Bharat Rakshak

19 Mar 2014

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Wednesday condemned Russia for violating Ukraine's territorial integrity and threatened to impose further sanctions against Moscow over its role in the Crimean crisis.

TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Wednesday condemned Russia for violating Ukraine's territorial integrity and threatened to impose further sanctions against Moscow over its role in the Crimean crisis.

President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday signed a treaty claiming the Black Sea region as Russian territory after more than 97 per cent of Crimeans voted in favour of Kremlin rule in a disputed referendum.

The West, which has imposed sanctions of its own, condemned Moscow's actions as a blatant annexation of Crimea.

"(Russian action) violates Ukraine's unity, sovereignty and the integrity of its territory, and we condemn it," Abe told a parliamentary committee.

"Our country cannot overlook an attempt to change the status quo by force," he added.

Japan's foreign ministry on Tuesday announced it was suspending negotiations with Russia on easing visa requirements and would not be starting talks on a new investment accord.

"We will consider further measures, while cooperating with G7 nations and other countries," Abe said Wednesday, without elaborating.

The mass-circulation Yomiuri newspaper said that additional action would include restricting visas and freezing assets.

Abe also said Wednesday that, if his schedule permitted, he would attend a G7 summit in the Hague next week called by US President Barack Obama to discuss the escalating showdown with Russia.

Japanese trade minister Toshimitsu Motegi, who was scheduled to attend a Russian investment forum in Tokyo on Wednesday, was "unable to attend" because he had to be in parliament, a ministry official told AFP on Tuesday.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... 40888.html
***************

Remember, remember: this is about the whole of Ukraine, not just Crimea. Vladimir Putin knows that. Ukrainians know that. As the reported killing of a Ukrainian soldier shows, there is nothing the government in Kiev can do to restore its control over Crimea. The crucial struggle is now for eastern Ukraine. If the whole of Ukraine, including the east, participates in peaceful, free and fair presidential elections on 25 May, it can survive as one independent country (minus Crimea). It will also be back on an unambiguously democratic, constitutional path. In everything the EU and the west does over the next two months, that should be our first priority.

Only the criminally naive or the hardened fellow-traveller could maintain that the pro-Russian groups now working to produce chaos, disorientation and violence in cities such as Donetsk and Kharkiv are not actively supported by Moscow. In Tuesday's New York Times there was a fine eyewitness account of one such stage-managed demo in Kharkiv. At the base of a giant Lenin statue, a huge banner read: "Our homeland: USSR!" As the reporters pointed out, this was all made for Russian television. Whatever Putin finally decides to do, the media narrative will be prepared: whether for an escalating intervention or, as he would undoubtedly prefer, to blackmail the whole country back into the Russian sphere of influence.

It would be equally naive, however, to pretend that there are not real fears among many in eastern Ukraine. Start by abandoning the labels "ethnic Ukrainians" and "ethnic Russians". They mean almost nothing. What you have here is a fluid, complex mix of national, linguistic, civic and political identities. There are people who think of themselves as Russians. There are those who live their lives mainly in Russian, but also identify as Ukrainians. There are innumerable families of mixed origins, with parents and grandparents who moved around the former Soviet Union. Most of them would rather not have to choose. In a poll conducted in the first half of February, only 15% of those asked in the Kharkiv region and 33% around Donetsk wanted Ukraine to unite with Russia.

In the same poll, the figure for Crimea was 41%. But then take a month of radicalising politics and Russian takeover, with Ukrainian-language channels yanked off TV. Add relentless reporting on the Russian-language media of a "fascist coup" in Kiev, exacerbated by some foolish words and gestures from victorious revolutionaries in Kiev. Subtract Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians living in Crimea, who largely boycott the referendum. Season with a large pinch of electoral fraud. Hey presto, 41% becomes 97%.

It is not just Russian "political technology" that changes numbers and loyalties. What happens in such traumatic moments is that identities switch and crystallise quite suddenly, like an unstable chemical compound to which you add one drop of reactant. Yesterday, you were a Yugoslav; today, a furious Serb or Croat.

So everything that is done in and for Ukraine over the next weeks and months must be calculated to keep that identity-compound from changing state. Shortly before President Putin's amazing imperial rant in the Kremlin on Tuesday, another speech was broadcast on a Ukrainian TV channel. Speaking in Russian, the interim Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatseniuk, said that "for the sake of preserving Ukraine's unity and sovereignty" the Kiev government is prepared to grant "the broadest range of powers" to the mainly Russian-speaking regions in the east. This would include giving cities the right to run their own police forces and make decisions about education and culture.

That was exactly the right thing to do. Now he and his colleagues should go to these places, and say it again and again – in Russian. They should support Russian as an official second language in these areas. They should not dismiss talk of federalisation simply because Moscow also favours it. They should actively want there to be a pro-Russian candidate in the presidential election. And they should do everything they can to ensure that election is free and fair, including diversified media coverage in Russian and Ukrainian – unlike the vote in Crimea.

The west in general, and Europe in particular, can support this in numerous ways. The OSCE, EU and other international organisations should flood the place with election monitors. Western governments must make sure Ukraine's authorities have the money to pay the bills right now. Political parties and NGOs can send advisers. The west can also up the ante. It can make the medium- to long-term economic offer of relations with the EU more attractive. It can threaten Moscow with sanctions far worse than those currently imposed, not just if Putin takes his marked or unmarked forces anywhere else in eastern Ukraine, but if he keeps on trying to destabilise it by proxy.

The time has also come to talk turkey with Ukrainian oligarchs such as Rinat Akhmetov, who is as powerful as any state institution in eastern Ukraine. Quietly but firmly they must be shown carrot and stick: a rosy future for your businesses in the world economy if you help Ukraine survive as an independent, self-governing state; financial strangulation and endless court proceedings if you don't. (One of the eastern oligarchs, Dmitro Firtash, has already been arrested in Austria on an FBI extradition request. It's all about an investment project back in 2006, they say; nothing to do with current politics, you understand.) If Putin's Olympic sport is hardcore wrestling, we cannot confine ourselves to badminton.

None of this is to suggest that what has happened in Crimea does not matter in itself. In his Kremlin speech, Putin scored a few telling hits on US unilateralism and western double standards, but what he has done threatens the foundations of international order. He thanked China for its support, but does Beijing want the Tibetans to secede following a referendum? He recalled Soviet acceptance of German unification and appealed to Germans to back the unification of "the Russian world", which apparently includes all Russian-speakers. With rhetoric more reminiscent of 1914 than 2014, Putin's Russia is now a revanchist power in plain view.

Without the consent of all parts of the existing state (hence completely unlike Scotland), without due constitutional process, and without a free and fair vote, the territorial integrity of Ukraine, guaranteed 20 years ago by Russia, the US and Britain, has been destroyed. In practical terms, on the ground, that cannot be undone. What can still be rescued, however, is the political integrity of the rest of Ukraine.

Paul wrote:The butt kicking they got in WW II in Manchuria and getting booted off Sakhalin and Keurile Islands must still be hurting them.

Paul wrote:The Russian pop of Moldava would be the next flashpoint along with Odessa. Putin is bound to ask for guarantees for the safety of Russian speaking populations in the regions as quid pro quo.

vic wrote:I do not think Putin will try to partition Ukraine by breaking off East Ukraine. He will allow the EU to suffer the liability of financing and funding bankrupt east Ukraine and then act when discontent is at the highest. Russia may wait a long time before acting on Eastern Ukraine.

Donald Macintyre's Sketch: Europe appears to have a severe shortage of both sticks and carrots

Donald Macintyre
Tuesday 18 March 2014
Some Eurocratic wit – it may have been the unusual British diplomat Robert Cooper – was the first to define the EU motto on foreign policy as: “Speak softly but carry a big carrot.” In the scornful view of several MPs, that was about as far as the Europeans had gone in standing up to Russia over Ukraine.

In the aftermath of Vladimir Putin’s statement declaring Crimea a “sovereign and independent state” – it’s reassuring to know that the old tsarist habit of issuing draconian decrees has survived through the Soviet era to the present day – there were MPs across the party divide in favour of wielding the big stick instead.

Among those questioning the widespread consensus – held by William Hague and his supportive shadow, Douglas Alexander, and others – that military options were a non-starter, Labour’s Chris Bryant promised MPs that he was “not arguing for war” but contrasted the approach to Russia with that of not ruling out military action against Iran.

“I want to ask now why we ruled out any military intervention, in whatever set of circumstances… from the very beginning of Putin’s advances into Ukraine,” he said.

The right-wing Tory Gerald Howarth went even further. Noting that Russia was “repeatedly” conducting exercises on Ukraine’s border, he suggested: “Nato should have a maritime exercise in the Black Sea to serve notice on the Russians: ‘You do not go near Odessa.’”

The problem with these threats from the safety of the Commons, however, is that they had the ring of the old Glasgow bar-room joke: “You want a fight? I’ll hold your coat.” Former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who condemned the “pathetic and feeble” measures so far taken by the EU, did not suggest military measures.

Instead Rifkind, who in the 1980s played a key ministerial role in Margaret Thatcher’s “Ostpolitik”, culminating in her political love affair with Mikhail Gorbachev, urged real financial sanctions which would oblige Putin “to live with a Russian economy in which no other part of the world would invest and in which billions were coming off the Russian stock exchange”.

You didn’t need to be a Bletchley decoder to realise he meant sanctions that might actually hurt the City of London.

Far from being alone in invoking pre-Second World War appeasement, Rifkind, speaking as usual without a note, added: “We must be able to look ourselves in the eye and say that we did all that we could… to ensure that the horrors of the 1930s were not repeated, not in exactly the same form, but in a form that will damage European security and stability for a generation to come.”

Against this background, it was pretty brave of his fellow Tory Sir Edward Leigh to be the lone voice appealing to MPs to appreciate the “sensibilities” of Russians over Ukraine.

Declaring an interest – namely his absorption with Russian history and culture “since my wedding to my Russian Orthodox wife” – Leigh insisted that he was neither “pro Russian nor pro-Ukrainian” but said: “We must stop playing power games. It is too dangerous a situation, and the West must realise that it cannot tear Ukraine away from Russia.”

Earlier, Hague had been at his most eloquent in warning, more sharply than before, that there is a “grave risk that we have not seen the worst of this crisis” and that “the credibility of the international order would be at stake” if it did not stand up to Putin’s “profound breach of international agreement”.

But while he promised that Britain would push for further EU sanctions, he acknowledged only that “preparation is under way” for the kind of measures that might satisfy Rifkind.

So Hague spoke not softly but harshly. It was hard, nevertheless, at the end of the debate to escape the feeling that faced with Putin’s determination, the Europeans lack a carrot, let alone – so far at least – a big stick.

Austin wrote:

vic wrote:I do not think Putin will try to partition Ukraine by breaking off East Ukraine. He will allow the EU to suffer the liability of financing and funding bankrupt east Ukraine and then act when discontent is at the highest. Russia may wait a long time before acting on Eastern Ukraine.

I was talking in context of Ukraine joining NATO which right now does not look possible ......As far as it joining EU AA yes they can and on Mar 21 the Maidan gov will sign the political agreement.

Ofcourse Ukraine being a sovereign nation can choose to join NATO then Russia has to deal with this issue in a different way and need take over South or North Ukr.

Austin wrote:A Distorted Lens Justifying An Illegitimate Ukrainian Government

Why does Western media ignore critical information about the snipers that killed Euromaidan protesters in Ukraine?

Austin wrote:Wats with these Japs .....did they sanction US when it invaded Iraq without Security Council Approval or wihen Kosovo Referendum was held

This night sure was interesting. It appears that a group of unidentified armed men took control of the Belbek and Simferopol airports and, according to some reports, of an air-traffic control facility, then left. They kept a low profile, were extremely polite and said that they had come to prevent a "Ukrainian paratrooper force" from landing, but that this had been a false alarm. They then apologized and left. The pro-nationalist media first accused the Black Sea Fleet, which immediately issued a denial, then they blamed the Russian Spetsnaz GRU for the operation. Interestingly, a group of Mi-24 attack helicopters was seen flying in the direction of the Belbek airport the same day, and filmed by a civilian driver on the highway. Check it out ....

Finally, it was reported that a Turkish airliner which was scheduled to land in Crimea decided to turn around and fly back upon hearing the news of the seizure of the airports.

What does all that mean?

I will be honest with you and immediately admit that I don't know for sure. My sense is that something triggered an alert on the Russian side, possibly the arrival of the Turkish aircraft. After all, why did it turn back instead of either landing like other aircraft did, or land somewhere nearby? Could it be that there was something aboard this plane which the Turks did not want the Russians to seize?

Concerning the helicopters seen: these are Mi-24 which the Black Sea Fleet does not use. As far as I know, the only Mi-24 unit of the Russian Navy is the 125th Independent Helicopter Squadron of the Baltic Fleet and it is based in Chkalovsk, near Kaliningrad, very far from the Ukraine.

Again, I might be mistaken (maybe the footage is ancient, or filmed elsewhere), but I have the feeling that the nationalists are saying the truth when they claim that Russian combat helicopters have crossed the border and executed some mission in the Crimea. I counted a dozen Mi-24 in this video, which is *a lot* of firepower. Also, each Mi-24 can fit up to 8 soldiers, so in this case we could assume that each could carry at least 4 heavily armed soldiers and their gear, for a total of 48 combatants. But since there is no shortage of local manpower, my guess is that these were flying as fire support for another unit, probably those who seized the airports.

But if Russia thought that some threat justified sending in 12 Mi-24s is broad daylight, could it also have sent in some Spetsnaz units? I would say that yes, this is possible. So, again, I think that the nationalist who claim that what they saw was a Spetsnaz GRU operation might well be right. Lastly, and very subjectively, that very polite and low profile attitude towards bystanders is very typical of Russian Spetsnaz forces, I saw that with my own eyes in Moscow in 1993 when the arrogant and big-mouth forces which has crushed the Parliament were replaced by real Spetsnaz units: these guys were all very polite, very distant and, frankly, very scary in highly focused attitude.

So my sense is that there was some threat which was perceived serious enough by the Russian military to send in troops from across the border, probably not because of any shortage of manpower locally, but because specialized troops were better suited to the mission. The Russian Spetsnaz secured the airports, the Naval Infantry unit blocked the Ukrainian Border Guard while the local volunteer militias were used to shut down the roads and assure general protection. The threat than receded, and Russians left their positions and withdrew.

Some kind of attack on Crimea definitely happened yesterday and it was repelled. I don't think that the attacking side was controlled by the new regime in Kiev as Iatseniuk and Turchinov had nothing to gain from such an action and much to lose. I think that the attacking side was a third party, most likely some kind of assault force of Ukrainian and/or Tatar nationalists organized and controlled by US special forces. I believe that this force tried cutting off the communication lines of the local authorities and attempted to storm the Internal Ministry building to seize control of the local police. The Russian military clearly believed that some kind of force would be sent to the Crimea by air and that triggered a move by the Russian to seize the airports and defend them by force if needed. When they saw that their move had been detected and preempted, the attacking force withdrew. The US was clearly worried enough about the Russian reaction to have Obama issue a public threat about a "price to pay" should Russia invade the Ukraine. As for the Russians, they are clearly incensed and key political figures have all expressed their demand that the Kremlin take action to protect Crimea. Both sides are clearly in shock over what took place last night.

Austin wrote:Wats with these Japs .....did they sanction US when it invaded Iraq without Security Council Approval or wihen Kosovo Referendum was held

Japan PM threatens Moscow with more sanctions over Crimea

19 Mar 2014

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Wednesday condemned Russia for violating Ukraine's territorial integrity and threatened to impose further sanctions against Moscow over its role in the Crimean crisis.

TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Wednesday condemned Russia for violating Ukraine's territorial integrity and threatened to impose further sanctions against Moscow over its role in the Crimean crisis.

President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday signed a treaty claiming the Black Sea region as Russian territory after more than 97 per cent of Crimeans voted in favour of Kremlin rule in a disputed referendum.

The West, which has imposed sanctions of its own, condemned Moscow's actions as a blatant annexation of Crimea.

"(Russian action) violates Ukraine's unity, sovereignty and the integrity of its territory, and we condemn it," Abe told a parliamentary committee.

"Our country cannot overlook an attempt to change the status quo by force," he added.

Japan's foreign ministry on Tuesday announced it was suspending negotiations with Russia on easing visa requirements and would not be starting talks on a new investment accord.

"We will consider further measures, while cooperating with G7 nations and other countries," Abe said Wednesday, without elaborating.

The mass-circulation Yomiuri newspaper said that additional action would include restricting visas and freezing assets.

Abe also said Wednesday that, if his schedule permitted, he would attend a G7 summit in the Hague next week called by US President Barack Obama to discuss the escalating showdown with Russia.

Japanese trade minister Toshimitsu Motegi, who was scheduled to attend a Russian investment forum in Tokyo on Wednesday, was "unable to attend" because he had to be in parliament, a ministry official told AFP on Tuesday.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... 40888.html
***************

ramana wrote:Jarita, I think Japan thinks PRC might get ideas and do a Crimea in South China Seas.

At the same time, we are grateful to all those who understood our actions in Crimea; we are grateful to the people of China, whose leaders have always considered the situation in Ukraine and Crimea taking into account the full historical and political context, and greatly appreciate India’s reserve and objectivity.

chetak wrote:^^^^^^

Historically, no country in the vicinity or one having come into violent contact with the japanese will never forget the atrocities and the horrors of the japanese occupation.

So a lot of present day behavior is simply seen as payback.

The US had to kill 77,000 Japanese infantry and also 44,000 - 150,000 civilians, some of which we could not keep from committing suicide.

Yet...yet.... we gave Okinawa back to Japan in 1972.

Russia? 'nuff said. Off topic.

UlanBatori wrote:Isn't Odessa in Crimea? And hasn't Crimea already become independent?