Bharat Rakshak

German Minister for Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he was shocked by the painful death of many people in a fire in Ukraine's southern city of Odessa, according to his Twitter page.

"Tragedy of Odessa must be understood as a wake-up call!" he tweeted.

At least 46 people died in clashes in Odessa on Friday night, with 40 of them killed in fire in the House of Trade Unions. Some 214 people have sought medical help.

Interim Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov signed a decree ordering a two-day national mourning for the victims of the tragic Odessa events.

Clashes broke out Friday evening between 'anti-Maidan' activists on one side and fans of the Odessa and Kharkov football fans, who were joined by 'Euro-Maidan' activists on the other.

Pro-Kiev radicals blocked the anti-government protesters in the Trade Unions House and set the building on fire. Some burned to death, while others suffocated or jumped out of windows.

Pro-federalization rallies have been on the rise in Ukraine's eastern cities of Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk since March. Later protests have spread to a number of cities in the Donetsk region.

Johann wrote:Now back to the fundamentals.

Here's one of the best maps so far of troop movements, and the conventional land force order of battle:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/w ... order/996/

UlanBatori wrote:Godhra-2?

The Independent ‏@Independent 3h

Heavy fighting in eastern town of Kramatorsk as Ukrainian official declares ‘this is in fact a war’ http://ind.pn/1uiaYjx

Nijalingappa wrote:Messing around world will stop only if draft is enacted again.
As long black water, white water brown water are recruited to do dirty jobs the messin around will continue unabted

Rajiv Lather wrote:

Nijalingappa wrote:Messing around world will stop only if draft is enacted again.
As long black water, white water brown water are recruited to do dirty jobs the messin around will continue unabted

Actually if we look at Bin Laden's thought process (writings and speeches), he understood the Americans a lot better than most people. While these western so-called democracies are patting themselves on their back for a series of jobs well done - Bin Laden is laughing in his grave. The west has followed the path as planned and executed by him which will lead to their downfall. The wheels have been set in motion...

It will be fascinating to observe at what point of time they become aware of the actual trap and how they try to extricate themselves from the downward spiral. For now, they are playing right into Bin Laden's hands, even after his death.

"Russia is willing to take part in tripartite negotiations with Ukraine and the EU, but only if they are held before Ukraine signs an association agreement with the EU, Russian President Vladimir Putin said."

The EU-Ukraine association agreement cannot be elaborated in the EU-Ukraine-Russia tripartite format, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said at a press conference after the Eastern Partnership Vilnius summit.

He rejected as unacceptable the tripartite negotiations and the interference of a third country in the bilateral agreement and said there could not be a tripartite format in the elaboration of the bilateral agreement between the EU and Ukraine.

----

Article 7: The Parties shall intensify their dialogue and cooperation and promote gradual convergence in the area of foreign and security policy, including the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)...

Article 10: The Parties shall enhance practical cooperation in conflict prevention and crisis management, in particular with a view to increasing the participation of Ukraine in EU-led civilian and military crisis management operations as well as relevant exercises and training activities, including those carried out in the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).....The Parties shall explore the potential of military - technological cooperation. Ukraine and the European Defence Agency (EDA) shall establish close contacts to discuss military capability improvement, including technological issues.

The head of Ukraine’s anti-terrorist centre has said there is heavy fighting in the eastern town of Kramatorsk.

Vasyl Krutov made a brief statement to the news conference in which he said: "There is gunfire and clashes around Kramatorsk ... What we are facing in the Donetsk region and in the eastern regions is not just some kind of short-lived uprising, it is in fact a war."

In a later statement he added that Ukrainian forces have retaken the security service headquarters in Kramatorsk.

Local television showed pictures of armoured personnel carriers moving through the town.

Today’s clashes follow a series of Ukrainian-led dawn raids on pro-Russian strongholds near the town, which culminated in the capture of a television tower near the city.

The town of Kramatorsk is just 10 miles away from Slaviansk, the city at the centre of major unrest yesterday.

Pro-Russian clashes in Ukraine

On the same day, over 30 people were killed in deadly clashes between Russian separatists and pro-Ukraine activists in the southern city of Odessa.

This morning pro-Russian separatists freed seven international military observers in eastern Ukraine along with five army officers.

Why the fate of Ukraine and Azerbaijan are so important to America.

Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey, and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots, though both Turkey and Iran are to some extent—within their more limited ca- pabilities—also geostrategically active.

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chess- board, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an inde- pendent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predom- inantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitat- ing conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. China would
also be likely to oppose any restoration of Russian domination over Central Asia, given its increasing interest in the newly inde- pendent states there. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine's loss of independence would have immediate consequences for Central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe.

Ukraine's determination to preserve its independence was en- couraged by external support. Although initially the West, espe- cially the United States, had been tardy in recognizing the geopolitical importance of a separate Ukrainian state, by the mid- 1990s both America and Germany had become strong backers of Kiev's separate identity. In July 1996, the U.S. secretary of defense declared, "I cannot overestimate the importance of Ukraine as an independent country to the security and stability of all of Europe," while in September, the German chancellor—notwithstanding his strong support for President Yeltsin—went even further in declar- ing that "Ukraine's firm place in Europe can no longer be chal- lenged by anyone ... No one will be able any more to dispute Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity." American policy makers also came to describe the American-Ukrainian relationship
as "a strategic partnership," deliberately invoking the same phrase used to describe the American-Russian relationship.

President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday that broad new economic sanctions would be imposed on Russia if its threat to eastern Ukraine disrupts the country’s presidential election later this month.

im Sengupta
Kramatorsk
Sunday 04 May 2014

The last separatist barricade at Kramatorsk was an impressive affair; four giant fuel tankers behind a wall of tyres and stone. The armoured personnel carriers of the government forces, lined up ahead, opened fire without warning; a salvo from a main gun streaking down the street.

The wall disintegrated and burst into flames, the tankers were sliced open as if with a can opener, the severed parts of each one left lying across the road. One round overshot and hit a car, leaving it a smoking heap, another went whizzing by a petrol station. The number of casualties, considering the scale of the damage, was relatively low. There were two dead, the driver of the car and an elderly man still clutching his plastic bag of shopping; around half a dozen were injured, two seriously.

There was an interlude of near silence as people who had thrown themselves to the ground and to the grass verge on the side of the road slowly picked themselves up, glad to be alive, and began to help bloodied figures into cars to be taken to hospital. Those who had thought that the horrific events in Odessa, with more than 40 dead, many of them trapped in a burning building, would lead to a lull in the strife in eastern Ukraine – a pause for reflection – found themselves mistaken.

In Odessa on Friday four people were killed, at least three shot dead, in running battles between Kiev supporters and pro-Russian activists. The clashes ended with separatists holed up in the trade union building. Regional police chief Petro Lutsiuk said more than 130 people had been detained and could face charges ranging from participating in riots to premeditated murder.

The forces of the Kiev administration continued their "anti-terrorist operation" yesterday, with mixed successes but deepening enmity among the many residents who believed themselves to be targeted. Vasyl Krutov, head of a Kiev government's "anti-terrorist centre" behind the operation in the east, told a news conference: "What we are facing... is not just some kind of short-lived uprising, it is in fact a war."

One positive development on a grim Saturday was the release of seven inspectors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) who had been held by militants for more than a week. Released with them were five Ukrainian officers. There had been apprehension that these men might be kept back as hostages.

The separatists announced that they had carried out the release "without conditions". The statement was repeated by the men's jailer, Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, who had earlier made bellicose conditions for setting them free. The pro-Moscow, self-appointed mayor of Slovyansk had become the centre of attention recently, taking prisoners, accused of being involved in the murder of a local politician, threatening violence to all who opposed the cause. Now, he is a much-reduced figure, his city surrounded by government troops, some fighters openly disparaging his authority.

The OSCE observers were handed over near Donetsk, the capital of the "People's Republic of Donbass". One of them, Colonel Axel Schneider, a German, said he and his colleagues had been treated "as good as possible" in what was a "miserable situation". The Kremlin had sent an envoy, Vladimir Lukin, to negotiate the release. He said he hoped the "voluntary act" by the separatists would be reciprocated by Kiev. "I would very much like the military action to end." But for those on the frontline there was no sign of that .

The village of Andrievka, on the outskirts of Slovyansk, had been the scene of a confrontation between Ukrainian forces and local people on Friday. It went on for hours, sometimes heated but non-violent. Then, just after 8pm, something went terribly wrong. The shooting that followed claimed between seven and 10 lives, from differing accounts, and left around 20 hurt.

How it started remains unclear. According to some, the soldiers began firing into the ground, people were hit by ricochets, stones were thrown in response, direct shots into the crowd ensued. Others claimed one soldier from the airborne brigade shot someone on his own side, a member of the National Guard, possibly by mistake, and panic ensued. The residents insisted that there had been no action from separatist fighters, but this could not be ruled out.

By Saturday morning, the troops and their armour had disappeared from the bridge above a stream that they had taken over. Left behind were spent cartridges, some of it heavy calibre; ground stained by pools of blood; some body parts and one body that had yet to be removed, a man with bullet wounds to his stomach, a coarse blanket half draped over him, lying beside a railway track.

It was the afternoon before the body of Andrei Balotski was identified. "He had come up from Kramatorsk to join us here when we were invaded by the soldiers. He has ended up like this," said Aleksei Viktorovich, 35, who lived near by. "We have contacted his family, but they cannot come because there is shooting in Kramatorsk and they are afraid to leave their homes.

"We don't know what to do with him, it is a hot day and we don't want to leave him here. My house is the nearest, but it would be difficult to take a dead body home with children there. My little boy is very scared by all the gunfire. I don't know how to explain these bad things to him."

It has become the practice among protesters to blame the spate of recent killings on the Right Sector, an ultra-nationalist group accused of carrying out dirty work on behalf of the Kiev administration. The separatist leadership has been keen to disseminate this narrative. But, looking at the body, Nicolai Alexanderovitch, 30, exclaimed: "Don't talk to me about the Right Sector. The Right Sector didn't kill this man, it was done by the Ukrainian army."

The Kiev administration had repeatedly accused the police service in Donbass of failing to counter the separatists and of often actively colluding with them. There were no police to be seen near Slovyansk or Kramatorsk as the Ukrainian forces faced protesters. I eventually ran into some at a side road, where a checkpoint has become notorious for journalists being taken hostage.

They were, they said yesterday, on their way to provide security to the place where the OSCE observers were being released. In the meantime they had been in deep and friendly conversation with three masked men with Kalashnikovs. "We are just making sure everyone remains calm," explained a sergeant. "These guys are being provoked, they are angry." Who is provoking them? I asked. "The Ukrainian army, of course, the rest of us want none of this bloodshed," the policeman responded.

Harriet Salem in Slavyansk
The Observer, Saturday 3 May 2014
Smoke from a burning pro-Russia barricade rises around the flag of the self-proclaimed Donetsk republic in Kramatorsk after an assault by Ukrainian forces. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images

Two days of chaos and violence in east and south-east Ukraine appeared on Saturday to be pushing the country ever closer to civil war, as the death toll rose following a military counter-offensive launched by authorities in Kiev against pro-Russia rebels.

An angry crowd confronted police outside the trade union building in Odessa where dozens of pro-Russia activists died on Friday night in a blaze started during clashes with pro-Ukraine protesters. Fighting continued in the east as the Ukrainian army continued to oust pro-Russia rebels.

The region has been rocked by unrest since the new government in Kiev came to power following demonstrations that ousted pro-Russia president Viktor Yanukovych at the end of February. Many in Ukraine's east, which has strong economic and cultural ties with Russia, say they now feel marginalised. What began as small-scale unrest rapidly escalated into an armed rebellion as pro-Russia militia groups seized government buildings. Kiev and its western allies have accused the Kremlin of orchestrating the chaos, which follows a Putin-backed putsch that resulted in Crimea's annexation last month.
Link to video: OSCE observers released by pro-Russian separatists in Slavyansk

Slavyansk was quickly established as the heartland of the pro-Russia forces operating in the region. Armed men, led by self-appointed mayor Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, have controlled the city, ringed by militia-controlled road blockades, for more than two weeks.

In Donetsk, Luhansk, Kostinovka and Horlivka, rebels have seized most of the state security and administrative buildings. Kidnappings and murders have become common as law enforcement officials defect to the rebels.

As the Ukrainian army edged ever closer to the rebel HQ in Slavyansk on Friday, gunfire echoed as fighting raged in the areas surrounding the city. Ambulances tore down the deserted streets throughout the night to collect the wounded and dead.

Local people claim the Ukrainian army shot at unarmed citizens who formed a human chain near a road blockade on the edge of the village of Andreevka, only a few miles from Slavyansk. "They are killing peaceful people," said Igor, 29, a farmworker from the village who was receiving treatment at the Slavyansk hospital for a shrapnel injury he said he suffered during the night assault.

"I'm just a local citizen, unarmed. People ran away when they started shooting at us," he said. Those with more serious injuries were reportedly taken to the nearby Kramatorsk hospital. Some suggest that ambulances and cars carrying the dead and wounded were not allowed to pass by the Ukrainian military.

The total number of rebel losses cannot be confirmed, but a spokeswoman for Ponomaryov said that at least 10 militia and 30 civilians had died. "Countless more are injured," she said, "and the number is growing every second."

Less than 24 hours after the counter-terrorism assault against the rebels began, Ponomaryov announced the release of seven Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) officials and their civilian translator, who were taken by bus to Donetsk. Some have interpreted the move as a bid by the Russia-backed rebels to reduce tensions. The mayor's spokeswoman said the "guests" had left "without conditions".

After a brief hiatus, fighting resumed around midday on Saturday as the Ukrainian army advanced in Kramatorsk. In an attempt to counter the attack, lorries and buses were used to fortify the barricades and block Ukrainian armoured personnel carriers from entering the city by road.

Local militia set tyre barricades ablaze in a bid to create a thick screen of black smoke to hold back the Ukrainian advance. Both sides shot at each other intermittently for several hours.

One Ukrainian soldier stationed at a checkpoint in Kramatorsk said he had come under heavy fire and expected resistance by the rebels to continue through the night.

The Kiev counter-terrorism operation is the first real attempt to dislodge the rebels from their stronghold. Two previous bids to oust the rebels ended almost as soon as they had begun when Ukrainian army units leading the operation either surrendered to the militia or were captured almost immediately. Strong local support for the rebel movement has proved a major barrier to Kiev in responding to the situation and the spate of violence.

Many in Slavyansk see the Ukrainian army as an invading rather than liberating force. "I understand the soldiers; they have signed up and now they don't know what to do," said market-stall owner Tatiana, 50. "The government are pitching people here against each other."

Behind her, a homemade banner taped to a statue of Lenin outside the rebel headquarters in the city's administration building summed up local sentiment about the anti-terrorism operation: "Turchynov and Yatsenyuk [Ukraine's interim president and prime minister] are killers".

At the foot of the monument, local people have started placing flowers in memory of the latest round of those killed. "I'm sorry we couldn't protect you," sobbed one pensioner on her husband's shoulder as she came to pay her respects at the memorial. The fighting and increased isolation in the east – television stations have been turned on and off by the opposing forces – have proved a fertile breeding ground for Russia's churning propaganda machine, which has played a central role in fuelling the conflict.

Many believe that foreign forces and nationalist groups are acting as part of the Kiev-led operation under the auspices of the Ukrainian army. "They are here: the US army, mercenaries, Right Sector," sobbed 48-year-old Yelena in the city's central square. "You see what they have done in Odessa. They want to kill us, to destroy us totally."

Ponomaryov, who yesterday celebrated his birthday as Ukrainian forces advanced on the city, has called on Russia to deliver the promised reinforcements now that they are under attack by Ukrainian forces. But so far the Kremlin has not responded, other than to say that Moscow has "lost control" over the rebels operating in Ukraine's east.

"Where is Russia? Putin stays silent. Russia, Russia, there is no Russia here. Why? We beg Putin to come and save us," said Yelena, visibly distraught. She drew a comparison between the situation in Ukraine's east and the wars that ravaged the Balkans in the 1990s, adding that she would like to evacuate her children from the city but that people are unable to leave.

A double tier of barricades now surrounds Slavyansk. In some places pro-Russia militia checkpoints are separated from the Ukrainian army by only a few miles of tarmac. A gauntlet of tree trunks, felled by local people sympathetic to the rebels, blocks the main routes in and out of the city, making access by vehicle almost impossible. Handfuls of people are making their way out by foot to surrounding villages. "I would rip the Ukrainian army apart with my teeth if I could" said 35-year-old builder Vasily as he stood guard with a group of others at his village's main road leading toward Slavyansk.

Just two days ago, the advancing Ukrainian army passed through the village, fuelling anger in the local population. "We don't want them here. Who invited them? Why are they attacking peaceful people?" he asked.

But as Kiev made advances in one front, losses occurred on the other. As evening fell on Saturday around 100 unarmed men wearing ragtag military fatigues stormed the security force building in Donetsk, meeting minimal resistance from the local police who watched from a distance. Security forces across the region have defected to the militia's side, and the easy capture followed a pattern of seizures in the region that appear to have been prearranged with police chiefs.

The rebels looted the building before turning their attentions to the nearby private office of the governor of Donetsk, Sergey Taruta. The rebels seized Taruta's state office, located on the city's administrative building's 11th floor, nearly a month ago. Since then local government has been operating out of a hotel in the city centre

udaym wrote:Wonder what all this action in the southeast mean to Ookraine's elections on the 25th?

Obama, Merkel: Russia faces tougher sanctions if Ukraine election is disrupted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

pankajs wrote:I distinctly remember half-bright, the US Sec of State at the time, calmly asserting on CBS 60 minutes that sacrificing upwards of 500,000 Iraqi children in the name of 'freedom' and 'justice' is morally acceptable and valid US policy.

Austin wrote:Election result in Ukraine for May 25 is already known , the pro Western Guy who own Chocolate companies ( Ukrainian confectionary company Roshen ) Petro Poroshenko is the winner , he funded and supported Pro-Maidan activist.

Presidential candidate from East and pro-Fedralisation supporter has been threatened and 2 of them resigned from the race.

So we can see the election is already rigged and result known in advance to get a Pro-EU guy elected.

As far as Sanction goes its a moving target , Intially EU and US said if Russia moves troop into Eastern Ukraine Sectorial sanction will be applied and now they have changed that to if Election is Disrupted in Ukraine ...which is really a broader terms as the East will boycott the election and the result of the winner of May 25 are known.

vijaykarthik wrote:However, isn't it that Poroshenko is far better than Yulia. The other option is even worse. So, out of the 2 nasty contenders, Poroshenko will be slightly better. At least some possibility of agreement.
Besides, per my reading, he doesn't seem absolutely pro-Russian. A pragmatist at best. He will know and understand that he needs to lean Russia too -- chocolate factory might not make a lot of money otherwise. [Remember that Russia banned Roshen goods for a while to make Yanukovych "yield".]
So, it aint so easy for that dude to dance to a separate tune. The DJ is elsewhere and the music keeps changing.

Rajiv Lather wrote:Fundamentals ? We will discuss the troop movement later; the more pressing matter is the burning alive of almost 50 people. Yet another diabolical attempt at agenda setting...

Johann wrote: ...

I think I've already made my position clear. The Kremlin sees things as a zero sum game, and this generates conflict. If someone else gains, it loses. That point of view is the inherent product of an authoritarian mindset. The authoritarian sort of mindset doesn't just have a problem with other countries - it extends to the right to criticise, and the right to be different whether in the living room or the bedroom.

A_Gupta wrote:A non-zero sum game would have been -- EU talking to Putin back in November 2013 about Russia's concerns (two separate bilateral talks, one with Ukraine, other with Russia, if they want to preserve the idea of Ukrainian sovereignty), they strip out the military clauses from the Association Agreement, and figure out who is going to pay what to bail Ukraine out of its economic mess.

Suppose it is in EU's and American interests to extend a military alliance against Russia to the borders of Russia. One must ask what the urgency was to do so in 2013-14. Don't the EU and the US need Russian cooperation to keep sanctions on Iran, and to get to some kind of settlement in Syria?

Johann wrote:

A_Gupta wrote:A non-zero sum game would have been -- EU talking to Putin back in November 2013 about Russia's concerns (two separate bilateral talks, one with Ukraine, other with Russia, if they want to preserve the idea of Ukrainian sovereignty), they strip out the military clauses from the Association Agreement, and figure out who is going to pay what to bail Ukraine out of its economic mess.

Suppose it is in EU's and American interests to extend a military alliance against Russia to the borders of Russia. One must ask what the urgency was to do so in 2013-14. Don't the EU and the US need Russian cooperation to keep sanctions on Iran, and to get to some kind of settlement in Syria?

There was no hurry. The basic text of the association agreement was negotiated back in 2012 after years of effort. What was in disagreement were specific issues such as political prisoners, and once those issues were cleared in the fall of 2013, the agreement was ready to be signed.

The EU's defence cooperation exists largely on paper, and will only be actively pursued if NATO dissolves or goes dormant. The whole point of having NATO and EU as separate institutions is to avoid confusion and overlap given that institutionally they have very different ways of seeing the world and the resources to support active defence policies of two semi-competing visions are simply not available.

Putin's objections were not to specific clauses such as the CSDP, to which an opt out clause could probably be negotiated as it has for Denmark. It was to any sort of association agreement, period, with any former Soviet republic. Armenia was offered an association agreement, and pressured into declining it. Moldova (which no longer shares a border with Russia) and Georgia accepted it.

Let me give you an example of the extent to which the Kremlin sees EU-Ukrainian partnership of any sort a no go zone - this is before the AA was negotiated:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/ ... O920090326

The EU and Russia have permanent representatives with each other, as do individual states. In order to have some point to tripartite talks, Putin would have had to indicate the possibility that a modified AA might be acceptable, and that Ukraine would be able to hold off on signing both the EU agreement or Moscow's Eurasian customs agreement in the meanwhile.

But I'd agree with Suraj, the EU utterly failed to appreciate how far Russia was willing to go to get its way, or how quickly things would escalate. There was the beginning of a sense back then that perhaps it might need to develop a response to the toughening Russian position, but the thought was that there were years to deal with the issue.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 36410.html

p.s. the main drivers of EU association agreements with former Soviet republics are Germany, Poland and the Nordic states. None of them are in favour of war with Iran.

KLNMurthy wrote:But it's more complicated than that, surely? It is not as though the Russians whom you judge authoritarian (with some justification), are out to swallow harmless Ukraine whose current leaders desire nothing more than freedom.

Coming to Russia, I would think fighting a bloody war with Eastward-expanding Nazi Europeans and losing 20 million of their people in the process, would have an impact on Russian collective psyche that is at least as powerful as the impact of the Holocaust on the Jewish and Israeli collective psyche. And not in an entirely good way. There is nothing like having a profound existential near-death experience to turn a nation and culture into an authoritarian one, or if they already have an authoritarian history, inhibit any movement towards freedom and openness.

A sensible, "normal" way for Western Europe and the USA to politically deal with Russia would have been to show respect for Russia, giving proper thought to Russia's capabilities, sensitivities and sensibilities, and act in a reassuring way, while negotiating in their own interest. It wouldn't be so critical if Russia didn't have the capability to destroy the whole world, plus having a nazi-scarred collective psyche, and as you say, a history authoritarianism.

Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

But EuroUSA have done the exact opposite; practically everyone on this thread sees that, and you are conveying the impression that you don't see it, or are simply talking past it, preferring to pass meaningless judgment on Russia and patting Europe on the back, equally meaningless in this context.

Generally, people on this thread, as I have seen, don't really care if, in someone's eyes, Europeans are angels and Russians are devils. What matters is why the Europeans are acting so stupid and arrogant, contrary to all norms of human relationships, and by doing so, putting the world at huge risk.

All evidence I have seen shows that Ukraine and Russia are not that different in culture, except that Ukraine seems to be a lot more unruly and also have a bunch of nazis who feel quite free and unleashed right now.

By the way, about some of your unwarranted comments about Indian "provinces" separating "peacefully" and other analogies to India (like Arunachal and Nepal and so forth): India's history, sensibilities, and capabilities are different from Russia's. Still, the same principle holds: It wouldn't be smart to try and separate an Indian state "peacefully".

And, if Germany et al are not in favor of war with Iran (who is? Israel? US? UK?) then isn't that all the more reason to not alienate Russia to help balance out the politics and prevent war, and just possibly arriving at a detente with Iran that Russia and China might help broker?

Dozens of US officers from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are consulting the new Kiev government in its crackdown on federalization supporters in southeast Ukraine, Germany's Bild newspaper reports citing unnamed German officials.

The FBI and CIA agents are in Kiev on a special mission to help the Ukrainian authorities quell the unrest in the southeast and create effective law enforcement bodies. The newspaper claims that they are not directly involved in clashes with pro-federalization rebels, that they have not left Kiev and that they are also advising the authorities on combating organized crime. FBI experts are helping Ukrainian investigators track down the assets of Viktor Yanykovych who insists that he remains Ukraine's legitimate President.

In order to understand Vladimir Putin, you have to listen to him. You have to read what he wants. More importantly, though, you have to see what it is that he is seeking to prevent. Often, a politician's fears and aversions can be more telling than his or her plans and promises.

So what is it that drives Putin? The central theme of all his speeches is the fear of encirclement -- the threat represented by powers that want to keep the Russian people down because they fear its inner strength. "They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy," he said in a March 18 speech before the Duma. In a television interview in April, he said: "There are enough forces in the world that are afraid of our strength, 'our hugeness,' as one of our sovereigns said. So they seek to divide us into parts."

A Threat to the Russian Soul

There remains a tendency to view the Kremlin's foreign policy primarily from a geopolitical perspective -- namely that the country is seeking to recover some of the territory it lost when the Soviet Union dissolved. But when Putin speaks of the enemy of the Russian people, he is speaking about something deeper and more basic. The forces against which he has declared war are not only seeking to expand their influence further and further into the East -- they are also going after the Russian soul. That's what he means when he says that Russia must put up a fight against the West.

But what's at the heart of this soul? Putin has provided some insights here as well. "It seems to me that the Russian person or, on a broader scale, a person of the Russian world, primarily thinks about his or her highest moral designation, some highest moral truths," he said in the interview. In contrast to this is a West that is fixated on personal success and prosperity or, as Putin states, the "inner self." In the view of its president, the battle Russia is waging is ideological in nature. It is a fight against the superficiality of materialism, against the decline in values, against the feminization and effeminacy of society -- and against the dissolution of all traditional bonds that are part of that development. In short, against everything "un-Russian."

Even today, many are having trouble recognizing the true nature of a man who is currently in the process of turning the European peace order on its head. Perhaps we don't have the courage to make the right comparisons because they remind us of an era that we thought we had put behind us. Within Germany's Left Party and parts of the center-left Social Democrats, Putin is still viewed as a man molded in the tradition of the Soviet party leader, who stood for an idealized version of Socialism. The old knee-jerk sense of solidarity is still there. It is based on a misunderstanding, though, because Putin isn't post-communist. He's post-fascist.

A search for the right historical analogy should focus on the events of Rome in 1919 rather than Sarajevo in 1914. It won't take long for those who step inside the world of echo chambers and metaphors that color Putin's thinking to identify traits that were also present at the birth of fascism. There's Putin's cult of the body, the lofty rhetoric of self-assertion, the denigration of his opponents as degenerates, his contempt for democracy and Western parliamentarianism, his exaggerated nationalism.

Enemies of freedom on the far right in Europe sensed the changing political climate early on. They immediately understood that, in Putin, someone is speaking who shares their obsessions and aversions. Putin reciprocates by acknowledging these like-minded individuals. "As for the rethinking of values in European countries, yes, I agree that we are witnessing this process," he told his television interviewer last Thursday, pointing to Victor Orban's victory in Hungary and the success of Marine Le Pen in France. It was the only positive thing he had to say in the entirety of a four-hour interview.

An Historic Mission for the Russian People

When they were first introduced one year ago, people also failed to recognize the true meaning of Russia's new anti-gay laws. But today it is clear that it marked the emergence of the new Russia. What began with an anti-gay law is now continuing at another level: The logical progression of the belief that certain groups are inferior is the belief in the superiority of one's own people.

And when Putin evokes the myth of Moscow as a "Third Rome," it is clear he is assigning the Russian people with an historic mission. Responsibility is falling to Russia not only to stop Western decadence at its borders, but also to provide a last bastion for those who had already given up hope in this struggle. But he is also saying that Russia can never yield.

"Death is horrible, isn't it?" Putin asked viewers at the end of his television appearance. "But no, it appears it may be beautiful if it serves the people: Death for one's friends, one's people or for the homeland, to use the modern word." That's as fascist as it gets.

Jan Fleischhauer is the author of SPIEGEL ONLINE's weekly conservative political column.

Richard W. Maass is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Government at Cornell University. His current book project examines domestic political constraints on great-power annexation, and he has published or forthcoming articles in Diplomatic History, Terrorism and Political Violence, International Security, and Historical Methods. He is on Twitter at @richardmaass.

Throughout the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, government leaders in Russia and the United States have not only disagreed about how to resolve the situation; they have consistently been talking past each other. Whereas Obama considers the interim government in Kiev to be “the legitimate government of Ukraine,” Putin called it an “anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power” and maintains that “Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate president.” Similarly, whereas Putin labels military activities in Crimea as “local self-defense units,” Obama accuses the Russian military of “violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.” Accusations continue to fly from both sides, with Secretary of State John Kerry condemning Russia’s “falsehoods, intimidation and provocations,” while the Russian Foreign Ministry charges the United States of “barefaced cynicism and double standards.”

Why do Washington and Moscow keep talking past each other? Prospect theory offers a plausible explanation. At its core, prospect theory argues that people are willing to take greater risks to avoid losses than they are to achieve gains. Instead of making decisions that maximize their overall expected utility, people focus on a particular reference point and give more weight to losses from that reference point than comparable gains. Research applying this behavioral economic theory to international relations has demonstrated that, among other tendencies, state leaders exhibit a status quo bias, consider preventive war to forestall decline, and double down in enduring conflicts rather than withdrawing (e.g. the United States in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan).

Applying prospect theory to the current situation in Ukraine offers a rationale for Putin’s decision to occupy Crimea: When Yanukovych was deposed and Putin faced the loss of his previous influence over Ukrainian politics, Putin was willing to gamble either to recover that influence in negotiations on the shape of the future Ukrainian government or to offset it with territorial gains. In this case, Putin’s reference point is the status quo before the Maidan revolution, when Russia enjoyed a pliable ally in Kiev who was willing to turn down an offer of European integration to substantiate Putin’s envisioned Eurasian Union. Consistent with the predictions of prospect theory, numerous observers have identified the Russian invasion and potential annexation of Crimea as a remarkably risky venture for Putin.

First, it risks Russian influence in what remains of Ukraine and increases doubts that his Eurasian Union will ever materialize into a substantial economic bloc. Putin’s crowning foreign-policy objective, the Eurasian Union requires not Crimea but all of Ukraine as a member, yet the Russian occupation is strengthening national identity throughout that traditionally cleaved country, as well as alarming leaders in the Central Asian countries that are its other potential members. Second, it risks Russia’s energy leverage over Europe. European leaders are already hitting the brakes on the South Stream pipeline and stepping up efforts to diversify their supply, while Putin’s aggression has also sparked calls for the United States to develop its own energy exports as a counterweight. Third, it threatens to further undermine the Russian economy. The Russian stock market lost more in the first day after the invasion than Russia spent on the Sochi Olympics, and broader economic retaliation against the increasingly vulnerable Russian economy threatens to send Russia into a deep recession. Fourth, it risks fracturing Putin’s domestic political support. The invasion of Crimea may have been aimed at recovering public support after the Maidan revolution, but it presents a new set of domestic problems as Russian business leaders are afraid of losing access to Western finance and Western sanctions may contribute to instability among competitive Russian elites. Given these risks, Putin appears to be leaving his options open to salvage what he can from Ukraine.

The usefulness of prospect theory in understanding the present crisis goes even further, though. As Jack Levy has written, “people ‘renormalize’ their reference points after making gains much faster than they do after incurring losses.” In other words, if an international situation turns to the advantage of one state over another, the gainer will change its reference point to the “new normal” and resist efforts by the loser to revert to its own reference point, which will remain the status quo ante.

This explains why the United States and Russia keep talking past each other: U.S. leaders have ‘renormalized’ their reference point after the Maidan revolution, accepting the West-leaning interim Ukrainian government as a legitimate foundation for any resolution to the crisis. In contrast, the reference point of Russian leaders continues to be the pre-Maidan status quo, as they seek to recover their lost influence in Ukraine or achieve compensating territorial gains. As a result, the United States is focusing on rolling back Russian “aggression” in Crimea, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov objects to U.S. proposals because they take “the situation created by the coup as a starting point.” If U.S. and Russian leaders are bringing contradictory perspectives to their attempts at negotiation, as prospect theory predicts, it is difficult to envision a diplomatic resolution to the crisis that will satisfy both sides.

Austin wrote:check the video in the link clearly shows how pro-Kiev radicals are throwing Molotov cocktails into the Trade Unions House

Avoiding facts? MSM uncertain who is behind deadly Odessa blaze

Austin wrote:Looks like China lead SCO and Russian lead CSTO will have more to talk about

CSTO Looks Away From NATO and Toward SCO