, connecting language use to identity and politics to sway public opinion. After the collapse of Victor Yanukovych’s regime, Ukraine’s new parliament repealed the controversial 2012 Language Law [12] that gave Russian (and some other languages) official status in regions where they are dominant. The repeal was vetoed by Ukraine’s acting president and never came into force, but it nonetheless provoked unrest in the south and east, specifically in Sevastopol, Kharkiv, and Odessa. It also enabled Russia to accuse Ukraine of suppressing the political rights of ethnic Russians and gave Moscow the pretext for military intervention in Crimea.

Russian language and culture

In Ukraine, there are two main groups of language users, which tend to be associated with the country’s political divisions. Geographically, the first group has been based in the larger part of the country, in the south and east, which was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. It associates itself historically and traditionally with Russian language and culture. At present, certain Ukrainian political parties like Rodina (a pro-Russian party based in Odessa) and Russkiy blok (an alliance of parties that includes Za Rus Edinuyu and Russko-Ukrainskiy Soyuz), as well as the transnational Russkiy mir foundation, try to connect Russia’s cultural and linguistic heritage to the influence of contemporary Russia over Ukraine.

[13]Historically the south and the east of Ukraine have associated itself with Russian language and culture. Photo cc via news168

The positions of such parties and movements are quite aggressive and radical. They consider Russian the legitimate ‘civilised’ language of the cities and Ukrainian just a ‘country dialect,’ spoiled by the intrusion of Polish linguistic and cultural heritage. Any expansion of Ukrainian language and culture is regarded negatively as an attempt to erase Slavic identity: to ‘cut Russia off from the southern seas, push it to the north, and launch the process of ultimately dismantling the Russian state’ (as described [14] [in Russian] by a member of Russkiy mir).  In their opinion, this leads to the cultural degradation of the Ukrainian population and ultimately the isolation of Russian minorities into ghettos surrounded by hostile environments.

These groups have made the term ‘Ukrainians’ synonymous with ‘enemies,’ ‘traitors,’ ‘Banderovtsy’ (a reference to the Ukrainian World War II-era nationalist leader Stepan Bandera), and a ‘fifth column’ helping the West to weaken Russia. They insist that Russians are segregated in Ukraine. They regard the 2012 language law as only a very modest step toward the protection of Russian-language rights, because it also provides equal rights for other regional languages, alongside the one with ‘undeniable superiority over all other European languages’ (words, ascribed to the poet Alexander Pushkin, written on advertising billboards all over Odessa). This extreme approach does not support dialogue or compromise, so represents a serious conflict that cannot be won.

At the same time, one of this group’s arguments is difficult to ignore: statistically, the Russian-speaking ‘minority’ in Ukraine makes up 30-40 percent of the population. This is enough for Russian to be considered a state language, similar, for example, to the evolution of English as an official language in British colonies like India, Ireland, and Malta. Surveys conducted in 2013 suggested that Ukrainian self-identification often includes use of the Russian language: 35 percent of respondents called Russian their native language and nearly half of respondents claimed Russian was an easier language for them to speak (another 13 percent said they spoke Russian and Ukrainian equally well). This is one of the reasons why the influence of Russia on the political life of Ukraine is so strong: Russia’s questionable policy of ‘protecting Russian populations’ outside its borders does not apply only to ethnic Russians but also to Russian-speakers. As we have seen in Crimea, this approach may be used as a pretext for military aggression against a sovereign state.

The Russian Orthodox Church also brings its influence to bear in the sphere of language politics. It does this, in particular, through the concept of ‘Russkiy mir,’ according to which Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians constitute the so-called ‘Russian World,’ a single civilisational space united by Russian language and culture. This concept tries to revive the unanimity of the three nations, harking back to the Russian Empire and Soviet times and also setting them collectively apart from Western civilisation. Appearing to justify Russia’s military intervention against Ukraine, a Russian Orthodox Church spokesperson spoke [15] approvingly of a past statement by the Church-backed World Russian People’s Assembly that ‘the Russian people is a split nationality on its historical territory and has the right to be reunified as a single governmental body.’

[16]The Russian Orthodox church actively promotes the idea of 'Russkiy mir', a civilisational space united by Russian language.

Elections are always a prime time for putting forward pro-Russian arguments. That Russian should be made the second state language was one of the main pledges of President Leonid Kuchma in 1994. It was a gambit that Victor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions also used, resulting in the adoption of the 2012 language law. When the Ukrainian parliament initially reversed this law, after deposing Yanukovych, Russia used it as justification for their occupation of Crimea ‘to defend Russians’ on Ukrainian soil.

Ukrainian language and culture

On the other side of Ukraine, however, is a second group—those for whom the unlimited spread of the Russian language means a certain displacement of Ukrainian. This group has been associated with Western Ukraine, where national traditions are very strong, and also with Kyiv, where national ideology is being formed today. The group does not accept Russian as a second official language, as they believe it interferes with the construction of a Ukrainian nation and state. Members of this group consider the Ukrainian language is deprived of proper status and opportunities. In particular, they say that language is the foundation for building the nation, and the ubiquitous use of Russian kills this possibility by marginalising Ukrainian to a narrow area of domestic communication. They consider that the Ukrainian language has to be fostered by the conscious limitation of Russian, the day-to-day language for culture, information, and business in the largest Ukrainian cities. Russian linguistic soft power has played an active part in perpetuating the dominance of the Russian language.

A dangerous mistake

The attempt to repeal the language law unleashed the hardcore positions of both language groups. Just when it was necessary to unify the nation, the Verkhovna Rada (parliament) made a very dangerous mistake. The right-wing nationalist Right Sector movement insisted [17] on the necessity of de-Russifying Ukraine while Russkiy blok rose to defend the rights of Russian-speakers against armed Banderovtsy.

However, this ideological fight is hollow in the face of reality. To begin with, the repeal never came into effect since the acting president of Ukraine, Oleksandr Turchinov, rejected it. Moreover, Ukraine ratified the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages in 1996 and gave Russian the status of a regional language in many parts of the south and east of Ukraine. The sole effect of the language law was to tip the existing legal balance toward Russian. Repealing the law would only have levelled the playing field again.

[18]Ukraine's Right Sector has insisted on the need to de-Russify the country. Photo cc: Yuriy Kvach

Today, the possibility of actually displacing the Russian language throughout Ukraine is unimaginable and unrealistic. The current challenge to surmount is the exploitation by political parties and actors of language issues to destroy dialogue and integration.

One popular cliché is that a Russian-speaker must be closely connected politically to Russia. Surveys cast doubt on this claim. According to a June 2013 poll conducted in the city of Donetsk, the number of local respondents between 18 and 45 years old who identify as Ukrainians ranges between 60 to 75 percent, while 99 percent of all respondents preferred to take the survey in Russian. Is not a bilingual Ukraine feasible? A large ‘Russian-speaking Ukrainian Nationalists (RUN)’ group conducts discussions in Russian on the popular social network VKontakte. Its members consider Ukrainian the only official language but say that the transition to Ukrainian should be gradual and that no languages should be suppressed or humiliated on the territory of Ukraine.

Conclusion

As Ukraine finds its feet, it is a mistake for those on either side of the language divide to politicise linguistic matters. There is far more to nation-building than language. Only a small part of the Ukrainian population see themselves as being part of Russia—according to an April 2014 survey [19] [in Russian] by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology conducted in the south and east of Ukraine, only 8.4 percent consider that Ukraine and Russia should be united in one state and only 15.4 percent support the unification of their region with Russia.

The majority of educated and urban-living Russian-speakers in Ukraine demonstrated strong solidarity with their Ukrainian-language compatriots, standing together against Russian aggression and the attempts to divide Ukrainian society and territory. The situation with the population in the small towns is slightly different.  Passive, afraid and confused, today they present an easy prey for any political actors, from pro-Russia agents offering them money or communists to Russian intelligence and propaganda.

This article was originally published as PONARS Eurasia policy memo no. 318 in April 2014

Russian troop locations near Estonia's borders

Kaarel Kaas, editor of Estonia's Diplomaatia monthly, has compiled a detailed survey of the state of Russia's conventional forces near Estonia's borders.

The failed lingua franca

Leonidas Donskis, writing in New Eastern Europe:

The Russian language could have become a lingua franca of Eastern Europe. It failed irreversibly precisely because Putin and his regime stripped the political vocabulary of Russia of its potent moral imagination and alternative potential. What is left is not even the banality of evil practiced by the Kremlin with no impunity and in the moral and political void created by the West and its impotence – the West that attempts to reset relations with a regime hostile to every single political and moral sensitivity of the EU and the US. Instead, it is the evil of banality whose essence lies in exercising power for no meaningful reason and with no love for humanity.

Breedlove: Putin may not need to invade Ukraine

Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin may be able to annex pieces of Ukraine simply by encouraging unrest among pro-Russian forces inside the country, said Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who commands U.S. and European NATO forces.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/nato-commander-says-russia-doesn-t-need-to-invade-to-take-over-eastern-ukraine-20140502

Hrytsenko: a third world war has already begun

In Ukraine, Civil Position leader and ex-defence minister Anatoly Hrytsenko writes that Putin’s current foreign policy aims include much more than an annexation of Crimea and East Ukraine. Putin wants the whole of Ukraine, and much more besides. Hrytsenko says that the Russian president has decided to demonstrate to the world by his aggression that international law no longer has any validity and that money and power are the only factors that have meaning in the modern world.

Hrytsenko considers that the fears of Western nations that by confronting Putin they will provoke a third world war lag a long way behind the reality of what has actually happened: Putin has already begun such a war, and the West will need to take swift and decisive action to stop it.

Pointing to recent threatening statements from Moscow about the rights of Russian-speakers in the Baltic States, to the movement of heavy artillery and missile launchers to Russia’s borders with Moldova and Transnistria, to the direction of  strategic bombers down the Baltic and North Sea, to the redeployment of fighter and long-range aviation including Su-27s, MiG-29s and Tu-22M3s to the Crimean peninsula, to the distribution of airborne assault teams, sabotage units and  covert agents throughout Ukraine, and probably also into neighbouring countries, Hrytsenko says that Putin has made no secret of his plans: they are already in operation, without any restrictions.

The West’s attempts to slow the aggression by means of negotiations, diplomacy and economic sanctions have not been effective, Hrytsenko warns. To deter further aggression, the West will need to  form an anti-Putin coalition and focus all  available means and capabilities on taking practical military steps. These should in the first instance be the relocation and deployment around the territory of Ukraine (Poland, Slovakia , Hungary, Romania , Bulgaria, Northern Turkey) of a powerful NATO aviation group (80-100 F-16s and F-15s), a carrier strike group in the Mediterranean (70+ carrier-based aircraft) plus 7-8 warships in the Black Sea (destroyers and cruisers with powerful air defence) and several airborne brigades - to establish reliable control over Ukraine’s air and sea space in order to prevent  Russia from building up additional forces and halt the invasion that is now in progress.

Voices of Ukraine

Daniella Peled of the London-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) has interviewed the English-language editor of Voice of Ukraine, a volunteer-run translation project that is proving to be a vital resource in the Ukraine crisis, providing cross-checked reports and in-depth analysis:

It started in early December 2013 as a social network project when Euromaidan SOS put out a call to translate a text for the OSCE, and the Euro-Maidan As It Is  Facebook page was created by one founder to post such texts to, and very soon after a MaidanNeedsTranslators  Facebook page was started by the other founder in Ukraine as a companion, so translators could take on articles posted there for translation. 

At the beginning, there were two or three people working on the project. Now there is a core group of 15 coordinators and editors, with between eight and 11 doing most of the daily work. Beyond this core are many translators who are not coordinators but who put in a lot of time translating on a regular basis.

Sofi Oksanen's speech at PEN World Voices

Should Ukraine hold a presidential election on May 25?

In an article published in Die Zeit, but apparently translated from English, political analyst Andreas Umland thinks it would be wise for Ukraine to cancel this month's planned presidential election, which he believes could turn into a political disaster that would play into Russia's hands:

Ein Scheitern der Wahl würde Moskau die Möglichkeit geben, die Legitimität der Kiewer Staatsgewalt auf Jahre hinaus infrage zu stellen. Eine niedrige Wahlbeteiligung in der Ostukraine würde Putins Propagandamaschine das Futter liefern, um eine Teilung der Ukraine in zwei Staaten zu propagieren. Das Scheitern der Wahl könnte gar als Vorwand für einen Anschluss ostukrainischer Gebiete an Russland nach dem Muster der Krim-Annexion benutzt werden.

A failure of the election would give Moscow the opportunity to put into question the legitimacy of Kievan state power for years to come. A low voter turnout in eastern Ukraine would be fuel for Putin's propaganda machine to call for a division of Ukraine into two states. The failure of the election could even be used as a pretext for an annexation of Eastern Ukraine by Russia after the pattern of the Crimean annexation.

Umland holds out several alternative ideas, including a switch in the near future from a presidential system to a parliamentary one, and also a reform of Ukraine's constitution.

Armed in Error

In the belief that Russia could be drawn into greater military cooperation by "engagement" (an unclear term that can be interpreted several ways), Western countries, particularly Germany, directly supported and trained the Russian military - and this even continued until recently, when Russia began its attacks on Ukraine. An article by Josh Rogin in the Daily Beast states that in 2011, for example,    

the German defense contractor Rheinmetall signed a $140 million contract to build a combat simulation training center in Mulino, in southwest Russia, that would train 30,000 Russian combat troops per year. While the facility wasn't officially scheduled to be completed until later this year, U.S. officials believe that Germany has been training Russian forces for years.

Rheinmetall defended the project even after the invasion of Crimea, up until the German government finally shut it down late last month. But many tracking the issue within the U.S. government were not happy with Germany's handling of the Russian contract, and worry that some of the training may have gone to the kind of special operations forces now operating in and around Ukraine.

Moreover, it also appears that the German help was going not only to Russia's traditional armed forces but also in a high degree to the sophisticated GRU Spetsnaz units that are now being deployed in the new Russian strategy of intervening "on behalf" of Russian-speakers abroad whenever the latter claim discrimination. While it looks as though now the era of military cooperation with Russia is at an end, some observers are wondering whether the realization of what was really happening may have come too late.

Russia Today and Britain's Far Right

In Searchlight on April 16, Gerry Gable noted that

A film crew from Russia’s RT Documentaries TV channel is coming to London on 19 April. Headed by producer Eldar Kazakov, they plan to interview representatives of as many far-right groups as possible for a long programme.

They approached Searchlight as they hoped we could give them contact details for some of these groups.

The article also mentions groups that RT don't want to take part in the programme - these include the Traditional Britain Group and the Iona London Forum, which apparently have links with Vladimir Putin's propagandist Alexander Dugin. As Gable observed:

Dugin is a close friend of Putin. I suggested Kazakov investigate Iona’s links not only with Dugin but with extreme right groups in Russia, Syria and Ukraine. Such a programme would be far more relevant than the one he was planning.

Putin has cultivated European extreme-right organisations and even invited their representatives to observe last month’s illegal referendum in Crimea.

Kasyanov: Putin will not attack Ukraine

According to Mikhail Kasyanov, quoted in an interview for VoA's Ukrainian service, Putin is not going to attack Ukraine, and is using his troops on the border and acts of sabotage inside Ukraine as a form of blackmail to gain recognition for Russia's control of Crimea, the payment of Ukraine's gas debt, Russian as Ukraine's second state language, and changes to the country's constitution. But Putin is bluffing. His regime is on its last legs - the Russian economy is in a bad way, and the confidence of investors and creditors is falling. The West need only apply some firm and concerted economic pressure in order to secure Russia's total collapse.

Letter from Navalny

Привет, друзья.

Алексей написал очень важное письмо и попросил передать его вам. Мы таже будем признательны, если вы поможете распространить эту информацию.

========================================

Сейчас скажу вам вещь важную, а также незаконную. Вернее, незаконной она считается для меня персонально, поэтому на такой запрет мне плевать. Я хочу, чтоб вы знали.

В четверг меня будут судить, что совсем неоригинальное заявление, потому что меня и вчера судили (и даже приговорили), а также судят постоянно — с начала этого года уже три раза осудили, признав виновным.

Но в четверг будут опять судить по-крупному. Это, так называемое «дело «Ив Роше», по которому подсудимыми будут я и мой младший брат Олег.

Как вы может быть помните, дело это возбудили весьма цинично: прямо не скрывая как «ответку» за то, что я призвал выходить на несанкционированную акцию 15 декабря. Месседж был понятен: если ты думаешь, что будешь народ водить на массовые несанкционированные митинги и думаешь, что мы не ответим по беспределу, то ошибаешься. Тогда, в течение недели, СК заявил о возбуждении аж трёх уголовных дел против меня.

«Дело Ив Роше» было основным и активно использовалось зобмоящиком и всеми мерзкими единороссами, чтобы два года подряд к слову «Навальный» добавлять «похитивший со своим братом 50 миллионов рублей у французской компании Ив Роше».

Таким образом Олег и Алексей Навальные совершили хищение мошенническим путем денежных средств торговой компании в сумме свыше 55 миллионов рублей. Большую часть этой суммы братья Навальные потратили на собственные нужды, а более 19 миллионов рублей из этой суммы, чтобы легализовать полученные преступным путем средства, Навальные по фиктивным основаниям и договорам якобы за аренду нежилого помещения, за сырье и материалы перечислили с расчетного счета так называемой фирмы-прокладки на расчетный счет «Кобяковской фабрики по лозоплетению», учредителями которой являлись в том числе и братья.

sledcom.ru/actual/271295/

Постепенно сумма «похищенного» снизилась до 27 миллионов, но суть от этого не изменилась.

Главным следственным управлением Следственного комитета Российской Федерации Алексею Навальному и его братуОлегу Навальному предъявлено окончательное обвинение в совершении хищений путем обмана денежных средств ООО «Ив Роше Восток» в сумме свыше 26 млн. рублей и ООО «Многопрофильная процессинговая компания» в сумме свыше 4 млн. рублей (ч.4 ст.159 УК РФ), а также в легализации денежных средств в сумме более 21 млн. рублей (п. «а» ч.2 ст.174.1 УК РФ). В ближайшее время СК России планирует завершить расследование данного уголовного дела и предъявить его материалы для ознакомления потерпевшим, обвиняемым и их защитникам.

sledcom.ru/news/362002.html

Бороться с этим не очень легко. Ты понимаешь, что это полный бред. Вот просто бред и полная выдумка. Но и понимаешь, что любой нормальный человек подумает: ну невозможно же совсем на голом месте придумать хищение 27 миллионов. Не будет так Путин подставляться. Какие-то, значит, доказательства есть. Или в суде Навальный докажет, что он прав.

Докажет, да. На всех судах последних лет мне до последнего казалось, что не могут меня осудить, ведь и право, и правда на моей стороне.

Как можно осудить меня по «Кировлесу» без экономической экспертизы?

Как можно осудить меня за сопротивление полиции, если на видео любому видно, что сопротивления нет?

Как можно осудить меня за выкрики, если любому на видео видно, что я спокойно стоял?

Нормально. Везде осудили. Посмотрели видео, убедились, что выкриков не было и написали в судебном решениии: выкрикивал и размахивал руками. Судить по «делу Ив Роше» меня, кстати, будет та же судья Коробченко, что и разглядела на этом видео скандирование и выкрики.

Поэтому в суде я ничего не докажу. Зато вам хочу доказать, поэтому и пишу. И поэтому прошу помочь мне распространить эту информацию.

Итак, с самого начала мы знали, что Ив Роше заставили написать заявление. Они работали с «главподпиской» (компанией, через которую, якобы, совершено хищение) пять лет, были довольны, а теперь вся эта работы объявлена мошенничеством.

К ним пришли ФСБ и СК, сказав: не будет заявления, не сможете работать. Это мы знаем со слов сотрудников самой компании. Бизнес Ив Роше полностью завязан на таможню, контролируемую ФСБ и «небольшие проблемы с оформлением грузов» похоронили бы всё дело в течение месяца.

Написали — ничего не поделаешь. Мы не ФСБ и заставить обратно взять заявление не можем.

Через некоторое время, видимо, Ив Роше осознали, что их хотят использовать не просто для какого-то рутинного запугивания и угроз, а для прямой фабрикации политического уголовного дела. Они сделали сделали очень туманное заявление «после того, как всё будет окончено, ни у кого не возникнет сомнений в нашей репутации». Что это означает, было совершенно непонятно.

Потом пошли разные сообщения на тему того, что Ив Роше ущерб не признаёт и заявление забирает. Об этом, в частности, много раз говорил главред «Новой Газеты» Дмитрий Муратов со ссылкой на личную беседу с директором компании по имени Бруно Лепру.

Однако, никаких формальных последствий это не имело: дело шло, под его соусом шли выемки, обыски и допросы, подписки о невыезде и тд. Компания Ив Роше хранила молчание, хранит его до сих пор и не сделала ни одного заявления, кроме того, что выше по ссылке.

Ну, а потом настал всё-таки долгожданный момент, когда СК объявило об «окончании расследования» и у нас появилась возможность ознакомится с материалами дела. 157 томов. Когда мы начали знакомиться, в одном из самых первых томов мы нашли следующую последовательность документов:

1. Заявление директора компании с просьбой проверить на предмет ущерба и мошенничества (то самое заявление, написанное по настоятельной просьбе сотрудников СК и ФСБ).

2. Бумагу, где Ив Роше сообщает, что оно проведёт проверку на предмет установления возможных убытков.

3. Бумагу, где Ив Роше официально сообщает следствию, что ни прямых убытков, ни упущенной выгоды нет, а «главподписка» оказывала услуги на 4-15% дешевле других контрагентов.

Вам не показалось и вы не ошиблись. Это официальное письмо от компании в СК.

Когда мы прочитали её, то подумали, что чего-то не понимаем в этой жизни. Братьев Навальных обвиняют в хищении денег у компании, а компания говорит: у нас ничего не похищали.

Это было слишком хорошо, чтобы быть правдой. Каким бы жуликом, пьяницей и дебоширом, а также иностранным шпионом ни был Бастрыкин, он же не может быть окончательным дебилом, чтобы шить громкое уголовное дело на таком материале.

Поэтому мы были уверены, что в одном из последних томов (а нам давали их строго по очереди, запрещая смотреть последние), есть документ от Ив Роше, опровергающий этот.

Чем дальше мы знакомились, тем понятнее становилось, что нового документа нет. Это, кстати, объясняло странную штуку: в деле появился ещё один заявитель — некая МПК с какими-то совсем абсурдными и непонятными обвинениями. По датам было видно: Ив Роше написало, что ущерба нет и следствие побежало искать нового «потерпевшего».

Ну так вот, тем дальше мы читали дело, тем больше спрашивали у следствия: а вы ребята совсем что ли плохие? Где у вас документ о том, что Ив Роше причинен ущерб.

И доспрашивались: поняв, что сейчас будет скандал, СК нашёл прекрасное решение: домашний арест с таким экзотическим и абсолютно незаконным условием «запрет на любые комментарии в СМИ о деле». Обратите внимание: мне разрешается (через посредников в лице защиты, конечно) комментировать Путина, Медведева, Крым, Украину, Кадырова, Якунина, Сечина и всё остальное. Только «дело Ив Роше» комментировать в СМИ мне официально запрещено.

Увидев именно это (совершенно уникальное) требование в письме в суд, мы окончательно поняли, что никакой новой бумаги от Ив Роше мы не найдём.Ущерба нет, это официально зафиксированно в материалах дела. А задача следствия сейчас одна: заткнуть нам рот до суда, а там уже судья поможет обойти сложный момент.

Поэтому сейчас я совершенно открыто и официально говорю: что мне плевать на всякие запреты и требования молчать. Плевать на угрозы изменения дом.ареста на обычный. Я молчать не буду и хоть в суде ничего не докажу, но сделаю всё, чтоб доказать вам.

Поэтому я передал это письмо в Фонд борьбы с коррупцией с просьбой опубликовать его и помочь мне написать этот пост. Читайте сами. Тут всё просто:

Ходатайство стр. 1

Ходатайство стр. 2

Докладная записка стр. 1

Докладная записка стр. 2

Вот и всё. Вот вам и «дело Ив Роше», вот вам и «хищения».

Я не знаю, что ещё я могу сделать на суде. Я не знаю более сильного аргумента в пользу невиновности своей и Олега, чем письмо от потерпевшего, что он не потерпевший.

Ничего не буду писать дальше по существу дела, бесполезно уже. Могу добавить только, что мы обращаемся с заявлением о преступлении по факту привлечения заведомо невиновного к уголовной ответственности. Текст здесь.

Что я хочу от вас? Вы мне можете помочь очень просто. Прочитайте это всё и расскажите кому-нибудь ещё. Блог в жж заблокирован, твиттер, ВК и ФБ на очереди. СМИ, которые не побоятся написать об этом, остались единицы.

На это и расчёт: немного людей в интернете знают правду, а в зомбоящике бомбят «похитил 27 миллионов».

Но ведь вы-то не «немного людей из интернета». Вас сотни тысяч. Нас сотни тысяч. Три раза нажали на кнопку и поговорили с парой человек — уже несколько миллионов знают об этом.

Ребята из ФБК даже сделали такой небольшой сайт, чтобы проще было распространять этот расчёт Ив Роше: http://delo.navalny.ru

Хотите помочь: распространите его (а если удобнее, то этот пост) где можете, пришлите каждому, кто вслед за пропагандой пишет про «похитили у Ив Роше». Маме расскажите, бабушке. С таксистом поговорите.

Вот и всё. Я сто раз говорил: нас больше и сила у нас такая, что любую пропаганду мы можем разоблачить моментально. Просто надо работать и не думать, что кто-то это сделает за тебя. Кто-то, у кого больше времени или друзей в Фейсбуке.

Никто ничего не сделает — просто ваш участок фронта будет не закрыт.

Вот в него и проползёт мерзкое рыльце дмитрия кисилева и разнообразная маргарита симонян с подрагивающими ложноножками. Никто не будет виноват, кроме вас.

Другого сопротивления не существует. Это сопротивление может победить и победит.

На этом я своё пафосное мотивирующее выступление заканчиваю.

Заранее спасибо всем, кто поможет. http://delo.navalny.ru