Ukraine

[Mher]

Re: Youkrain

U.S. giving Putin green light in Ukraine?

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/frum-ukraine/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I'm nobody's russophile, but God damn this article puts RT and Lragir to shame.


"The most urgent necessity now: deploy teams of NATO observers to the cities that are targets of Russian activity in eastern Ukraine."
Aka invade eastern ukraine and give the green light to WWIII

"News is arriving of another Syrian chemical attack, in the village of Kfar Zeita, 125 miles northeast of Damascus."
ya you old bag of xxxx, except you conveniently failed to mention how a pulitzer price winner accused Obama of manipulating that evidence and the current news that Turkey was behind the original attacks.

[lampron]

Re: Ukraine

It's going to be one hell of a show thatd for sure. Probably the most significant conflict the world has seen since the Soviet-Afghan war, and the most significant conflict in Europe since WWII. It's a little hard for me to blame Russia considering sitting back could result in NATO reaching its doorsteps. On the hand, taking eastern Ukraine will make that a certainty.

Probably NATO had plans to move into Ukraine whether Crimea joined Russia or east Ukraine decided to become an autonomous republic

[Mher]

Re: Ukraine

It appears the present Ukrainian government is going to give Putin the very excuse he has been waiting for to invade. I like Putin's plan here-if the government does nothing the Russians take one city at a time and if the government brings troops he will have reason to invade. The real question here is what does the West plan on doing once the war starts? I do not see Ukraine being a country anymore no matter which way this thing goes.

It's going to be one hell of a show thatd for sure. Probably the most significant conflict the world has seen since the Soviet-Afghan war, and the most significant conflict in Europe since WWII. It's a little hard for me to blame Russia considering sitting back could result in NATO reaching its doorsteps. On the hand, taking eastern Ukraine will make that a certainty.

[Haykakan]

Re: Ukraine

It appears the present Ukrainian government is going to give Putin the very excuse he has been waiting for to invade. I like Putin's plan here-if the government does nothing the Russians take one city at a time and if the government brings troops he will have reason to invade. The real question here is what does the West plan on doing once the war starts? I do not see Ukraine being a country anymore no matter which way this thing goes.

[Haykakan]

Re: Ukraine

US WAR PLAN FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA

10.04.2014

Finian Cunningham

The US is prepared to plunge Europe into a war with Russia in order
for Washington to preserve its hegemony over the transatlantic axis.

The key issues are the prevention of Russia and Europe developing
closer trade and political ties - stemming primarily from a vast
trade in energy fuels; and, secondly, the survival of the American
dollar as the world's reserve currency.

So vital are these issues for continued American hegemony that
Washington is prepared to sacrifice millions of lives in a war between
Russia and its so-called transatlantic European "ally".

This shocking revelation comes from a former European NATO commander.

According to Christof Lehmann, editor of the news and analysis website
nsnbc international, the European military officer was given the grim
warning by American counterparts in an off-the-record briefing.

The European commander, now retired, subsequently confided the
information with Lehmann, who says that the tensions over Ukraine
between Russia and Western powers are consistent with this latent
American threat.

The original threat was disclosed during the 1980s, but there is
no reason to believe that the American policy of inciting a war in
Europe has since changed. This is because the strategic rationale
for the US bellicose logic remains the same. And recent events over
Ukraine strongly suggest that Washington's destructive designs are
still in place.

Says Lehmann: "In the early 1980s, a European top NATO admiral said
that American colleagues at the Pentagon had told him, unequivocally,
that the US and UK would not hesitate in creating a new European war
if the situation ever arose that Europe and Russia, then the USSR,
were to develop close relations."

Central to the American rationale was, and continues to be, the issue
of energy fuel. Washington does not want to see European and Russian
economies integrating on the vital issue of trade in oil and gas,
the foundation for economic and social development.

Over the past two decades since the end of the Cold War between the
US-led West and the former Soviet Union, Europe and Russia have seen
substantial alignment of their economies, primarily due to the enormous
oil and gas volumes supplied by Moscow. European-Russian bilateral
trade is well over $1 trillion annually, and is some tenfold that of
US-Russian trade.

Russia accounts for nearly one-third of Europe's total hydrocarbon
fuel consumption. In Germany, the largest European economy, that
figure rises to 40 per cent. With the new pipelines of the North
Stream and the currently constructed South Stream, the role of Russia
as the main energy supplier to Europe is set to grow even more over
the coming decades.

Lehmann adds: "The American dominance of the Atlantic axis with
Western Europe is threatened by this development of closer economic
ties between Europe and Russia. Germany and the Czech Republic have
since the end of the Cold War developed close economic and other
relations with Russia. Both are, together with Austria and Italy,
pushing a trend towards even tighter relations with Moscow."

This trend was always seen as a strategic danger by Washington. It
can be argued that the Cold War from 1945 to 1990 was deliberately
instigated by the US as a bulwark to counter the naturally inclined
trade integration between Europe and Russia, owing to the latter's
prodigious energy reserves and its continental proximity.

The strategic danger for the US is twofold. Firstly, a close
relationship between Moscow and Europe would remove the rationale for
America's military role in NATO and thereby its political influence
in Europe. The second is that the European-Russian energy trade
undermines the role of the American dollar as the world's reserve
currency. Exchange in such a key world market will inevitably move
to the use of the Euro/Ruble, which would spell the end of global
American financial hegemony, and with that, the end of the monstrously
indebted US economy.

The American economy is already teetering on bankruptcy, with a
total debt of $17 trillion, and spiraling. American bankruptcy and
social implosion is an eventuality that is so far only postponed by
the dollar's continuance as the standard currency for international
trade in fuel, and the de facto license for the US Federal Reserve to
keep printing money way beyond any sound economic basis for doing so.

Says Lehmann: "The development of Russian-European partnership
would leave the US politically, culturally and economically isolated
within no more than 25 years. It would also mean that the US would
become increasingly isolated in terms of its militarism and strategic
encirclement of Russia and China. The dollar would collapse."

An important side note is the insidious role of Britain. As the top
European NATO commander revealed, the American war plans for Europe
were supported by Britain. This is partly because of the historical
co-dependence of Anglo-American capitalism, and also, as Lehmann
points out, "a weakened Atlantic axis would mean a significant loss
of British influence over Germany and France."

This is the background to why Washington has sought to create a crisis
over recent events in Ukraine. Washington has played the key role in
fomenting regime change in that country, which has seen the rise of an
unelected fascist junta in Kiev that poses a serious threat to Russia.

The Kiev demagogues have openly talked of inciting terrorism and mass
murder against Russia and are willing to install American missiles
on their Western border with Russia.

The debacle has led to the worse diplomatic crisis between European
capitals and Moscow since the end of the Cold War. The possibility
of a war between nuclear-armed powers may have receded for now,
but the danger of such a catastrophe remains.

This weekend Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with his
American counterpart John Kerry for urgent talks in Paris. Reportedly,
Kerry was holding the meeting to "de-escalate tensions" between Russia
and the West. The reality is that Washington has done everything to
escalate this conflict, in particular between Russia and Europe,
for its own selfish strategic interests. That includes, if deemed
necessary by the pyromaniacs in Washington, the ignition of all-out
war in Europe.

AB/AB

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international
affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's
graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing
a career in journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter.

For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major
news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and
Independent. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is now located in
East Africa as a freelance journalist, where he is writing a book on
Bahrain and the Arab Spring, based on eyewitness experience working in
the Persian Gulf as an editor of a business magazine and subsequently
as a freelance news correspondent. The author was deported from
Bahrain in June 2011 because of his critical journalism in which he
highlighted systematic human rights violations by regime forces. He
is now a columnist on international politics for Press TV and the
Strategic Culture Foundation. More articles by Finian Cunningham

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/03/30/356571/us-war-plan-for-europe-and-russia/

http://www.noravank.am/eng/

[lampron]

Re: Ukraine

Well, Greece at the time was basically a military dictatorship, so it wasn't surprising that Turkey invaded. Now Cyprus is divided (largely on ethnic lines) and whatever unity it had is now gone. Can't say I blame Greek Cyprus wanting to become part of Greece.

There is a parallel - between Cyprus having wanted to join Greece and Crimea wanting to join Russia.
Yet Cyprus voted against Crimea-Russia in the UN so they looked like complete hypocrites
Of course for some years Greek Cyprus (as well as Greece itself) has been paying pays lip service to Orthodox unity with Russia etc etc, all designed to attract Russian money

But when it comes to taking a political position Greek Cyprus has shown its true colors

[hipeter924]

Re: Ukraine

Excellent article.

We should do more to highlight our grievances in front of the international community.

If anybody got the impression we are stooges of Russia should start to think again.

It is about time to stop being a political punching bag.

.

Didn't know this about Ukraine, a good article.

[Haykakan]

Re: Ukraine

GAZPROM HIKES GAS PRICE FOR UKRAINE

http://www.armradio.am/en/2014/04/01/gazprom-hikes-gas-price-for-ukraine/

17:08 01.04.2014

The price of Russian natural gas for Ukraine will make up $385.5
per 1,000 cubic meters from April 1, Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller told
reporters on Tuesday, Itar-Tass reports.

Under the effective gas supply contract, the gas price for Ukraine
will be $385.5 per 1,000 cubic meters in the second quarter, Miller
said, adding that Gazprom's "December discount" for Ukraine can no
longer be used.

Ukraine has failed to meet its commitments to pay its 2013 gas debt,
and there is no 100-percent payment for current supplies, which
further increases Ukraine's gas bill, he said.

"As of now, the debt has reached $1.711 billion," Miller said.

According to the Gazprom CEO, the price of gas transit across Ukraine
will increase by 10%, as envisioned by the pricing formula in the
gas transportation contract of 2009.

Miller underlined that "Gazprom will pay a higher tariff for gas
transit, fully meeting its obligations under the contract."

[londontsi]

Re: Ukraine

UN RESOLUTION ON CRIMEA: WHY ARMENIA VOTED AGAINST UKRAINE – AND DID THE RIGHT THING
Editor Mar 28, 2014 Armenia, Nation, News Desk 5 Comments

........

Read more: http://thearmenite.com/newsdesk/un-r...#ixzz2xmuKdwE1

Excellent article.

We should do more to highlight our grievances in front of the international community.

If anybody got the impression we are stooges of Russia should start to think again.

It is about time to stop being a political punching bag.

.

[Federate]

Re: Ukraine

UN RESOLUTION ON CRIMEA: WHY ARMENIA VOTED AGAINST UKRAINE – AND DID THE RIGHT THING
Editor Mar 28, 2014 Armenia, Nation, News Desk 5 Comments

Yesterday the United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution that declared the Crimean referendum invalid. Armenia voted against the resolution and although it was joined by only ten other countries, the resolution barely passed with 100 votes because the other 82 countries either abstained or were no-shows.

Armenia’s decision to vote against the resolution and thus put it in the minority, opposed to the United States, Canada, and much of Europe, seems to have upset some people.

In no time, commonly repeated conspiracies about Russians forcing Armenia to make decisions against its will or visions of wild incompetence in Armenia’s foreign policy decisionmaking have been circulating in social media and elsewhere.

That Armenia is irresponsibly running roughshod over its image with no good reason chooses to ignore the very well-founded reasons Armenia may have had to vote against the resolution invalidating Crimea’s referendum.

So why was Armenia one of only 11 countries to vote against the resolution?

Put simply, Ukraine has not been a friend of Armenia’s.

In fact, although enemy might be too strong a word, it has freely aided and abetted Armenia’s enemy in Azerbaijan with seemingly nary a concern about any potential fallout it might cause with Armenia.

Armenia could not have possibly voted in favor of the resolution and there were some compelling reasons why it cast a vote against it, instead of abstaining.

The following gives the reasons why Armenia could not have voted in favor and why it may have chosen to vote against the resolution.

1) Ukraine supplied arms to Azerbaijan during the Artsakh War – and continued to do so.

In History on the Move: Views, Interviews and Essays on Armenian Issues, Edmond Azadian writes:

“[…] as subsequent events evolved it became all too apparent that Ukraine has steadfastly stood behind Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict all along. …it was reported from Stepanakert that Ukraine had shipped 40 tanks to Azerbaijan. Later that number was raised to 59. Ukraine had also supplied Azerbaijan with Mig-21 attack planes.”

This is in addition to documented reports of Ukrainian mercenaries fighting among Azeri forces as well as flying air attacks against Armenian soldiers.

Since the war, according to Azerbaijani sources reporting as late as 2010, Ukraine has continued to provide Azerbaijan with lethal military hardware.

As an aside: Besides Ukraine and Ukrainians, Russia fought against Armenians in Artsakh and continues to supply weaponry to Azerbaijan. These are both true and undeniable. But the fact is that Ukraine and Russia cannot be equated. While both had people fighting against Armenians in Artsakh and both have supplied arms to Azerbaijan, only one supplies Armenia with advanced weaponry and large-scale military support that it does not make available to Azerbaijan and that is Russia.

2) Ukraine and Azerbaijan were two of the founding members of GUAM.

GUAM, or the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, was started by Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. Although denied by the founding members, it was largely seen as an anti-Russia alternative to the CSTO, which was a security organization.

Tomas Valasek, a scholar, published a piece at the Harvard’s Kennedy School Belfer Center in 2000 that put it plainly:

GUUAM [note: it included Uzbekistan back then] was established with the express purpose of forging close institutional ties with the West, which, in the military realm, means NATO.

Armenia was left out of GUAM, although it neighbored two of its founding members, excluding it from any of the projects that the organization might implement. This wasn’t the only instance of an agreement between Azerbaijan and Georgia that excluded Armenia – the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline was another instance. It’s that in this iteration, it was done with the agreement of Ukraine.

No explanation was given why Armenia was not asked to be a part of GUAM.

The relationship between these GUAM countries would be represented more explicitly – and detrimentally – later on.

3) Ukraine voted in favor of a UN resolution “affirming the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanding withdrawal of all Armenian forces” from Artsakh.

That’s right. Ukraine voted for what was probably the most anti-Armenian resolution in UN history.

Any argument that Ukraine has a new government which shouldn’t be held responsible for past transgressions would have to stand against the fact that this was in 2008 and that’s when Yulia Tymoshenko was prime minster. The same Yulia Tymoshenko who was released from prison almost immediately after this new Ukrainian government took over and who has, post-revolution, declared her candidacy for Ukraine’s presidency.

Also included in the 39 votes in favor – out of 193 members – were Georgia and Moldova.

Click here for the full text of the resolution.

There simply could not have been any justification, considering Ukraine’s record, for Armenia to vote in favor of the resolution.

Why didn’t Armenia abstain?

The only legitimate question regarding Armenia and the vote on Ukrainian territorial integrity is why Armenia didn’t just abstain. After all, why vote on an unpopular issue?

Several reasons may have been at play and the following are our thoughts.

1) Principle.

As explained above, at best, Ukraine helped advance the anti-Armenia agenda of Azerbaijan in the United Nations and possibly in other arenas. At worst, it is one of the few countries who have provided one-sided military support for Azerbaijan in what is a conflict that can be considered an existential threat to Armenia.

To have voted for was out of the question. To have abstained would have been to neglect Ukraine’s atrocious track record, including in the UN, of serious issues that concerned Armenia and sent the message that there are no consequences for slapping Armenia in the face.

The “no” vote was an opportunity for Armenia to make the point that in dealing with it, countries should expect that their decisions will have consequences, if not immediately, in the future.

2) The UN General Assembly has done nothing for Armenia; Votes in the UN GA rarely have any impact; And thus, Armenia had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

This is a body that did nothing to save the cemetery of Djulfa from destruction by Azerbaijan or to stop the bombardment of the civilian population of Stepanakert by Azeri forces from Shushi.

What it comes down to is that votes in the UN General Assembly are usually for show and really have little impact on the international order. Indeed, this very resolution on Ukraine was non-binding, meaning that, in effect, it had no power.

So, by rejecting the resolution, Armenia had nothing to lose.

But what did it have to gain?

Armenia, all the other reasons notwithstanding, used the vote as a gesture of goodwill toward Russia. It was actually a deft policy decision to support Russia because it was giving nothing up but gaining credit for future dealings.

There might be some who think Armenia gave up its standing with other world powers in rejecting the vote; it would be worth reminding them of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

After experiencing the wrath of its domestic population and its Diaspora, Armenia was made to look like a fool when Turkey didn’t ratify the agreement. And the US, apparently the lead on the endeavor, hardly mustered up the breath to criticize the Turks.

What’s more, Armenia didn’t reap the benefits of cooperation with the US in the form of renewed Millennium Challenge Funds or a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement.

So, Armenia’s foreign policy calculus likely didn’t prioritize going out of its way to appease the US, which was leading the vote effort. After all, there hadn’t been much in it for Armenia when they did.

3) Territorial Integrity

Azerbaijan’s call to action in getting countries to support its false claims to Artsakh is by yelling “territorial integrity” every chance it gets. The resolution which Azerbaijan introduced in the UN with that same tagline, which Ukraine supported, was, as might be expected, rejected by Armenia while citing that it supported the self-determination of peoples.

Now, given Ukraine’s track record supporting “territorial integrity” against Armenia and Azerbaijan’s known intentions about implanting “territorial integrity” into the discourse, Armenia could either stay silent, whereas previously it hadn’t, and potentially give firepower to Azerbaijan because it changed course. Or it could continue with the precedent it had set when confronted with the same issue, with essentially the same language in the past, showing consistency in its principles.

Armenia chose the latter and rejected the idea of territorial integrity when it clashes with a people’s right to self-determination.

Whatever your stance is on the referendum in Crimea – whether it was real or a Russian ploy to cover its annexation of the peninsula – Armenia was voting on the language presented by Ukraine in that resolution and it did so by maintaining its established position on self-determination.

***

Finally, much of the 140-character discussions have centered on the group of sketchy countries that also voted against the resolution, including North Korea, Sudan, Nicaragua, and Belarus. Most of it is disbelief that Armenia finds itself among this crowd but why that’s important is difficult to ascertain.

If the company you’re in after a UN vote makes a difference, then we should ask ourselves what it says about the United States and Canada that when they voted against Palestine becoming an observer state in the United Nations, they counted among their company Palau, Micronesia, and Nauru.

Nothing? That’s the point.



Read more: http://thearmenite.com/newsdesk/un-r...#ixzz2xmuKdwE1