Bharat Rakshak

International community must demand that those who are in power in Kiev stop war on their own citizens in south-eastern Ukraine, Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin told the UN Security Council.

“The international community must demand the stooges of Maidan stop the war against their own people", Churkin said at an emergency Security Council session.

Churkin stressed that “reckless actions” of the Kiev government are “threatening to rip apart the delicate garment of Ukrainian mosaic society.”

Kiev’s post-coup authorities “stubbornly,” Churkin says, refuse to listen to those who do not accept Kiev's “radicalized, chauvinistic, russophobic, anti-Semitic forces.”

“Some, including those in this hall, constantly look for Moscow's hand in the events in the southeast , persistently without wishing to see the true reasons of the events in Ukraine. Quit doing it,” Churkin told the meeting.

“Quit spreading tales that we built up military armadas on the border with this country, ready at any moment, within a few hours to reach almost as far as La Manche, that we sent hordes of agents to coordinate actions of the protesting people of Ukraine.”

Monstrous russophobia bordering on hatred became the norm in the Verhovna Rada, Churkin reminded. “These beings deserve only one thing – death,” Churkin quoted a recent female Svoboda party MP’s statement about protesters in the East. And such views are widely shared among her “brutal co-party members,” he added.

The people's outcry in the East was indeed answered by Ukraine Parliament – with “draconian laws” threatening them long term imprisonment for “separatism” and “terrorism,” Churkin said.

US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power used a chance to accuse Russia of directly intervening and orchestrating the protests in Ukraine.

“You heard that there are no Russian troops in eastern Ukraine but the fact is that many of the armed units that we have seen were outfitted in bullet proof vests, camouflage uniforms with insignia removed,” Power said.

Armed pro-Russia protesters prepare for the battle with Ukrainian police special team on the outskirts the eastern Ukrainian city of Slavyansk on April 13, 2014 (AFP Photo / Anatoly Stepanov)

“We know who is behind this. Indeed the only entity in the area capable of coordinating these professional military actions is Russia,” Power claimed.

In his turn, Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev said that “Russia has not only constantly been increasing its troops alongside the Ukrainian border but also sending subversive groups into Ukrainian regions in order to destabilize the situation,” accusing Russia of orchestrating a full-scale “terrorist operation” in the East.

Russia's Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin speaks at the United Nations Security Council during a meeting called by Russia April 13, 2014 at the United Nations in New York (AFP Photo / Don Emmert)

Taking the floor for the second time, Churkin warned that the deadline was looming, and that prospects of holding negotiations next week would be undermined if Kiev uses force against its people in the East, Churkin said in his rebuttal to the accusations by other members of the UNSC.

“Let’s move aside from speculations, accusations, from searching for Russian phantoms flying all over different corners of Ukraine, but let’s concentrate attention on what we can do – in this case I'm directing my eyesight at my Western colleagues – in order to prevent the Kiev authorities’ reckless actions, which at this moment are embodied in the criminal order of Mr. Turchinov, and to prevent the realization of this order, which will have the most severe implications primarily for the people of Ukraine.”

In response to his Ukrainian colleague’s accusations that Russia is engaged in supporting terrorism in Ukraine, Churkin responded: “Why did you not accuse of terrorism those who were terrorizing your government for a span of several months?”

“Those who actually terrorized the security forces, who actually set on fire the policemen, shot at them, just like they did at those who were protesting against the authorities and seemingly acted on their side. Those people, for some reason, you did not call terrorists, and even relieved them from any liability for their criminal actions that were conducted over several months.”

Churkin called accusations against Russia “ridiculous” pointing out that Russia's calls to start negotiations at the beginning of the crisis were ignored. “Why did you encourage this crisis?” Churkin asked.

“Russia, throughout the stretch of the Ukrainian crisis spoke out not for aggravation of the crisis, not to destabilize the country,” but to “keep the situation stable” in the neighboring country, Churkin told the UNSC, adding, “it is not our fault what we are witnessing there.”

He also questioned the role the US plays in the EU decision making process, citing the fact that Washington was quick to answer President's Putin letter addressed to EU nations, on gas transit to Europe. “We will have to wait and see if there is any sovereignty left in the EU. Can it independently make decisions that could lead the situation out of crisis?”

Churkin also stressed that Russia repeatedly stated that constitutional reform mentioned in February 21 agreement has to be implemented to avoid the escalation of tensions. He also stressed that FM Sergey Lavrov in his conversations with his counterpart John Kerry, always tries to explain to him the position of pro-federalization activists, so the US can get a full picture of the tension in Ukraine.

And while Russia and the US continue their talks, Churkin says, some politicians in the US already state that these conversations “will not lead to anything” and are just being conducted by the US to “occupy time.”

“Occupy time? So, does that means that someone in Washington actually has something like Turchinov’s armed scenario in their heads? If so, let’s not accuse Russia of seeking to destabilize the situation.”

Churkin also accused the West of double standards, pointing out the fact that the West encouraged actions to overthrow the government in Kiev in February, while at the same time condemning the events in the East of the country, where people reject the new rule forcefully imposed on them.

Russia's UN envoy also said that there seems to be a total disconnect in Kiev's approach to the crisis, as the acting prime minister Yatsenyuk is talking of the possibility of referendum while Turchinov at the same time is giving crackdown orders. “It seems they prefer to use force,” Churkin said.

US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power speaks at the United Nations Security Council during a meeting called by Russia April 13, 2014 at the United Nations in New York (AFP Photo / Don Emmert)

US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power speaks at the United Nations Security Council during a meeting called by Russia April 13, 2014 at the United Nations in New York (AFP Photo / Don Emmert)

When Samantha Power took the floor for the second time she stressed the US consistently “called for de-escalation and urged restraint” when dealing with the Ukrainian crisis, saying “there has been no shortage of evidence in diplomacy.”

She once again blamed Russia for fuelling Ukrainian crisis.

“It is not the United States that escalated the situation. It is the Russian Federation,” Power said, stating that it is hard to “reconcile the behavior of the Russian Federation, the propaganda of the Russian Federation, the military actions of the Russian Federation which range from the massing of 40,000 troops at the border to the subversive activities inside Ukraine” with “this appeal for diplomacy and de-escalation, and an appeal we wish was in fact sincere.”

Power said that Russia's point of view is “rooted in the idea that the internet does not exist” where people can see all the "evidence." She claimed that pro-federalization rallies are not protests, but instead are a series of military operations by “professional forces, carrying weapons, Russian made weapons as it happens, carrying out sophisticated, complicated military operations across a substantial number of eastern Ukrainian cities.”

Finally, Powers said that the “credibility of the Russian Federation has been greatly undermined.”

In his final address to the council, Churkin expressed hope that his calls will eventually find some response, and the bloodshed in Ukraine will be prevented while there is still time.

“Maybe, he Vice President Biden will pick up the phone and call Mr. Turchinov, as he numerously called Mr. Yanukovich before Feb 21?” Churkin asked. “Just call to tell Mr. Turchinov the same thing he told Mr. Yanukovich. He told him, as press service of vice president reported: 'For god's sake don’t use force, get rid of your security forces from central Kiev.”

“And now what, the US will endorse the realization of this criminal order to use armed forces?” Churkin said, urging Samantha Power to tell Biden to "immediately" call Kiev instead of waiting for a planned visit, as "in a couple of hours the situation can take an irreversible turn."

The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting requested by Russia to discuss the Kiev’s decision to use military forces to crush protests in Eastern Ukraine.
The session was initially planned to be closed, but several Security Council members were pushing for an open format.

The urgent meeting comes after the coup-imposed Kiev government authorized the use of the military in Ukraine’s south-eastern regions to supress the popular uprising.

Events on the ground have taken a very dangerous turn, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Sunday, slamming the order of a full-scale military operation as “criminal.”

“The Kiev authorities, who self-proclaimed themselves as a result of a coup, have embarked on the violent military suppression of the protests,” the ministry said adding that the rallies, which have gripped the Donbas region were prompted by Kiev’s disregard of the legitimate interests the people.

The crisis in Ukraine escalated dramatically on Sunday night as Russia accused Kiev of issuing a "criminal order" against protesters and warned of a civil war in the country, which has been hit by a wave of unrest that America believes has been orchestrated from Moscow.

The Russian statement came after unknown armed men attacked a convoy of Ukrainian troops in Slaviansk, about 100 miles from the border, launching the first gun battle in Ukraine since the standoff began, in which at least one person was killed. Both the US and Nato accused Russia of staging another Crimea-style intervention, with Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the United Nations, saying events were following the same pattern as in Crimea, where unidentified military forces took over government installations before the peninsula was in effect annexed last month.

"[The unrest] is professional, it's co-ordinated, there is nothing grassroots-seeming about it," Power said. "The forces are doing, in each of the six or seven cities they've been active in, exactly the same thing. Certainly it bears the telltale signs of Moscow's involvement," she told ABC's This Week.

The Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, described the protests as "a concerted campaign of violence by pro-Russian separatists, aiming to destabilise Ukraine as a sovereign state".

He said the appearance of men carrying Russian weapons and wearing uniforms without insignia was a "grave development" and called on Russia to pull back its troops from Ukraine's border.

Ukraine's acting president, Oleksandr Turchynov, went on television on Sunday night to announce that the army would take part in a "large-scale anti-terrorist operation" against the protesters, adding: "We're not going to allow Russia to repeat the Crimean scenario in Ukraine's east." He set a deadline of 6am GMT for the separatists to give up their weapons.

But the Russian foreign ministry said the west should bring its allies in Ukraine's government under control. "It is now the west's responsibility to prevent civil war in Ukraine," the ministry said in a statement on Facebook. "The situation in south-eastern Ukraine is taking on an extremely dangerous character. We decisively condemn attempts to use brute force against protesters and activists … We are particularly indignant about the criminal order [by Turchynov] to use the army to put down protest."

Alarm at Moscow's behaviour is certain to dominate discussions on Monday when EU foreign ministers, including Britain's William Hague, meet to discuss the crisis. Lady Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief, said she was "gravely concerned".

Britain also called on Moscow to disown the rebels. "Assumptions that Russia is complicit are inevitable as long as Moscow does not publicly distance itself from these latest lawless actions," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

Washington and Moscow have maintained regular dialogue throughout the crisis and on Saturday John Kerry, the US secretary of state, spoke by telephone to Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.

A senior state department official said Kerry expressed strong concern that attacks by "armed militants" in eastern Ukraine had been "orchestrated and synchronised". "The secretary made clear that if Russia did not take steps to de-escalate in eastern Ukraine and move its troops back from Ukraine's border, there would be additional consequences."

Sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and western allies have so far been restricted to visa bans and asset freezes targeting senior officials in Moscow accused of undermining Ukraine's sovereignty. However, Washington has repeatedly warned those could be expanded to include far-reaching sanctions attacking Russia's banking, energy and mining sectors.

The White House announced at the weekend that the US vice-president, Joe Biden, will travel to Kiev this month in a show of solidarity with the country's new government, which is planning presidential elections in May.

UlanBatori wrote:Johann:
As I see it, your argument is that joining EU is not the same as being part of NATO. However, that does not quite work. EU is essentially one nation: one big parliament, one immense bureaucracy, free cross-border movement, free cross-border employment, one currency, generally uniform laws. Hence, joining EU is much MORE than being in NATO. Ukraine as EU member would be part of EU defense projects, and hence will have EU military units stationed in Ukraine (why not? there is free cross-border movement!) Hence, the net result is NATO on Russia's borders.

This is the problem with the "western" consumption of western viewpoints, with no room to consider other viewpoints. "EU is not the same as NATO" might SEEM reasonable to someone who says that in America or Britain, but most certainly is no comfort or reassurance to those who must plan to defend against NATO military attack. And to someone who stands outside and looks at this claim, sorry, but it appears dangerous, and it appears dangerous that such an argument would be expounded by the govts controlling NATO.

The body of a special forces officer, kneeling in a pool of blood beside a shot-up car, serves as a forewarning of Ukraine’s future as cities and towns across an entire region slip out of the control of the government and into the hands of masked gunmen.

The killing outside the eastern town of Slovyansk and injuries to half a dozen others came in the first armed clash between troops and separatists as the administration in Kiev desperately tried to cling on to the eastern half of the country, after the bitter blow of losing Crimea to the Kremlin.

In response, Ukraine’s acting President Olexander Turchinov gave rebels occupying state buildings until 7am today, UK time, to lay down their weapons. “The National Security and Defence Council has decided to launch a full-scale anti-terrorist operation involving the armed forces of Ukraine,” Mr Turchinov said in an address to the nation. “We will not allow Russia to repeat the Crimean scenario in the eastern regions of Ukraine.”

Yesterday’s violence in the eastern region of Donbas, which has a large ethnic Russian population, ratcheted up the tension in one of the worst crises in recent times, with the West accusing Moscow of orchestrating an upheaval which threatens to tear apart the security consensus established following the end of the Cold War.

John Kerry telephoned Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, to express the “gravest concern” and warn of further sanctions. The US Secretary of State charged that the attacks “were orchestrated and synchronised, similar to attacks in Crimea”. The Nato chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the armed groups “had reappeared with specialised Russian weapons and identical uniforms without insignia, as previously worn by Russian troops in the illegal seizure of Crimea”. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, stressed that “Moscow should be clear that the UK will consider any armed Russian presence in eastern Ukraine a further and deliberate escalation”.

Mr Lavrov strongly denied the allegations, maintaining instead that it was the result of the Kiev government’s failure “to take into account the legitimate needs and interests of the Russian and Russian-speaking population”. He also warned that Moscow may pull out of this week’s summit on the crisis if the Ukrainian military was used in the trouble spots.

Events on the ground were following a steady and inexorable pattern with government buildings being taken over by men with Kalashnikovs and balaclavas, barricades rapidly slung up around them, and civilian supporters arriving to form a protective shield.

By nightfall, the protesters had overrun key installations in Donetsk, Kramatorsk and Druzhkova, as well as Mariupol and Yenakievo, the home town of Viktor Yanukovych, the President overthrown by the uprising in Kiev.

In some areas, such as Slovyansk, there were seemingly complete takeovers, with vigilantes blocking off the roads with concrete, tyres, dead trees and bonfires.

There was no sign of Ukrainians protesting at these places. They took to the streets in Kharkiv, the one place where security forces had managed to recapture a state office, on Saturday evening and yesterday. The marchers included a group from the ultra-nationalist Right Sector, regarded by their opponents as fascists: clashes took place late in the afternoon, fuelled by reports of events elsewhere, resulting in seven wounded.

Despite Mr Rasmussen’s strictures about “specialised weapons”, yesterday’s killing was a simple and brutal affair. At around 7am, a taxi, a dark blue Renault, was hijacked, the driver clubbed and dragged out.

It was driven to newly arrived security forces which had taken up positions in a wooded area; men clambered out and opened fire with semi-automatic rifles. Soldiers shot back, hitting one of the attackers, but sustained injuries themselves; an officer, in the dark combat kit of the special forces, lay dead.

Vladimir Kolodchenko, a council member from nearby Nicolayevka, who saw the attack, reported: “The soldiers were standing by their vehicles. Four men came out of the car and started shooting, then there was more firing. People were getting hurt – it was pretty bad, very worrying.”

In Slovyansk, local people refused to accept that separatists had carried out the attacks, blaming agents provocateurs of the Right Sector.

A coach, supposedly of their members, had been driven back on Saturday after approaching a checkpoint of protesters. I saw the passengers in the early evening, young men huddled together on the roadside.

Pro-Russian armed separatists seize a regional police building Pro-Russian armed separatists seize a regional police building

“We know it was the fascists; local people would not do something like that. A lot of people knew the driver; they would not beat him up,” said Vitaly, a taxi driver. “A lot of the soldiers, and the police, don’t want to fight the local people; the aim was to provoke them; it was also to make us look bad to the outside world.”

The troops had arrived at dawn in seven armoured personnel carriers. After the gunfight, the convoy approached Slovyansk along two routes, turning back each time when faced by barricades. Later in the afternoon, it headed towards Kharkiv; three helicopters circled overhead, before they, too, disappeared.

The protesters occupying the police station believed an attack was bound to take place. “They are bringing in reinforcements from other parts, from the west of the country, because, frankly, local soldiers and police would not want to fire on their brothers and sisters. We have our informants and we know some of the things that are going on,” stated Aleksandr, a former soldier who described himself as one of the heads of security.

“They are putting in people all around, at a distance. But you see how we are placed; we’ll see them long before they get here.”

Were there any Russians among the protesters? “You’d expect me to say no of course, but that is the truth – you may choose not to believe it,” Andrei replied. “I don’t think there is any need; a lot of weapons have been taken from armouries, a lot of men have experience in the armed forces.”

It remains difficult to ascertain what action the government will take. Ukraine’s forces are small in numbers and there is evidence, judging by interaction at checkpoints, that many police officers sympathise with protesters. Arsen Avakov, the Interior Minister, declared that those taking over buildings were “terrorists” and would be treated as such.

Pro-Russian activists escort a man (unseen) who they say is a provocateur outside the secret service building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lugansk Pro-Russian activists escort a man (unseen) who they say is a provocateur outside the secret service building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lugansk

But Mr Avakov, who has built up the image of being a hardliner, had made threats before, such as a 48-hour ultimatum for those occupying the administrative headquarters in Donetsk to disarm and surrender; that passed three days ago. A prolific Facebook user, he also provides a daily stream of information, not always accurate. Today he claimed, for example, that the special forces officer had died while approaching the occupied police station.

The separatist militiamen look upon Mr Avakov with a mixture of distaste and derision. “He wants to write a name for himself in the blood of civilians, women and children. Luckily we know the military ignore his orders,” claimed Vadim.

However, Andrei cautioned: “One needs to be careful: weak men often do rash things to prove themselves.”

Ukraine’s acting Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, on a trip to Donetsk on Friday with a team of ministers to meet local leaders, had declared that he wanted a negotiated settlement while insisting that the Kiev government has not lost control of the situation. The visit, however, had to be kept secret due to fear of an attack taking place on the official party.

“We do not recognise the legitimacy of Yatsenyuk”, 59-year-old Olga Arbutkova, who had come to offer support to the protest, stated.

“Yanukovych did not lose an election, he was not impeached, but they chased him out. There was some stability under Yanukovych; he was a religious man. But we all want a peaceful solution.

“All we are asking for is a referendum in which people can decide whether they want a federal system in which we can have autonomy. They don’t listen – instead they threaten people, these imposters in Kiev,” she said.

Mrs Arbutkova, whose elegant appearance was incongruous at a checkpoint in the rain, insisted on showing me her Ukrainian passport to disprove “lies” about Russians driving the demonstrations.

As she rummaged around her large designer handbag to do so, something fell clanking to the pavement; it was a police baton.

Virupaksha wrote:Johann,
1) Are you saying that crimeans do not want to join russia?

3) Are you saying that the coup clique has ANY democratic legitimacy except rule of the might?

So, a democratically elected govt was thrown out in a violent coup. Now the common ukranian people do not want anything to do with this coup govt. Is there anything wrong with that?

A simple question: If the occupy wallstreet overthrew obama in a coup, would you recognise those people as legitimate?
if you dont, why should a common ukranian accept a coup govt?
If he doesnt accept, what do you propose that ukranian should do?

2) Are you saying that the present coup clique has support in eastern russia?

Austin wrote:Johann , couple of quick points.

1 ) Ukraine is not a homogenous society , not most of Ukraine wants to join EU AA or is enthusiastic about it. There is West of Ukraine which is the Agricultural area and there is North and South of Ukraine which is Industrial heartland.

...So the whole notion that the entire Ukraine wants to join EU AA is false notion at best.

Ukraine is being offered EU AA agreement and NOT joining EU both are NOT the same ....it may take even decade for Ukraine to join as full EU member if ever

...Most certainly People in EAST an NORTH will revolt when their factory starts closing , EU has little interest in saving them .....

Infact EU has little interest in supporting a basket case like Ukraine ,it just wants to poke Russia for Geopolitical Reasons and not that it is interested in Ukraine meeting EU standards etc

Yanukovych knew that Customer Union and CIS will introduce tarrif barriers and that is the ONLY way to avoid cheap flooding of EU goods into these region , Just this week Medvedev said the same.

Russia Invaded Crimea because EU went back on their own word they made Yanukovych sign the deal with Maidan which he did not wanted to sign but was persuaded by Putin to do but EU let the Maidan take over and Yanukovch had to run away to save his own life.

vishvak wrote:In Syria, what credibility did al-mobs have? Were ISIL and other such jihadi warmongers elected (within Syria by Syrians) or selected by outsiders?

What do you even even call countries like Saudi who indulge and jihadism in other counties or Turkey now caught attacking Syrian villages with Chemical weapons. Any civilized word for this?

According to the terms of an EU-brokered peace deal finalized on February 21, Yanukovych was due to sign a measure returning Ukraine to its 2004 constitution. (In 2010, Yanukovych restored the country's 1996 constitution, which hands greater power to the presidency.

Yanukovych, however, failed to sign the measure. The omission appears to leave Kyiv in the kind of legal limbo that may prove fodder for future arguments against the current government transition.

The 1996 and the 2004 constitutions are uniform when it comes to the reasons for removing a president, with Article 111 stating the parliament has the right to initiate a procedure of impeachment "if he commits treason or other crime."


However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers.

Johann wrote:

vishvak wrote:In Syria, what credibility did al-mobs have? Were ISIL and other such jihadi warmongers elected (within Syria by Syrians) or selected by outsiders?

Vishva, once again Yanukovych was thrown out by his own parliament, which came to power through reasonably credible electoral process.

Yanukovych's decision to leave Ukraine altogether suggests a man who had no support within the country. Why not stay in Crimea? Or even his stronghold in the Donbas region? Instead he leaves for Moscow, and the seat of the government cutting up and annexing bits of his country. What sort of national leader does that sound like to you?

Johann wrote:Virupaksha,

You seem to have strong feelings about these events. If you really do care so much about these events, then you should pay more attention to the details. You won't find those in the dueling superficial meta-narratives of RT and CNN. It comes from the wire reports - all of them - from the various wire news agencies on the ground.

Yanukovych's 'Party of Regions' as you can tell from its name itself was a loose coalition of regional power-brokers with local support. His leadership was never absolute.

Johann wrote: The decision to launch a major clearing operation and open fire on unarmed protesters on Thursday the 20th was unprecedented since 1991. When that happened it was the protestors, *not* the government were running for their lives. In a military-tactical sense it was Yanukovych that held the initiative and was gaining ground.

Johann wrote: But politically it was a disaster. The decision to use full scale repression, and the economic risks to the country that entailed fragmented the party and led to major defections to the opposition party. By the end of the day a full 1/3rd of his MPs had *publicly* defected in protest. The most important defectors were Rinat Akhmetov and Dmitry Firtash who controlled about half the party (as well as two major local media groups), the rest of whom came over the next day.

Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski is filmed telling a Ukrainian opposition leader: “You will all be dead” if they do not agree to a deal.

I am calling upon the new military leadership in Ukraine to open a dialog with us to bring this situation to a peaceful resolution.

Johann wrote: On Friday the 21st evening, parliament with the new alignment voted to restore the previous constitution that limited presidential powers, and then as its next act promptly dismissed the interior minister Zakharchenko who led the crackdown.

It was only after that Yanukovych chose to leave Kiev overnight. Initially in his entourage's statements to the press there was no claim that he either faced a threat to his life or over-throw while he was on the phone calling everyone and trying to work out a deal to save his presidency.

Johann wrote: Then of course parliament chose vote for his removal. Yanukovych's decision to leave Ukraine after that altogether suggests a man who had no support within the country. Why not stay in Crimea? Or even his stronghold in the Donbas region? Instead he leaves for Moscow, and the seat of the government cutting up and annexing bits of his country. What sort of national leader does that sound like to you?

Johann wrote: But the basics are that Yanukovych launched a crackdown, and his party abandoned him because a)he stopped listening to them and b) they were sure this was not going to work.

Johann wrote: Perhaps now its clearer to you why Russia reacted as it did. Dmitry Firtash is from Donetsk, and has deep economic ties to Russia. The fact that huge numbers of normally pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians had defected to the opposition meant that it no longer had the kind of levers it was used to operating, and it has lashed out by trying take the country apart. Its an extreme reaction, and one that is proportionate to the risks or opportunities.

The Economist ‏@TheEconomist 3h

The Kiev authorities' hold on Donbas and much of the wider region of eastern Ukraine has disappeared http://econ.st/1hA8WGe

But by nightfall, as fog covered the Donbas, it was clear that no concerted government action to take back the region was under way. The region’s police appear to have defected en masse to the pro-Russian side. Police buildings in the town of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk fell to armed men on April 12th and there were reports of other municipal buildings being taken elsewhere. A Ukrainian security services operation to restore authority in Sloviansk failed. Military or police helicopters flew over the town and unconfirmed sources said crowds prevented them from landing.

Along the highway leading from the regional capital, Donetsk, barricades have gone up, manned by men wielding clubs and metal batons. Some are armed with guns. At the entrance to Sloviansk, bigger barricades have been erected. In nearby Kramatorsk, small groups of men stood by the police station and nearby barricades.

On the morning of April 13th Arsen Avakov, the Ukrainian interior minister, announced that a fight-back for the east of the country was beginning. A few hours later a film was circulating of stalled armoured personal-carriers, a slumped man who appeared dead and another one on the ground apparently wounded. Mr Avakov said that one had died and five had been wounded in the shootout.

Another film showed a group of well-organised men in military uniform storming the police station in Kramatorsk. They are seen to be followed by men in civilian clothes. On April 13th a few dozen unarmed men were manning new barricades by the police station. The military unit seen in the film was no longer in evidence, having possibly moved elsewhere. Ukrainian officials say they are troops from Russia.

Earlier in the day, at the barricade leading into Sloviansk, the first line of defence was a group of old ladies holding icons and saying they wanted nothing but peace. Behind them was a tyre barricade. On the side Molotov cocktails were being prepared. Behind this were men with clubs, who appeared to listen to orders being given by two uniformed armed men.

Russian flags and those of the self-proclaimed Donetsk Republic were flying at all the barricades and seized buildings. But what people want is unclear. Some say they want more autonomy, some want a federal Ukraine and some want to be incorporated by Russia. In Sloviansk small groups in front of the barricades by the seized police station chanted: “Donbas rise up!”

Many people railed against their low quality of life. They shouted that they worked hard while western Ukrainians were lazy and had to be subsidised by them. No one who supported the Ukrainian government was in evidence. On the outskirts of Kramatorsk, Dimitry Padushkin was quarreling with a small group of men sent to stand at the entrance of a decrepit and non-functioning municipal airport that he said he owned.

Away from the group of men, who said they had been posted there to see that no Ukrainian forces landed, Mr Padushkin said that local pro-Ukrainians were frightened. “Of course there will be conflict,” he said. And for Russia, “this region will not be enough. They want everything. They will take all Ukraine.”

Singha wrote:the masked bandits/splitists the so called people's militia seem to be alarmingly well armed . I see photos of professional looking operators sporting dragunov rifles..not a kids toy. methinks ex-servicemen all. didnt ukraine have a 100% mandatory conscription based mil training?

have armouries been looted or desertions happened from ukraine army units in the east?

HORLIVKA, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine's acting President Oleksandr Turchynov on Monday called for the deployment of United Nations peacekeeping troops in the east of the country, where pro-Russian insurgents have occupied buildings in nearly 10 cities.

In a telephone conversation with Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, Turchynov suggested that an "anti-terrorist operation" could be conducted jointly by Ukrainian security forces and U.N. peacekeepers, according to the presidential web site.

Peacekeepers would have to be authorized by the U.N. Security Council, in which Russia holds a veto.

The request comes from a government that has proved powerless to reign in separatists in the Russian-speaking east of the country, where insurgents have been occupying government offices in cities for the past week. A deadline for the insurgents to give up weapons and vacate the brigands, set by Turchynov, passed Monday morning without any visible action.

Instead, violence continued. A pro-Russian mob stormed a police station in yet another city near the Russian border, while gun men took control over a military airport in the ear.

The Kiev government and Western officials accuse Russia of instigating the unrest and of deploying armed Russian agents to carry them out.

During the storming of a police station in the city of Horlivka earlier Monday, one man identified himself as a lieutenant colonel of the Russian army.

The events in Horlivka were the latest sign of trouble in Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions, in which pro-Russian gunmen have seized or blocked government buildings in at least nine cities demanding more autonomy from the central government and closer ties with Russia. Later in the day, armed men in masks also seized control of a military airport outside the city Slovyansk, also in the Donetsk region.

The developments came as European Union foreign ministers met in Luxembourg to consider further sanctions against Russia, and three days ahead of a scheduled conference in Geneva involving diplomats from the United States, Russia, the European Union, Ukraine and Switzerland, which is intended to seek ways of defusing tensions.

Ubi onda sve. Oni su sve laže!

Статистика потім все. Всі вони брешуть!

The anti-Kiev protests are expanding in Ukraine's Donetsk Region, where activists are besieging police HQ in the city of Gorlovka. The central authorities are threatening to use military force to quash the uprising.

Read RT's live updates on the turmoil in Ukraine

Gorlovka is an eastern Ukrainian city with a population of more than 250,000 inhabitants. The activists apparently spent the night in City Hall and proceeded to take over the police HQ on Monday morning

Troops holding the HQ barricaded in as a crowd of several hundred people gathered outside, according to footage from the scene. At one point they opened fire and used stun grenades, when the protesters tried to raise a Russian flag on the entrance to the building.

The person trying to set the flag atop the entrance roof was pushed down and broke his arm. The flag was taken down right after it was raised.

The angered protesters threw a Molotov cocktail in apparent retaliation, but the fire was quickly extinguished. They later forced their way and demanded that the defenders of the building surround their weapon and leave.

The interior of the building sustained some damage as the attackers, but no major instances of violence were seen.

Anti-government militiamen detain the head of the regional police after storming the regional police building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Horlivka (Gorlovka), near Donetsk, on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Alexey Kravtsov)

Anti-government militiamen detain the head of the regional police after storming the regional police building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Horlivka (Gorlovka), near Donetsk, on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Alexey Kravtsov)

Some more radical people in the crowd called for immediate revenge for the incident with the flag as the police chief Andrey Krishchenko as he was escorted out of the building, but their more cool-headed comrades restrained them.

The officer, who reportedly was the one to push down the activist, sustained a head injury in a scuffle inside the building and was taken to hospital.

Anti-government protesters throw stones as they storm a regional police building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Horlivka (Gorlovka), near Donetsk, on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Alexey Kravtsov)

Anti-government protesters throw stones as they storm a regional police building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Horlivka (Gorlovka), near Donetsk, on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Alexey Kravtsov)

For a third day in a row the coup-appointed government in the Ukrainian capital demanded that the protesters vacate all the taken buildings and lay down arms, threatening to send the army against them, if they don't. However, as the deadline expired on Monday morning, the protesters remained defiant.

The Kiev-appointed regional government announced a “special operation regime.” The central government earlier announced an “anti-terrorist operation” in the Donetsk Region. The Ukrainian authorities refrained from announcing an emergency, saying this would require for the presidential election campaign to be put on hold.

Acting President Aleksandr Turchinov also replaced the head of Ukrainian Security Service's Anti-Terrorism Center, sacking a man he appointed to the position just a week ago.

Johann wrote: As for Yanukovych - not only did he chose to flee to Moscow rather than rally his supporters or face arrest, he has actually taken a job in the Kremlin. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 97137.html

Hitesh wrote:

Johann wrote: As for Yanukovych - not only did he chose to flee to Moscow rather than rally his supporters or face arrest, he has actually taken a job in the Kremlin. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 97137.html

That article has been revealed as a April Fool's Day joke/spoof.

Johann wrote:- The real problem is that Russian troops were at the lead in the takeover of Crimea - the use of force to enlarge any country's territory is something Europe and the world in general has done its best to avoid and prevent since the end of WWII. I don't know if Putin has fully recongised the magnitude of the Rubicon he has crossed.

ABC News ‏@ABC 2h

NEW: White House confirms reports that CIA Director Brennan was in Ukraine over the weekend - @JimAvilaABC

Ukraine Acting President: Not Opposed to Referendum on Regional Autonomy

John and Robert Kennedy struck a secret deal with the Soviets, promising to remove Jupiter missiles from Europe if Khrushchev withdrew his missiles from Cuba (in April 1963 Jupiter missiles were removed from Britain, Italy and Turkey). The precise details of the deal were kept secret from the US public, the US government and very possibly from everyone in the Kennedy administration except the president and his brother.

No one in Russia can vent his anger over NATO's eastward expansion quite as vehemently as Viktor Baranez. The popular columnist with the tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda ("Komsomol Truth"), which has a readership of millions, is fond of railing against the "insidious and reckless" Western military alliance. Russia, Baranez writes, must finally stop treating NATO as a partner.

Baranez, a retired colonel who was the Defense Ministry's spokesman under former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, asks why Russia should even consider joint maneuvers after being deceived by the West. NATO, he writes, "has pushed its way right up to our national borders with its guns." He also argues that, in doing so, NATO has broken all the promises it made during the process of German reunification.
There is widespread agreement among all political parties in Moscow, from the Patriots of Russia to the Communists to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, that the West broke its word and short-changed Russia when it was weak.

In an interview with SPIEGEL at his residence outside Moscow in early November, President Dmitry Medvedev complained that when the Berlin Wall came down, it had "not been possible to redefine Russia's place in Europe." What did Russia get? "None of the things that we were assured, namely that NATO would not expand endlessly eastwards and our interests would be continuously taken into consideration," Medvedev said.

Different Versions

The question of what Moscow was in fact promised in 1990 has sparked a historical dispute with far-reaching consequences for Russia's future relationship with the West. But what exactly is the truth?

The various players involved have different versions of events. Of course there was a promise not to expand NATO "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet president at the time, says in Moscow today. However, Gorbachev's former foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, speaking in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, says that there were no such assurances from the West. Even the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Eastern military alliance, "was beyond our imagination," he says.

For years former US Secretary of State James Baker, Shevardnadze's American counterpart in 1990, has denied that there was any agreement between the two sides. But Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow at the time, has said in the past that Moscow was given a "clear commitment." Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister in 1990, says this was precisely not the case.

After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general."

Shevardnadze replied that he believed "everything the minister (Genscher) said."

Not a Word

The year 1990 was one of major negotiations. Washington, Moscow, London, Bonn, Paris, Warsaw, East Berlin and many others were at odds over German unity, comprehensive European disarmament and a new charter of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Soviets insisted that everything be documented in writing, even when all that was at issue was the fate of Soviet military cemeteries in East Germany. However, the numerous agreements and treaties of the day contained not a single word about NATO expansion in Eastern Europe.

For this reason, the West argues, Moscow has no cause for complaint today. After all, the West did not sign anything regarding NATO expansion to the east. But is that tough stance fair?

At the beginning of 1990, the Soviet Union was still a world power with troops stationed at the Elbe River, and Hans Modrow, the former Dresden district chairman of the East German Communist Party, the SED, was in charge in East Berlin. But the collapse of the East German state was foreseeable.

Bonn's allies in Paris, London and Washington were concerned about the question of whether a unified Germany could be a member of NATO or, as had already happened in the past, would pursue a seesaw policy between east and west.

Genscher wanted to put an end to this uncertainty, and he said as much in a major speech to the West on Jan. 31, 1990 in Tutzing, a town in Bavaria. This was the reason, he said, why a unified Germany should be a member of NATO.

Moving with Caution

But how could the Soviet leadership be persuaded to support this solution? "I wanted to help them over the hurdle," Genscher told SPIEGEL. To that end, the German foreign minister promised, in his speech in Tutzing, that there would not be "an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union." East Germany was not to be brought into the military structures of NATO, and the door into the alliance was to remain closed to the countries of Eastern Europe.

Genscher remembered what had happened during the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Some of the insurgents had announced their intention to join the Western alliance, giving Moscow the excuse to intervene militarily. In 1990, Genscher was trying to send a signal to Gorbachev that he need not fear such a development in the Soviet bloc. The West, Genscher indicated, intended to cooperate with the Soviet Union in bringing about change, not act as its adversary.

The plan that was proclaimed in Tutzing had not been coordinated with the chancellor or West German allies, and Genscher spent the next few days vying for their support.
As Genscher's chief of staff Frank Elbe later wrote, the German foreign minister had "moved with the caution of a giant insect that uses its many feelers to investigate its surroundings, prepared to recoil when it encounters resistance."

US Secretary of State James Baker, a pragmatic Texan, apparently "warmed to the proposal immediately," says Elbe today. On Feb. 2, the two diplomats sat down in front of the fireplace in Baker's study in Washington, took off their jackets, put their feet up and discussed world events. They quickly agreed that there was to be no NATO expansion to the East. "It was completely clear," Elbe comments.

A short time later, then-British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd joined the German-American consensus. As a previously unknown document from the German Foreign Ministry shows, Genscher was uncharacteristically open with his relatively pro-German British counterpart when they met in Bonn on Feb. 6, 1990. Hungary was about to hold its first free elections, and Genscher declared that the Soviet Union needed "the certainty that Hungary will not become part of the Western alliance if there is a change of government." The Kremlin, Genscher said, would have to be given assurances to that effect. Hurd agreed.

But were such assurances intended to be valid indefinitely? Apparently not. When the two colleagues discussed Poland, Genscher said, according to the British records, that if Poland ever left the Warsaw Pact, Moscow would need the certainty that Warsaw would "not join NATO the next day." However, Genscher did not seem to rule out accession at a later date.

It stood to reason that Genscher would present his ideas in Moscow next. He was the longest-serving Western foreign minister, his relationship with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze was unusually strong, and it was his initiative. But Baker wanted to address the issue himself during his next trip to Moscow

'One Cannot Depend on American Politicians'

What the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev said, but added: "any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."

Now, 20 years later, Gorbachev is still outraged when he is asked about this episode. "One cannot depend on American politicians," he told SPIEGEL. Baker, for his part, now offers a different interpretation of what he said in 1990, arguing that he was merely referring to East Germany, which was to be given a special status in the alliance -- nothing more.

But Genscher, in a conversation with Shevardnadze just one day later, had expressly referred to Eastern Europe. In fact, talking about Eastern Europe, and not just East Germany, was consistent with the logic of the West's position.

If East Germany was to be granted a special status within NATO, so as not to provoke the Soviet leadership, the promise not to expand the alliance to the east certainly had to include countries like Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, which directly bordered the Soviet Union.

When the Western politicians met once again a few weeks later, their conversation was more to the point, as a German Foreign Ministry document that has now been released indicates. According to the document, Baker said that it appeared "as if Central European countries wanted to join NATO." That, Genscher replied, was an issue "we shouldn't touch at this point." Baker agreed.

Positive Light

The political leaders of the day are now elderly gentlemen who don't necessarily always find it easy to remember exactly what happened back then. Besides, they are all eager to be portrayed in a positive light in the history books. Gorbachev doesn't want to be the one who failed to tightly close the door to the eastward expansion of NATO. Genscher and Baker don't want to be accused of having made deals with Moscow over the heads of the Poles, the Hungarians or the Czechs. And Shevardnadze came to the conclusion long ago that there is "nothing horrible" about NATO expansion -- not surprisingly, given that his native Georgia now wants to join NATO.

Their interests were different back in 1990. Bonn and Washington wanted to expedite German reunification. A few days after the talks at the Kremlin, Genscher, Baker and Shevardnadze met again, this time all together and with all of the foreign ministers of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries present, at a disarmament conference in a converted former train station in the Canadian capital Ottawa.

At the conference, the two German foreign ministers (the East German foreign minister at the time was Oskar Fischer, who had been close to the former East German leader Erich Honecker) came together in the corridors and conference rooms, met with the foreign ministers of the four victorious powers in World War II and, in various configurations, discussed the future course of Germany. By the end of the conference, it had been decided that the external aspects of German unity, such as the alliance issue and the size of the German military, were to be resolved in the so-called "two-plus-four" talks.

Sounding Out the Soviets

Genscher says today that all the key issues should have been addressed in this forum, and that during the talks there was never any mention of excluding the Eastern Europeans from NATO membership, which the participants all confirm.

But what about Genscher's comments to Shevardnadze on Feb. 10, 1990?

Genscher says today that he was merely "sounding out" Shevardnadze prior to the actual negotiations to determine Moscow's position on the alliance issue and to see whether there was any leeway.

This is the official position. But there are also other versions of the events.

A diplomat with the German Foreign Ministry says that there was, of course, a consensus between the two sides. Indeed, the Soviets would hardly have agreed to take part in the two-plus-four talks if they had known that NATO would later accept Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries as members.

The negotiations with Gorbachev were already difficult enough, with Western politicians repeatedly insisting that they were not going to derive -- in the words of then-US President George H. W. Bush -- any "unilateral advantage" from the situation, and that there would be "no shift in the balance of power" between the East and the West, as Genscher put it. Russia today is certainly somewhat justified in citing, at the very least, the spirit of the 1990 agreements.

Absurd Notion

In late May 1990, Gorbachev finally agreed to a unified Germany joining NATO. But why didn't Gorbachev and Shevardnadze get the West's commitments in writing at a time when they still held all the cards? "The Warsaw Pact still existed at the beginning of 1990," Gorbachev says today. "Merely the notion that NATO might expand to include the countries in this alliance sounded completely absurd at the time."

Some leading Western politicians were under the impression that the Kremlin leader and his foreign minister were ignoring reality and, as Baker said, were "in denial" about the demise of the Soviet Union as a major power.

On the other hand, the Baltic countries were still part of the Soviet Union, and NATO membership seemed light years away. And in some parts of Eastern Europe, peace-oriented dissidents were now in power, men like then-Czech President Vaclav Havel who, if he had had his way, would not only have dissolved the Warsaw Pact, but NATO along with it.

No Eastern European government was striving to join NATO in that early phase, and the Western alliance had absolutely no interest in taking on new members. It was too expensive, an unnecessary provocation of Moscow and, if worse came to worst, did the Western governments truly expect French, Italian or German soldiers to risk their lives for Poland and Hungary?

Then, in 1991, came the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the war in Bosnia, with its hundred thousand dead, raised fears of a Balkanization of Eastern Europe. And in the United States President Bill Clinton, following his inauguration in 1993, was searching for a new mission for the Western alliance.

Suddenly everyone wanted to join NATO, and soon NATO wanted to accept everyone.

The dispute over history was about to begin.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Radicals attacked two presidential candidates that were taking part in a Ukrainian talk show ‘Svoboda Slova’. Oleg Tsarev was brutally beaten and is now in critical condition, the candidate’s press office reported.

Oleg Tsarev was attacked by radicals after being trapped inside the ICTV media building following his appearance on the Ukrainian talk show, according to the statement released by Tsarev’s press office.

“It was with great difficulty that government’s security forces were able to recapture Oleg Tsarev from the angry mob. He was severely beaten and is in serious condition,” the press office said.

The video embedded below shows the scene of the alleged mob attack, although Tsarev himself is not visible through the crowd.

Earlier, there were reports of the entire building being surrounded by unidentified gunmen with Tsarev trapped inside and his car attacked, including slashed tires.

Following the attack, Tsarev said that he would not withdraw his candidacy from the presidential election under any circumstances, his press office stated.

“Peaceful dialogue between the authorities and all of the people in the country, the search for compromise and understanding are the only ways to solve the political crisis,” Interfax quoted the politician as saying in the lobby of the General Prosecutor's Office Tuesday night.

Around the same time, unidentified individuals blocked and damaged the vehicle carrying another presidential candidate, Mikhail Dobkin, while attacking and injuring his aides on their way to that same talk show.

Dobkin admitted to the attack during a live phone interview later on the show. Other media reported that the radicals poured green-coloured, anti-septic solution and flour on Dobkin.

The two candidates were scheduled to join a third presidential candidate, Yulia Tymoshenko, on the talk show.

Both Dobkin and Tsarev submitted their candidacies for the presidential election as self-nominees. Ukraine’s presidential elections are scheduled to be held on May 25, with twenty three registered candidates taking part in the campaign.

Dobkin is a businessman-turned-politician and the former governor of the eastern Kharkov region. During his presidential bid he vowed to focus on reviving diplomatic relations with Russia, if elected.

Tsarev is also from the eastern part of Ukraine and was a Dnepropetrovsk businessman and People's Deputy of Ukraine elected for the Party of Regions. He was later expelled from the party on April 7.

This is not the first time Tsarev was attacked in recent days. There were reports of him being caught up in the clashes in Odessa on Friday, as well as, beaten and pelted with eggs in Nikolaev by members of the Right Sector, according to RIA Novosti.