Iran probably has one via North Korea and AQ Khan.vic wrote:I think that Russia should tell USA that if they act too clever then it will supply half dozen nukes to Iran and man pads to Hezbollah.
Nato has drawn up plans to strengthen military co-operation with the former Soviet states on Russia's southern flank after the Kremlin's seizure of Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula of Crimea.
Nato foreign ministers were meeting in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss the alliance's response to the Ukraine crisis amid continued fears of Russia's territorial ambitions and what the Americans term a "tremendous" buildup of Russian forces on Ukraine's eastern border.
Before the meeting, a Nato committee drafted plans "for promoting stability in eastern Europe in the current context" by increasing military co-operation with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova – all in Russia's "near abroad" and considered by Moscow as falling within its sphere of influence.
A confidential seven-page paper leaked to the German news weekly Der Spiegel proposed joint exercises and training between Nato and the three countries, increasing the "interoperability" of their militaries with Nato, and their participation in Nato "smart defence" operations.
The paper also proposed opening a Nato liaison office in Moldova, military training for Armenia, and projects in Azerbaijan aimed at securing its Caspian Sea oil and gas fields.
Nato and EU member states such as Poland and the three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) are alarmed at Vladimir Putin's expansionist policies. There are widespread suspicions that the Kremlin will seek to destabilise and coerce Moldova ahead of its scheduled signing of a trade and political pact with the EU in June.
There’s been no shortage of reports and commentaries on the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea, and Russia’s role in it. Yet one of the more notable recent developments in the crisis has received surprisingly little attention.
Namely, the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has unanimously and, in many ways, forcefully backed Russia’s position on Crimea. The Diplomat has reported on China’s cautious and India’s more enthusiastic backing of Russia before. However, the BRICS grouping as a whole has also stood by the Kremlin.
Indeed, they made this quite clear during a BRICS foreign minister meeting that took place on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague last week. Just prior to the meeting, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop suggested that Australia might ban Russia’s participation in the G20 summit it will be hosting later this year as a means of pressuring Vladimir Putin on Ukraine.
The BRICS foreign ministers warned Australia against this course of action in the statement they released following their meeting last week. “The Ministers noted with concern the recent media statement on the forthcoming G20 Summit to be held in Brisbane in November 2014,” the statement said. “The custodianship of the G20 belongs to all Member States equally and no one Member State can unilaterally determine its nature and character.”
The statement went on to say, “The escalation of hostile language, sanctions and counter-sanctions, and force does not contribute to a sustainable and peaceful solution, according to international law, including the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter.” As Oliver Stuenkel at Post Western World noted, the statement as a whole, and in particular the G20 aspect of it, was a “clear sign that [the] West will not succeed in bringing the entire international community into line in its attempt to isolate Russia.”
This was further reinforced later in the week when China, Brazil, India and South Africa (along with 54 other nations) all abstained from the UN General Assembly resolution criticizing the Crimea referendum. Another ten states joined Russia in voting against the non-binding resolution.
In some ways, the other BRICS countries’ support for Russia is entirely predictable. The group has always been somewhat constrained by the animosities that exist between certain members, as well as the general lack of shared purpose among such different and geographically dispersed nations. BRICS has often tried to overcome these internal challenges by unifying behind an anti-Western or at least post-Western position. In that sense, it’s no surprise that the group opposed Western attempts to isolate one of its own members.
At the same time, this anti-Western stance has usually taken the form of BRICS opposition to Western attempts to place new limits on sovereignty. Since many of its members are former Western colonies or quasi-colonies, the BRICS are highly suspicious of Western claims that sovereignty can be trumped by so-called universal principles of the humanitarian and anti-proliferation variety. Thus, they have been highly critical of NATO’s decision to serve as the air wing of the anti-Qaddafi opposition that overthrew the Libyan government in 2011, as well as what they perceive as attempts by the West to now overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
However, in the case of Ukraine, it was Russia that was violating the sanctity of another state’s sovereignty. Still, the BRICS grouping has backed Russia. It’s worth noting that the BRICS countries are supporting Russia at potentially great cost to themselves, given that they all face at least one potential secessionist movement within their own territories.
India, for example, has a long history of fluid borders and today struggles with potential secessionist movements from Muslim populations as well as a potent security threat from the Maoist insurgency. China suffers most notably from Tibetans and Uyghurs aspiring to break away from the Han-dominated Chinese state. Even among Han China, however, regional divisions have long challenged central control in the vast country. Calls for secession from the Cape region in South Africa have grown in recent years, and Brazil has long faced a secessionist movement in its southern sub-region, which is dominated demographically by European immigrants. Russia, of course, faces a host of internal secessionist groups that may someday lead Moscow to regret its annexation of Crimea.
The fact that BRICS supported Russia despite these concerns suggests that its anti-Western leanings may be more strongly held than most previously believed. Indeed, besides backing Russia in the foreign ministers’ statement, the rising powers also took time to harshly criticize the U.S. (not by name) for the cyber surveillance programs that were revealed by Edward Snowden.
The BRICS and other non-Western powers’ support for Russia also suggests that forging anything like an international order will be extremely difficult, given the lack of shared principles to act as a foundation. Although the West generally celebrated the fact that the UN General Assembly approved the resolution condemning the Crimea referendum, the fact that 69 countries either abstained or voted against it should be a wake-up call. It increasingly appears that the Western dominated post-Cold War era is over. But as of yet, no new order exists to replace it.
Russian gas exporter Gazprom will build a pipeline to supply gas to energy-strapped Crimea, according to the Russian Ministry of Energy.
“Without gas in Crimea there is no possibility for new production, therefore the likelihood of the project is 90 percent,” a senior official at the Ministry of Energy told Vedomosti on Tuesday.
Since the project is in its early stages, the cost is highly speculative, and ranges from $200 million to $1 billion, depending on the route of the pipeline.
The more expensive option is a 10 billion cubic meter capacity pipeline that would run between Russia’s southern Krasnodar region to Sevastopol. The more economic option would start in Anapa, another city in the Krasnodar region on the northern coast of the Black Sea, adding an extra section to the existing South Stream project.
However, the project would take at least two years, according to Michael Korchyomkin, director at European Gas Analysis. The most important thing that needs to be studied before construction kicks off is Crimea’s own resource potential, as Vedomosti cites its source in one of the project institutes.
“First we are considering Crimea’s shelf,” Interfax quoted Sergey Donskoy, Crimea’s Natural Resources Minister, on Monday. Data is still being collected, Donskoy added.
In 2013, the Crimea peninsula consumed 650 million cubic meters of gas, according to Crimea’s Deputy Energy Minister Vadim Zhdanov. In the summer Crimea’s demand is about 2 million cubic meters per day and in the winter roughly 10 million cubic meters.
On Tuesday, Gazprom announced new gas prices for Ukraine; $385.5 per 1,000 cubic meters, an increase from the discounted $268.50 per 1,000 cubic meters the country enjoyed in the first quarter of 2014.
As part of the Russian Federation, Crimea will likely not have to pay this price, but a fraction, as Russia caps domestic natural gas prices, and they are usually a quarter of what is charged to European and CIS clients.
Resources at home
Crimea has been very dependent on mainland Ukraine for its energy needs, importing 90 percent of its water needs, 80 percent of its electricity, and most of its gas travels through Ukraine, the peninsula is home to only one of Ukraine’s thirteen gas storage facilities.
Crimea’s offshore oil fields also provide an opportunity for Gazprom, which Donskoy told reporters on Monday, has exclusive rights to develop offshore oil fields. In mid-March Gazprom requested permission to develop oil and gas on the peninsula.
Hydrocarbons in the Black Sea shelf could yield as much as 1.5 billion cubic meters per year.
In terms of electricity, Crimea will either have to hook up to the Russian grid or build its own independent electricity supply system.
"If we are talking about the new scheme of power supply, the main task for the government is to make Crimea self-sufficient,” Russia’s Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak, told reporters Monday.
This article looks like Western Spin to Events in Crimea ...... BRICS supports Russia as it is anti-western ....BRICS should be careful because it has its own secessionist movement.udaym wrote:http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/why-did- ... on-crimea/
Why Did BRICS Back Russia on Crimea?
The BRICS’s support for Russia shows the Western-dominated post-Cold War order is eroding.
The BRICS and other non-Western powers’ support for Russia also suggests that forging anything like an international order will be extremely difficult, given the lack of shared principles to act as a foundation. Although the West generally celebrated the fact that the UN General Assembly approved the resolution condemning the Crimea referendum, the fact that 69 countries either abstained or voted against it should be a wake-up call. It increasingly appears that the Western dominated post-Cold War era is over. But as of yet, no new order exists to replace it.
By David Blair
Apr 2014
More than a century ago, Lenin told his fellow revolutionaries that demoralising the enemy by “issuing the first agitational leaflet” amounted to waging war by other means.
President Vladimir Putin has clearly taken this lesson to heart: his behaviour over Ukraine offers a masterclass in how to conduct psychological warfare. With every abrupt change of message or confusing new signal, he is trying to keep his opponents permanently off balance while retaining the initiative for himself.
Straight after Ukraine’s February revolution, the Kremlin’s first signal was one of reassurance. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, confirmed his country’s “principled position of non-interference into Ukraine’s internal affairs” on Feb 25, declaring that Moscow’s aim was to “calm the situation down”.
Barely three days after those conciliatory words, Russian troops seized Crimea and triggered today’s crisis. Once that operation was complete, Mr Putin escalated the situation by massing thousands of troops on Ukraine’s eastern frontier. By last Friday, President Barack Obama was sufficiently alarmed to issue a public warning.
In response, Mr Putin carefully lowered the temperature. He picked up the phone and rang Mr Obama before dispatching his foreign minister to meet John Kerry, the US secretary of state. On Monday, Mr Putin assured Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, that some Russian troops would be pulled back from the border area.
Related Articles
Ukraine crisis: Poland asks Nato to station 10,000 troops on its territory
01 Apr 2014
Ukraine crisis: Nato 'to step up military cooperation with Russia's neighbours'
01 Apr 2014
Ukraine crisis: Russia 'withdrawing troops from border', Putin tells Merkel
31 Mar 2014
Ukraine crisis: Dmitry Medvedev visits Crimea
31 Mar 2014
On Tuesday, it emerged that no such withdrawal had taken place. Instead, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary-general, warned of a “massive military build-up”.
And so the tension rose again, just as Mr Putin would have wished. The Western powers are now reduced to awaiting his next move, feeling anxious or reassured according to his whim. Whatever his other setbacks, Mr Putin is winning the psychological campaign.
For one who is likely to be among the first to be taken away at gunpoint if the new men in power here have their way, Fazil Amazayev, was being remarkably calm. Such actions, he insisted “will unite all the Muslims here; they will make enemies of us all”.
Mr Amazayev is a senior member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic political organisation which is legal in Ukraine. However, among the first pronouncements made by the new separatist Prime Minister of Crimea and the security chief he has appointed is that it is a “ dangerous terrorist organisation” which will have to be dealt with.
Hizb ut-Tahrir has been blamed in many countries for promoting radicalism; but violent militancy caused by it is hard to find in Ukraine. And the fear of becoming sectarian targets is not just confined to activists among the Tatars: many in the community are staying away from city centres where Russian-speaking vigilantes hold sway, and some are leaving for other parts of the country.
Mr Amazayev says he is confident that the Tatars of Crimea will not let him and others from his group be picked off by the new head of security, Petr Zima, who was promoted from his previous post in Sevastopol, the home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. “Zima built up a reputation in Sevastopol for carrying out raids, accusing people of being involved in extremism. But, if he starts doing that now, he will make a big mistake. The people in the [Tatar] establishment, the Mufti and the Mejlis [representative council] criticised us in the past, but now we are all facing the common enemy. And, if they do start persecuting us, we know how to survive, we have done it in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia.”
...
It appears that a fake "intrusion/invasion" scare will be orchestrated in eastern Ukraine,using the Kiev neo-Nazis who have stolen vast quantities of arms from a govt. base during the overthrow of Yanukovych,perhaps dressed up as Russian troops and indulge in serious violence,of a kind far worse than that of killing people on both sides using snipers at the Maidan.This was used as the excuse to overthrow Yanukovych with the help of the neo-Nazi thugs.This fake "invasion" using the neo-Nazis may be used by NATO to attack Russian forces ,or for a massive induction of NATO troops all along Russian borders.Russia has all the forces it needs on the border to invade Ukraine within the next three to five days, Nato’s top military commander has warned.
The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and the US Air Force General Philip Breedlove described the situation at the border as “ incredibly concerning”.
He said Nato had spotted signs of movement by a very small part of the Russian force overnight but there was no indication it was returning to barracks.
"This is a very large, very capable and very ready force" Mr Breedlove told The Wall Street Journal.
The Russian force has aircraft and helicopter support as well as field hospitals and electronic warfare capabilities - "the entire suite that would be required to successfully have an incursion into Ukraine should the decision be made," Mr Breedlove warned.
"We think it is ready to go and we think it could accomplish its objectives in between three and five days if directed to make the actions," he said.
Russia could have several potential objectives, including pushing beyond Crimea to Ukraine's Black Sea port of Odessa or even threatening to connect to Transdniestria, the mainly Russian-speaking, separatist region of Moldova that lies to the west of Ukraine.
"We are going to have to look at how our alliance now is prepared for a different paradigm, a different rule set... We will need to rethink our force posture, our force positioning, our force provisioning, readiness, etc," he added.
When Phillip is having fun ranting against the imperialists, not to mention keeping BRF ahead of the curve, you don't just kill his buzz. Even batoris have to nod gravely to his sage strategic predictions.UlanBatori wrote:Yes, a pool would be good.
I think there is a 67.38% chance that there will be a huge vodka infusion in East Ukraine (east of Dnieper). How that will happen is anyone's guess, but I don't think a lot of mechanized war will be involved. Probably a quiet infusion of vodka bottles carried by the "silent armed couriers" to protect Russian-speaking ppl and kick out the BapNazis. Welcomed by local population.
However, zero percent chance of NATO going in. Lots of teeth-gnashing, yes, Sanctions, yes, Sanctimonious Speeches, yes of course, but no NATO shots fired. They will move into Kiev in grand style to "Save UkBapZia from Russian Aggression" and that will be that.
They SHOULD have taken my advice and sent an airborne division into Kiev 5 weeks ago.
But NATO get into a war? The OIROPEANS, start a war with Russia? Even if they are driven into it by the American generals? I cannot believe it. The Germans are dead set against it, the French are too self-absorbed and anyway they just want to surrender, the Italians and the Spaniards??
This seems to indicate the future is uncertain. No one gives a hoot about Western ukraine, this is about Donbas.Nijalingappa wrote:Wars can be waged only if can plunder the vanquished, or levy new taxes, or ramp up the printing of currency like uncle does
so war is unlikely from Russian perspective
“Second, the development of these rapid deployment forces,” he said, “to deal with any kind of local conflict, such as the war against Georgia, or this operation in Ukraine or anywhere.”
“As a result of these reforms,” Mr. Golts added, “Russia now has absolute superiority over any country in the post-Soviet space.”
UlanBatori wrote:Yes, a pool would be good.
I think there is a 67.38% chance that there will be a huge vodka infusion in East Ukraine (east of Dnieper). How that will happen is anyone's guess, but I don't think a lot of mechanized war will be involved. Probably a quiet infusion of vodka bottles carried by the "silent armed couriers" to protect Russian-speaking ppl and kick out the BapNazis. Welcomed by local population.
However, zero percent chance of NATO going in. Lots of teeth-gnashing, yes, Sanctions, yes, Sanctimonious Speeches, yes of course, but no NATO shots fired. They will move into Kiev in grand style to "Save UkBapZia from Russian Aggression" and that will be that.
They SHOULD have taken my advice and sent an airborne division into Kiev 5 weeks ago.
But NATO get into a war? The OIROPEANS, start a war with Russia? Even if they are driven into it by the American generals? I cannot believe it. The Germans are dead set against it, the French are too self-absorbed and anyway they just want to surrender, the Italians and the Spaniards??
Berkut riot police weren’t involved in mass killings by unidentified snipers in Kiev on February 20. The detention of its officers is an attempt to tarnish Ukrainian law enforcement, Berkut veteran organization head, Vladimir Krashevsky, told RT.
12 Berkut officers were detained for being part of the so-called ‘black company,’ which were given sniper rifles to provide cover for their retreating comrades, Oleg Makhnitsky, Ukraine’s acting Prosecutor General said on Thursday.
Krashevsky has refuted claims that Berkut used fire arms against the demonstrators on the bloodiest day of the Ukrainian coup, which saw President Viktor Yanukovich ousted and 42 people dead.
“At around 8:00 AM local time [on February 20], the withdrawal of the interior troops and Berkut forces began in several directions. At that moment the troops – who were unarmed – came under sniper fire from several buildings,” Krashevsky told RT.
According to the veteran, Berkut’s covering troops had to perform the risky operation of evacuating 300 interior ministry servicemen from Kiev’s Oktyabrsky palace.
“250 people were evacuated thanks to cover from the guys in black uniforms with yellow armbands (Berkut),” he said. “50 people, unfortunately, were captured by the demonstrators and taken to Maidan.”
“During the cover operation one of the Berkut troops, Nikolay Semchuk, was killed by two snipers. Snipers call this a ‘double shooting’, when two shots are fired at the same. One shot landed in the leg and the other – in the head,” Krashevsky added.
He also corrected the acting Prosecutor General, saying that the official name of the unit isn’t “Berkut black company” but “Special Company of the Special Police Regiment Berkut in the City of Kiev.”
AFP Photo / Sergei Supinsky
AFP Photo / Sergei Supinsky
“Its staff include 90 people, with 23 of them being present in the area where gunfire came,” he said.
The Berkut veteran has confirmed that “12 people were detained yesterday [April 2]” and “three of them currently remain in custody.”
“They are officers – the commander of the company and two others. As yet, I’m unaware of the charges laid against them. But so far I’ve learned that they’ll have to take a polygraph lie detector test,” he said.
Krashevsky believes that the politically-loaded investigation on the Kiev snipers, and the arrest of the Berkut officers are part of a campaign “to turn them and the rest of the law enforcement agencies into the enemy."
"There was an info war, a massive one, from the Western and Ukrainian media,” he stressed.
According to the veteran, the Ukrainians were only shown images where “weaponless people were falling down after being shot at – allegedly by the interior ministry servicemen. But it was just a montage, which was put together and accompanied by a relevant commentary. It was nothing more. But that was enough for our people.”
The identity of the ‘Maidan snipers’ is a hot political topic in Ukraine and abroad, with both protesters and police among those killed by sniper fire in the center of the Ukrainian capital.
The prime minister in the Ukrainian coup-imposed government, Arseny Yatsenyuk, says that ousted president Yanukovich should answer for the killing of the Maidan protesters.
He told the BBC that a criminal investigation had been launched against Yanukovich, accusing him of mass murder.
The Ukrainian president, who fled to Russia following the February-20 events, has said many times that he did not order the police to shoot at the demonstrators.
Yatsenyuk now wants him to defend himself in a Ukrainian court, adding that there’s compelling evidence that “senior Ukrainian officials were responsible for the massacre of people” in Kiev.
A leaked phone call between EU foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, and Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet talked about the strong suspicion that people among Ukraine’s new leadership were behind the snipers.
Earlier, Aleksandr Yakimenko, who headed the Ukrainian Security Service during the Kiev standoff, said the so-called Maidan Self-Defense Force controlled the building from which the snipers were shooting.
Secretary of State John Kerry made a similar claim in Brussels on Wednesday after a summit with European Union officials that was specifically dedicated to energy issues."Our new capacities as a gas producer and the approval of seven export licenses is going to help supply gas to global markets, and we look forward to doing that starting in 2015. And we will supply more gas than all of Europe consumes today," he said.Neither statement, as expressed, is correct. For the moment, the U.S. is a net importer of natural gas, which means America consumes more gas than it produces. Down the road, the U.S. will produce enough natural gas to begin selling significant amounts to foreign countries. That could meet some of Europe's gas demand, but not all of it.Math is always fun, so here are the numbers in question. In 2013, the 28 countries of the European Union consumed about 44.7 billion cubic feet per day. In 2013, Europe imported about 4.6 billion cubic feet per day of liquefied natural gas aboard massive tankers, which is the way U.S. firms would send natural gas to the continent. They get the remaining 38.7 billion cubic feet per day from other sources, including local production and by pipelines.To be sure, American overseas sales will soon start to grow somewhat significantly. The Department of Energy has approved seven natural gas terminals in recent years which can export a total of about 9.2 billion cubic feet per day. The department is considering whether to sign off on the construction of 30 other plants which would allow American firms to theoretically export nearly 27 billion cubic feet per day more to the EU's member nations. In practice, many of those terminals will never be built, and much of that gas will likely be sold to customers in Asian countries in any event.All of that is to say that Obama's statement that Washington has already authorized the export of " as much natural gas each day as Europe uses each day" is incorrect. Asian countries have already signed long-term contracts to buy future American gas. That means it would literally be impossible for all of the future overseas sales that Obama is talking about to go to Europe.
To give the White House the benefit of the doubt, many energy experts initially puzzled by the president's remarks speculate that he may have meant to make a different, more nuanced point. They point out that future U.S. exports could provide more gas than Europe currently imports by tanker each day. The key words there are "by tanker." European consumers would still be consuming much more energy than U.S. firms would be selling. Spokespeople for the White House and State Department didn't respond to requests for comment.Making the issue even more confusing is comparing future U.S. exports with current European consumption. Most U.S. export terminals won't be operational until later in the decade, by which time European liquefied natural gas imports are expected to have risen from their lowest level in a decade as the continent races to reduce its dependence on Russia. That would make the difference between what Europe consumes, even from tanker imports, and what America exports even larger.Kerry added to the confusion this week when he said that the United States will "supply" more gas than Europe consumes, which is also not correct. It was not clear if he was referring only to the seven approved terminals, or the other 30 that have requested approval. But even if every single molecule of that gas went to Europe the U.S. would still be unable to meet the continent's energy needs.One administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Kerry's remarks were meant to compare future U.S. gas exports to current European liquefied natural gas imports, and that that is the message he will stress in future speeches.
Russian ambassadors: 'next we'll take Catalonia, Venice, Scotland and Alaska'
Unauthenticated, expletive-laden recording of pair joking about which countries to annex after Crimea is leaked online
Shaun Walker in Moscow
The Guardian, Friday 4 April 2014 12.13 BST
Link to video: 'Russian ambassadors' plan world domination: audio recording of leaked phonecall
A recording has surfaced online purporting to be a leaked conversation between two Russian ambassadors discussing which parts of the world they would like to annex after Crimea.
The five-minute recording, laden with expletives, has been posted on YouTube and claims to be a telephone call between Igor Chubarov, Russia's ambassador to Eritrea, and Sergei Bakharev, the ambassador to Zimbabwe and Malawi. It has not been authenticated.
"We've got Crimea, but that's not ****** all folks. In the future we'll damn well take your Catalonia and Venice, and also Scotland and Alaska," says the voice labelled as Chubarov, interspersing his speech with laughter and punning the word for Scotland in Russian so it sounds like "Cattleland".
After this, Chubarov says Russia will make a move for "all those ****** border countries", such as Estonia, as well as Romania and Bulgaria. He adds that the head of the EU mission to Eritrea had jokily said that he wished Russia would "take back" Romania and Bulgaria.
In the end, the ambassadors agree it is probably better to leave Bulgaria, Romania and the "Baltic shit" in the EU for now, and Bakharev says it would be more interesting to go for California or Miami.
"Exactly, Miamiland is ****** 95% Russian citizens," says Chubarov. "We have a full right to hold a referendum." Bakharev suggests holding one in "Londonland" as well, to jovial laughter.
Chubarov congratulates Bakharev on the fact that Zimbabwe was one of only 11 countries, with Syria and North Korea, to back Russia at the UN over its annexation of Crimea. There is also consternation that the "********" from Malawi did not support Moscow.
It is possible that the leaking of the recording is revenge for the recent spate of high-profile leaks of western diplomatic discussions over Ukraine. A call between the US assistant secretary of state, Victoria Nuland, and the US ambassador in Kiev was leaked, in which Nuland discussed strategy advice for the leaders of the Ukrainian protest movement, as well as stating "****** the EU" in reference to differences over Ukraine policy. Nuland as good as confirmed the authenticity of the recording, claiming "the tradecraft is really quite impressive".
Later, a recording of a conversation between the EU foreign policy chief, Lady Ashton, and the Estonian foreign minister, Urmas Paet, was leaked. They discussed the theory that those who died in Kiev violence could have been shot by snipers hired by the opposition rather than government forces, a line which the Russian foreign ministry has pushed.
The reaction in Moscow to the African ambassadors' tape was one more of amusement than anger, especially given that the taped diplomats are significantly lower ranking than Nuland or Ashton.
An official Russian source, claiming Nuland not only swears in English, but is proud of her ability to swear in Russian, said: "If this was their response to Nuland's strong expressions, then be assured that no Russian ambassador could outdo her when it comes to swearing in Russian."
Maria Zakharova, deputy spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry, wrote on Facebook that she had no idea who was talking on the tape, but noted that the photograph appended to the YouTube video of Bakharev bore no resemblance to him.
Zakharova insinuated that the recording was clumsy US handiwork and compared it to the incident during the "reset" of relations between Russia and the US, when the then secretary of state. Hillary Clinton. presented the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, with a button that was meant to say "reset", but got the Russian word wrong and thus said "overload".
"It's like with the 'overload' button. They wanted to do something better than usual, but it turned out as it always does," wrote Zakharova.
Since the crisis in Ukraine began, there has been an increase in the diplomatic war of words and leaks. Last month, in an official statement detailing what it said were false claims from Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, the US state department said: "The world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoevsky".
On Thursday, Russia's deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov accused the US of "childish tantrums" over Crimea.
"What can we advise our American colleagues? They should get more fresh air, do yoga, eat healthily, maybe watch some sitcoms on television," said Ryabkov, in comments to Interfax news agency.
On a more saerious note. The West clearly thinks the time has come to liberate central assia. Look for increased NATO activity in the azerbaijans, random sanctions/arrests of russian businessman, freedom fighter activities in russia. "Adviseries" for crimea, every random business establishment from starbucks to mcdonalds becoming patriotic over night, and so on. These are not one off acts, that you are seeing.ramana wrote:UB and Philip, Come to think of it Hollywood already had the mood of the WH in the film Gravity. Despite the Chinese being the ones who used an ASAT to knock out an old satelite, the film had the Russians do that tand the debris in turn disables the IIS and the star gets rescued in a Chinese capusle!!!
This has to be seen in a larger context.ramana wrote:UB and Philip, Come to think of it Hollywood already had the mood of the WH in the film Gravity. Despite the Chinese being the ones who used an ASAT to knock out an old satelite, the film had the Russians do that tand the debris in turn disables the IIS and the star gets rescued in a Chinese capusle!!!
Even Putin mentions in a video interview. Check it outPhilip wrote:JoKer-ry is in good form.He's eaten a few kilos worth of beans and is now waiting along with the envoys of the EU for the resultant reaction from his nether end to prove to the world that America keeps its word!
Meanwhile enjoy this unauthenticated conversation purported to be between two Russian "ambassadors" about which countries to gobble up next.Quite hilarious.
Russian ambassadors: 'next we'll take Catalonia, Venice, Scotland and Alaska'
Unauthenticated, expletive-laden recording of pair joking about which countries to annex after Crimea is leaked online
Shaun Walker in Moscow
The Guardian, Friday 4 April 2014 12.13 BST
Link to video: 'Russian ambassadors' plan world domination: audio recording of leaked phonecall
All that Gazz!The following is excerpted from the Debka-weekly edition of February 28, 2014,regarding the British role behind the scene of the Maidan putsch and its ramifications…
The Obama administration mostly stayed aloof from the British-led European moves on Ukraine, unwilling to risk what it regards as headway on the Iranian and Syrian issues by stepping into a conflict touching on Russia’s very borders and affecting its strategic interests.
But then, Thursday afternoon, Russia raised the military stakes by sending fighter jets to patrol the border with Ukraine, shortly after armed men seized control of government buildings and the parliament in the Crimean capital of Simferopol and flew the Russian flag over them.
Local witnesses assured our sources that the armed men were actually Russian paratroopers and carried heavy anti-tank weaponry.At that point, the Obama administration sent John Kerry to pick up the phone to Sergey Lavrov to negotiate an end to the crisis, before the Russian military buildup gets out of hand. Moscow’s price for collaboration has yet to be negotiated before the upheavals besetting Ukraine subside. It may entail swallowing the return of Yanukovych to Kiev.
Kiev Swerved off the EU Script
European Wire-Pullers Misjudged Ukraine Unrest – Pushed It too Far
The Europeans, spearheaded by the British MI6, worked very hard to engineer the coup which deposed the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Kiev Saturday, Feb. 22. Three months in the making, the takeover was stalled in less than 48 hours by the country’s empty coffers. With all its sympathy, the European Union was in no hurry to follow up on British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne’s rash statement that Britain had its checkbook ready to help the new Ukraine.
Fine, said the interim government in Kiev, we need $21 billion (!) to stabilize the economy.Tuesday, Feb. 25, British Foreign Secretary William Hague decided the smart thing to do was to fly urgently to Washington to discuss with Secretary of State John Kerry what to do next.
Before they met, Hague commented that the US via the International Money Fund, as well as Britain and the European Union, would have to stump up the funds for putting the new Ukraine on its feet.
But after talking to Kerry, he sang a different tune:
“Ukraine needs to meet conditions for an IMF lending program,” said Hague as he left the State Department. “It is important for economic reform to take place and for a pervasive culture of corruption over many years to be tackled effectively for international community to be able to see that there will be continuity and determination to tackle these issues, and therefore long-term international support can be given on a reasonable basis.”He went on to say that he would need to consult with Moscow on the matter.
British push protesters to radical steps
By then it was clear to Ukraine’s acting president Oleksander Turchino that the funds for governing Ukraine even provisionally – which may have been promised – were way out of reach. Neither the US, the IMF or the EU would be writing any checks until the conditions Hague outlined were met – a tall order, DEBKA Weekly’s intelligence sources report.
Thursday, Kerry made the gesture of offering a US guarantee for $1 billion worth of credit. Even that drop in the ocean of Kiev’s needs will be hard to come by.
According to sources in Kiev, the upshot of the Kiev protest departed from the original script prepared by Western European secret services, including France and Germany – with the British MI6 in the forefront of the action.
They had intended the Kiev uprising to produce a national unity government representing the various opposition factions and driving hard toward affiliation with the European Union. It was meant to bend Yanukovych to the opposition’s will – not oust him.
Fellow Europeans accused British agents of pushing the protest leaders into more radical steps than intended. Some of the pro-Western hotheads, mostly from Lviv, became confused over their final goals.
Foreign Secretary Hague, as the minister in charge of the MI6 Secret Service, was kept abreast of events in Kiev. As an incidental gain, he saw an opportunity for Prime Minister David Cameron to repair some of the damage wrought by his government’s inadequate handling of the flood disasters in some of Britain’s most prosperous areas. He urged Cameron to use the turmoil in Kiev to restore some of his lost prestige.
Why the British-led European plan went off the script
But the premier decided to play it safe and leave it to Hague to handle the political mess developing in Kiev. In Washington it was realized that if the British hadn’t cheered the Kiev protesters on too far, hailing them as freedom fighters ready to lay down their lives on the barricades, Yanukovych might still be in power instead of on the run, and a national unity government in place to restore order in Kiev.
A German intelligence agent talking to DEBKA Weekly pointed to two British miscalculations:
1. They underestimated the fragility of Yanukovych’s government. It was so fundamentally rotten, that no more than a gentle nudge was needed to blow it away and put the president to flight.
2. They also misjudged Russian President Vladimir Putin’s likely response to the challenge to Moscow. London counted on the three months of protest at the heart of Kiev blowing up into a major crisis between the Russian ruler and President Barack Obama and the eventual use of Russian military force – if not in Kiev, then in the Russian-speaking southeast and the Crimean Peninsula, home to Russian naval bases. London would then be on hand to broker a resolution of the crisis.
But Putin coolly appraised the situation in Kiev, said the German source, before taking action. Like the Obama administration, he had no intention of forking out a single dollar to haul Ukraine out of its economic morass. Well acquainted with the players in Kiev, he appreciated that any financial assistance reaching the country would flow straight into the pockets of local politicians and oligarchs who are the real powerhouses in the Ukraine capital.
The EU, through its British foreign policy coordinator Catherine Ashton, who visited Kiev this week, tried, say DEBKA Weekly’s sources, to take charge of stabilizing the situation in Kiev and providing liaison between Washington and Moscow.In fact Obama and Putin interacted directly to safeguard a relationship which has a higher priority for the US President than Ukraine. The hot potato of stabilizing Kiev was left to the Europeans to handle.
Gas prices in Europe to rise 50%, if it abandons Russia’s supplies – Energy Minister
Published time: April 04, 2014
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak (RIA Novosti/Dmitry Astakhov)
Domestic prices in Europe will go up by at least 50 percent, if it cuts supplies from Russia, according to Russia’s Energy Minister Alexandre Novak.
“Moving away from pipeline transportation of natural gas, construction of terminals and deliveries of liquefied natural gas will lead to an increase in gas prices in Europe from the current $380 per 1,000 cubic metres to at least $550,” Novak said in an interview to the Russia 24 TV Channel.
“And the question arises: are the economies of European countries ready to supply and consume gas at such a price?” the Minister asked.
The US has insisted that Europe needs to urgently cut its dependence on Russian gas, with the US Secretary of State John Kerry saying Moscow shouldn’t use energy exports as a political weapon.
“It really boils down to this: no nation should use energy to stymie a people’s aspirations,” Kerry said in Brussels on Thursday, the same day Russia’s Gazprom increased the price to Ukraine another $100 per 1,000 cubic metres.
On Wednesday the US and EU reaffirmed their plan to move away from Russian gas, stressing that developments in Ukraine “have brought energy security concerns to the fore” .
Meanwhile, Russian energy companies have started to feel the pulse in markets outside Europe, mostly focusing on Asia.
Gazprom talked to Kuwait and Egypt about increasing LNG supplies and hopes to sign a long-term supply deal with China next month. Also, the president of Russia’s oil major Rosneft has toured Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and India.
Source: Financial Times graphic based on IEA, Eurostat, EIA data
Source: Financial Times graphic based on IEA, Eurostat, EIA data
Real alternatives to Russia?
While in theory there are some alternatives to Russian gas that include supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar and Nigeria and shale supplies, both domestic and America’s, a more in-depth analysis shows that moving away from Russian gas would be painful for Europe.
A study by Bernstein Research, a widely-recognized Wall Street research and brokerage firm, says that cutting off Russian gas would cost $160 for every single person in Europe. The costs include extra expenses to get rid of 15 billion cubic meters (bcm) of residential and industrial gas demand, a $215 billion investment and additionally $37 billion annually in the form of higher energy bills.
“Like it or not, but Europe is stuck with Russian gas,” the Financial Times quotes Bernstein’s Oswald Clint.
If Europe is really determined to cut its energy dependence on Russia, it needs to take radical measures. This could include switching to diesel power, closing the oil refining industry, reducing gas consumption in heating and adding more ecologically unfriendly coal-fired generation, Clint said.
The "take-or-pay" contracts with Gazprom are another string that could keep Europe within Moscow’s energy orbit. These deals mean a buyer is bound to either buy a minimum volume of energy or pay the supplier a penalty. Under such contracts some of the Europe’s top energy companies including ENI, Edison and RWE are obliged to pay Russia’s Gazprom an estimated $50 billion. Many of these deals stretch beyond 2020, the FT says.
Last week the head of the Duma’s foreign relations committee Alexei Pushkov said that Europe’s“energy independence” plan “is not a prospect for the next few years,” adding that by that time Russia will find alternative export markets.
Crimea: no more McDonald's or methadone after annexation
Russia's annexation of Crimea sees shutdown of fast-food chain and discontinuation of programme for drug users.
Peter Walker
theguardian.com, Friday 4 April 2014 .
Closed down? the McDonald's on the seafront in Yalta in Crimea. Photograph: Maxton Walker
If people in Crimea were still wondering how much life might change following the Russian takeover of the peninsula, they now have an answer: no more McDonald's.
The fast-food chain has announced it is closing its outlets in Crimea's main cities of Simferopol, Sevastopol and Yalta, due to what a statement on the McDonald's Ukraine website referred to only as "manufacturing reasons".
While the company said work at the three outlets was merely suspended and it hoped to reopen them, staff at the restaurants would be offered the chance to relocate permanently to Ukraine. Those wishing to move would keep the same job and salary and receive relocation costs for themselves and their families, including three months' rent, the statement said.
It added: "We understand and respect each employee's decision. If they do not wish to move to another city in Ukraine we will, in accordance with Ukrainian law, offer options to end their employment with a redundancy payment."
A separate statement from the McDonald's European headquarters said the closure was strictly a business decision due to "the suspension of necessary financial and banking services" and had "nothing to do with politics". It added: "We are taking numerous steps to support our employees during this time. We hope to reopen our restaurants soon so we can welcome back our loyal customers
)In his Kremlin defense of Russia's annexation of Crimea, Vladimir Putin, even before he began listing the battles where Russian blood had been shed on Crimean soil, spoke of an older deeper bond.Crimea, said Putin, "is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus."Russia is a Christian country, Putin was saying.This speech recalls last December's address where the former KGB chief spoke of Russia as standing against a decadent West:"Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation."Heard any Western leader, say, Barack Obama, talk like that lately?Indicting the "Bolsheviks" who gave away Crimea to Ukraine, Putin declared, "May God judge them."What is going on here?With Marxism-Leninism a dead faith, Putin is saying the new ideological struggle is between a debauched West led by the United States and a traditionalist world Russia would be proud to lead.In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russia that is on God's side. The West is Gomorrah.Western leaders who compare Putin's annexation of Crimea to Hitler's Anschluss with Austria, who dismiss him as a "KGB thug," who call him "the alleged thief, liar and murderer who rules Russia," as the Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins did, believe Putin's claim to stand on higher moral ground is beyond blasphemous.But Vladimir Putin knows exactly what he is doing, and his new claim has a venerable lineage. The ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers who exposed Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, was, at the time of his death in 1964, writing a book on "The Third Rome."The first Rome was the Holy City and seat of Christianity that fell to Odoacer and his barbarians in 476 A.D. The second Rome was Constantinople, Byzantium, (today's Istanbul), which fell to the Turks in 1453. The successor city to Byzantium, the Third Rome, the last Rome to the old believers, was -- Moscow.Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism.Putin is plugging into some of the modern world's most powerful currents. Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America's arrogant drive for global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated.He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia's flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity. His recent speeches carry echoes of John Paul II whose Evangelium Vitae in 1995 excoriated the West for its embrace of a "culture of death."
What did Pope John Paul mean by moral crimes?The West's capitulation to a sexual revolution of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity, *****, homosexuality, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, assisted suicide -- the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values.Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum writes that she was stunned when in Tbilisi to hear a Georgian lawyer declare of the former pro-Western regime of Mikhail Saakashvili, "They were LGBT.""It was an eye-opening moment," wrote Applebaum. Fear and loathing of the same-sex-marriage pandemic has gone global. In Paris, a million-man Moral Majority marched in angry protest.
Author Masha Gessen, who has written a book on Putin, says of his last two years, "Russia is remaking itself as the leader of the anti-Western world."But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social, moral war where Russia's role, in Putin's words, is to "prevent movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state."Would that be the "chaotic darkness" and "primitive state" of mankind, before the Light came into the world?In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on homosexual propaganda, a ban on abortion advertising, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks and a ban on sacrilegious insults to religious believers."While the other super-powers march to a pagan world-view," writes WCF's Allan Carlson, "Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values. During the Soviet era, Western communists flocked to Moscow. This year, World Congress of Families VII will be held in Moscow, Sept. 10-12."Will Vladimir Putin give the keynote?In the new ideological Cold War, whose side is God on now?
http://rt.com/news/nato-anniversary-exp ... urope-129/
On the 65th anniversary of NATO, the debate over the organization’s expansion remains highly contentious, with some viewing it as a broken promise to Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain.
NATO, an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty, was signed on April 4, 1949 when the US, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland joined the members of the Treaty of Brussels to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The idea of the alliance was to provide defense against a prospective Soviet invasion. In the early 1950s, the focus of the communism vs. capitalism fight shifted to Asia, where a series of bloody proxy wars played a major role in convincing Europeans that the Soviet Union and its allies were extremely dangerous and had to be contained at all costs.
Since the reunification of Germany, NATO has almost doubled in size – from 16 member states in 1990 to 28 currently.
Most senior Russian officials feel tricked by NATO and accuse the West of not following through with its commitments made during German reunification negotiations, when NATO agreed not to expand to the East.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet president at the time, confirmed that there was a promise not to enlarge NATO, not even "as much as a thumb's width further to the East.” But this commitment was never formally documented, and since then the alliance has grown drastically.
The US ambassador to Moscow at the time, Jack Matlock, told RT he personally objected to NATO expansion as it was done.
“We had no reason to expand the NATO military organization to the East until we had an agreement that would put Russia in a European defense structure,” he told RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze.
The retired diplomat insists that the bloc’s expansion was fueled not by Washington, but by Eastern European countries, eager to get Western protection from a possible communist resurgence in Russia. The enlargement was not intended to offend new Russia, but it did, especially since the security architecture it provided did not include Russia.
“I must say that Russian government at that time came up with no good alternatives. I can’t just blame one side for this,” Matlock said. “I think it is unfortunate because I think there should have been a greater Western effort, American and West European, to make sure we had brought Russia into a security structure and that we have done more to encourage an understanding between the West Europeans and Russians.”
Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, NATO has aggressively expanded eastward, especially in the past two decades. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined the alliance.
This was followed by the biggest expansion in NATO’s history; in 2004, seven new Eastern Europe member states joined the alliance – Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The enlargement was topped off with a final advance in 2009, as Albania and Croatia joined the ranks.
Gorbachev repeatedly expressed outrage with US politicians and the broken promise.
As the alliance continued to expand to include Baltic States and Eastern European countries, so did distrust and tension.
"A powerful military bloc appearing near our borders will be perceived in Russia as a direct threat to the security of our country," Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a 2008 press conference after talks with NATO had broken down.
The purpose of the power-bloc has been increasingly questioned in the 21st century, with many analysts wondering whose goals are being served.
Russian ambassador to NATO Aleksandr Grushko told reporters on Wednesday that NATO's expansion process has exhausted itself.
"It proved to weaken security, not to remove dividing lines, but to move them to the east and stir up psychology of front-line states. We see that the countries that join NATO more than others begin to demand additional guarantees and additional protection measures," the diplomat said.
