Saturday, February 28, 2015

Von Račak zum Majdan

23.02.2015
KIEW/BELGRAD/BERLIN

(Eigener Bericht) - Ein Jahr nach dem von Berlin geförderten Umsturz in der Ukraine werfen aktuelle Berichte ein neues Licht auf das Kiewer Massaker vom 20. Februar 2014. Das Blutbad, bei dem mehr als 50 Menschen zu Tode kamen, forcierte den Sturz von Staatspräsident Wiktor Janukowitsch und wurde zugleich genutzt - auch in Deutschland -, um ihn zu legitimieren. Wie Zeugen nun bestätigen, begann es mit tödlichen Schüssen bewaffneter Demonstranten auf Polizisten; die Repressionskräfte hätten das Feuer demnach erst erwidert, als sie beim Rückzug erneut in einen Kugelhagel geraten seien. Trifft dies zu, dann kann von einem von der Regierung gezielt geplanten Massaker keine Rede sein. Zudem deuten Indizien nach wie vor darauf hin, dass auch die Scharfschützen, die anschließend gezielte Todesschüsse abgaben, der damaligen Opposition zuzurechnen waren. Das Blutbad ist bis heute ebensowenig aufgeklärt worden wie etwa der Tod von mehr als 40 Kosovo-Albanern Mitte Januar 1999 in Račak, der vom Westen ungeachtet gegenteiliger Hinweise als Resultat einer Massenexekution deklariert wurde und maßgeblich zur Legitimation des Überfalls auf Jugoslawien beitrug. Weitere Fälschungen und Lügen von Politik und Medien vor und während des Kosovo-Kriegs belegen, dass Manipulationen wie diejenigen im Ukraine-Konflikt nicht neu sind, sondern vielmehr zum Standardrepertoire des deutschen Establishments in eskalierenden Konflikten gehören.
Das Massaker vom 20. Februar 2014
Ein Jahr nach dem Umsturz in der Ukraine werfen zwei voneinander unabhängige Berichte führender westlicher Medien ein neues Licht auf die Kiewer Todesschüsse vom 20. Februar 2014. An jenem Tag wurden im Zentrum Kiews mehr als 50 Menschen erschossen. Das Blutbad forcierte den Sturz von Staatspräsident Wiktor Janukowitsch und wurde auch in Berlin zur Legitimation des Umsturzes angeführt: Ein Präsident, der Demonstranten gezielt massakrieren lasse, habe das Recht auf sein Amt verwirkt, hieß es.
Die ersten Schüsse
Seit einigen Tagen liegen nun neue Zeugenaussagen zu dem Massaker vor. Demnach setzten bewaffnete Regierungsgegner am 20. Februar die tödliche Eskalationsstrategie fort, die sie kurz zuvor gestartet hatten. Bereits am 18. Februar hatten sich gewalttätige Faschisten aus einem als "Friedensoffensive" angekündigten Protestmarsch gelöst, Polizisten mit Molotow-Cocktails attackiert, ein Büro der "Partei der Regionen" von Staatspräsident Wiktor Janukowitsch gestürmt und dort einen Wachposten sowie zwei Parteimitarbeiter umgebracht. Die Polizei schlug brutal zurück. Am Abend des 18. Februar wurde von rund 25 Todesopfern berichtet, darunter etwa ein Drittel Polizisten, von denen wiederum einige mit Schusswaffen getötet worden waren. Am 19. Februar wurden die Vorbereitungen für eine weitere Eskalation getroffen. Gegenüber der BBC hat ein Majdan-Demonstrant jetzt bestätigt, er habe am Abend des 19. Februar ein Saiga-Jagdgewehr erhalten und sich am 20. Februar in das Gebäude des Kiewer Konservatoriums direkt am Majdan begeben, das von den Demonstranten gehalten wurde. Von dort aus ist, wie Fotos nahelegen und auch der damalige Demonstrant und ein Bericht eines damaligen Oppositionspolitikers bestätigen, auf Polizisten geschossen worden. Dabei wurden die ersten drei Polizisten getötet.[1]
Im Kugelhagel
Den weiteren Verlauf der Eskalation hat Wolodymyr Parasjuk, heute ein Parlamentsabgeordneter, zuvor ein Kämpfer des Bataillons "Dnipro", der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung geschildert. Parasjuk, damals Anführer einer der "Hundertschaften" des Majdan, beschreibt, wie die Polizei nach ihren ersten Todesopfern den Rückzug antrat - "den Petschersker Berg über dem Majdan hinauf, die Institutska-Straße entlang", wie die Zeitung schreibt. Parasjuk berichtet, seine Hundertschaft habe die Polizisten sofort verfolgt: "Alle, die auf den Barrikaden waren, begannen die Institutska-Straße zu stürmen".[2] "Viele" seien zu diesem Zeitpunkt längst bewaffnet gewesen; sie hätten ihre Gewehre, "als sie stürmten", denn auch "eingesetzt". Polizisten in besserer Deckung als die Abziehenden hätten ihren im Kugelhagel abziehenden Kollegen "Feuerschutz" gegeben und zahlreiche angreifende Demonstranten tödlich getroffen. Trifft die Darstellung zu, dann kann von einem von Präsident Janukowitsch gezielt geplanten Massaker an der Opposition keine Rede sein.
Von der Opposition kontrolliert
Nach wie vor unklar ist, in wessen Auftrag die offenbar professionellen Scharfschützen handelten, die anschließend noch zahlreiche Menschen auf dem Majdan erschossen. Bereits im Frühjahr 2014 ergaben Recherchen eines deutschen TV-Teams, dass gezielte Schüsse aus den obersten Etagen des Hotels "Ukraina" am Majdan abgefeuert wurden.[3] In einem hochgelegenen Fenster des Hotels hatte schon ein BBC-Korrespondent, der die Ereignisse am 20. Februar persönlich miterlebte, einen Scharfschützen ausgemacht. Das Hotel wurde in der fraglichen Zeit von der damaligen Opposition kontrolliert; der Zutritt war strikt reglementiert. Den Verdacht, "dass nicht Janukowitsch hinter den Scharfschützen stand, sondern dass es jemand aus der neuen Koalition war", hatte der estnische Außenminister Urmas Paet schon Anfang März gegenüber der EU-Außenbeauftragten Catherine Ashton geäußert - unter Berufung auf Janukowitsch-Gegner.[4] Das Ziel wäre demnach gewesen, die Gewalt eskalieren zu lassen und damit den endgültigen Sturz der Regierung zu provozieren. Opferanwälte beklagen bis heute, die offizielle Untersuchung des Massakers werde verschleppt und nicht ernsthaft geführt. Eine Aufklärung des Blutbads durch internationale Experten wurde anfangs gefordert, kam jedoch nie zustande.
Instruktionen aus Berlin
Dass das Massaker trotz aller Unklarheiten bis heute zur Legitimation für Janukowitschs Sturz herangezogen wird, erinnert an ähnliche Verfahrensweisen in früheren Konflikten - so etwa bei der Legitimation des Kosovo-Kriegs. Höchste Bedeutung kam damals dem "Massaker von Račak" zu. Am 16. Januar 1999 waren in dem südserbischen Dorf mehr als 40 Leichen von Kosovo-Albanern gefunden worden. Die damaligen Behauptungen westlicher Politiker und Medien, es habe sich bei ihnen um Opfer einer Hinrichtung durch serbische Repressionskräfte gehandelt, sind nie glaubhaft bewiesen worden. Vielmehr deuteten zahlreiche Indizien schon bald darauf hin, dass die Toten bei Kämpfen zwischen jugoslawischen Einheiten und der Terrormiliz UÇK ums Leben gekommen waren. Wie die finnische Forensikerin Helena Ranta, die damals die Untersuchung des Falles leitete, später beklagte, sei sie unter Druck gesetzt worden und habe vom deutschen Kosovo-"Sonderbotschafter" Christian Pauls "Instruktionen" erhalten: Es sei klar gewesen, "dass eine ganze Reihe von Regierungen Interesse an einer Version der Ereignisse von Racak hatten", die "allein die serbische Seite verantwortlich machte".[5] Die Todesfälle sind bis heute ebensowenig aufgeklärt worden wie die Todesschüsse vom 20. Februar 2014 auf dem Majdan.
Fischers "Auschwitz"
Weitere Geschehnisse vor und während des Kosovo-Kriegs belegen ebenfalls, wie im "freien Westen" längst vor dem Ukraine-Konflikt die Berichterstattung massiv manipuliert wurde. Dies ergibt sich beispielsweise aus Schilderungen deutscher Militärexperten, die im Namen der OSZE sowie einer EU-Mission die Lage in der südserbischen Provinz um den Jahreswechsel 1998/99 beobachteten. Wie sich etwa Heinz Loquai im Gespräch mit german-foreign-policy.com erinnerte, der Anfang 1999 als Brigadegeneral der Bundeswehr in der deutschen OSZE-Vertretung in Wien tätig war, hieß es am 18./19. März in einem OSZE-Bericht über das Kosovo: "Die Lage über die ganze Provinz hinweg bleibt angespannt, aber ruhig." Noch am 23. März hätten Experten des Verteidigungsministeriums resümiert: "Tendenzen zu ethnischen Säuberungen sind weiterhin nicht zu erkennen." Dies sei "die Situation" gewesen, sagte Loquai, die Rudolf Scharping, damals Verteidigungsminister, und Josef Fischer, sein Ministerkollege im Außenamt, "mit dem Holocaust, mit dem Mord an sechs Millionen Juden, verglichen" hätten - um den Überfall am 24. März 1999 zu legitimieren.[6]
Mit der Realität nichts zu tun
Ähnlich hat sich Dietmar Hartwig geäußert, ein ehemaliger Bundeswehroffizier, der 1999 als EU-Beobachter bis kurz vor Beginn des Krieges im Kosovo tätig war. "Massive, gar staatlich gelenkte Verbrechen gegen die Bevölkerung" seien ihm "weder aus den Berichten der Beobachter noch aus den Gesprächen mit führenden kosovo-albanischen Politikern bekannt" gewesen, erklärt Hartwig: "Dennoch sprachen die Medien ständig von einer grundlosen Brutalität der serbischen Sicherheitskräfte gegen die Bevölkerung." Hartwig hält fest: "Die Medieninformationen, die mir während meiner Zeit im Kosovo und danach vorlagen, zeigen ein Bild, das mit der Realität nichts zu tun hatte."[7] Das galt nicht zuletzt für den angeblichen Hufeisenplan, ein aus dubiosen Geheimdienstunterlagen zusammengeschustertes, von Verteidigungsminister Rudolf Scharping (SPD) und der Bundesregierung der jugoslawischen Regierung zugeschriebenes Papier, das, wie der damalige SPD-Fraktionsvorsitzende Peter Struck am 15. April 1999 im Bundestag behauptete, "die Entvölkerung des Kosovo von Albanern" vorsah.[8] Die Behauptung wurde von allen führenden Medien in der Bundesrepublik umstandslos übernommen; sie schwächte die Opposition gegen den Krieg eklatant.
Panzer ohne Datum
Vor diesem Hintergrund erweisen sich die gegenwärtige antirussische Berichterstattung deutscher Medien und die immer wieder nachgewiesenen medialen Fälschungen als Normalfall in Zeiten eskalierender Konflikte. Zuletzt musste etwa das ZDF einräumen, eine Meldung über 50 angeblich in die Ukraine eingerückte russische Panzer mit einem Foto georgischer Panzer aus dem Jahr 2009 illustriert zu haben. Ein Grafiker habe "aus Unachtsamkeit aus georgischen Panzern von 2009 russische Panzer ohne Datum" gemacht; "der zuständige heute.de-Redakteur" habe den "Fehler ... nicht erkennen" können, erklärt das ZDF.[9] Ähnliche "Fehler" sorgten schon vergangenes Jahr für massive Kritik (german-foreign-policy.com berichtete [10]). Die Erfahrungen aus dem Kosovo-Krieg sprechen nicht dafür, dass sich vor einem - derzeit nicht absehbaren - Ende des Konflikts an der Berichterstattung der Leitmedien oder am Ausbleiben der Aufklärung konfliktlegitimierender Massaker etwas ändert.
Weitere Informationen zur Rolle der Medien im Ukraine-Konflikt finden Sie hier: Die freie WeltLegitimationskriseMoskaus Drang nach Westenund Von Dolchstößen und westlichen Werten.

Nemtsov murder: Russian investigators probing provocation, Charlie Hebdo links

Published time: February 28, 2015 10:30
Edited time: February 28, 2015 13:02 



The assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in Moscow was well-planned, investigators said. Versions of the crime range from a political provocation to a revenge killing by radical Islamists.
“There is no doubt that this crime was carefully planned. The location and timing of the killing indicated that as well. The investigation found out that Boris Nemtsov was going with his female friend to his apartment, which is located close to the murder scene. The organizers and the executers apparently knew his route,” Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Investigative Committee, told journalists.
A murder scene of politician Boris Nemtsov, who was shot dead on Moskvoretsky bridge.(RIA Novosti / Iliya Pitalev)
A murder scene of politician Boris Nemtsov, who was shot dead on Moskvoretsky bridge.(RIA Novosti / Iliya Pitalev)

Markin said the best detectives and forensic experts are involved in the case, which is considered a top priority by law enforcement authorities.
Preliminary results show that the politician was killed from a Makarov pistol. Experts found six 9-mm cartridge cases at the scene, Markov said. The cartridges were produced by several different manufacturers, he added.

At the moment the investigation is focused on questioning the eyewitnesses and studying mobile traffic data in the immediate area of the crime, which may provide an insight into communications of the criminals. Footage from CCTV cameras is also being studied.

The investigation is looking into five possible motives behind the high-profile assassination, Markin said.
“The murder could be a provocation to destabilize the political situation in the country. Nemtsov could have been chosen as a sort of 'sacral sacrifice' by those who don't hesitate to use any methods to reach their political goals,” he said.
“There are reports that Nemtsov received threats due to his position over the shooting of Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris,” Markin said, adding that a possible link to the Ukrainian civil war was also being investigated.

“It's no secret that both sides of that conflict have among their ranks very radical figures who take no orders from any authority,” he said.
Other versions voiced by Markin involve Nemtsov's business interests and a possible assault related to his personal life.
Later in the day, the car allegedly used in the attack was discovered not far from the scene of the crime. Russian media reported that it had Ingushetian license plates.
The Kremlin called on political commentators not to pressure the investigators.
“This is a top priority case now and it's important that the investigation produces results as soon as possible. Don't hamper their work, just be patient and wait,” presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Dozhd television.
President Vladimir Putin has himself pledged that the people behind this “despicable and cynical crime” will be held accountable.
Boris Nemtsov, a veteran opposition figure in Russia, was gunned down in a drive-by attack in central Moscow on Friday night. The murder triggered worldwide condemnation and calls to bring the killers to justice.
Source:http://rt.com/news/236459-nemtsov-assassination-provocation-probe/

Friday, February 27, 2015


 
 

Obama Incites Bloodshed in Venezuela

The US special services together with their “assistants” from Canada and Great Britain tried again to stage a coup in Venezuela. In the middle of February, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said the national security services frustrated the plans of US embassy and put an end to its hostile actions. As a result, a number of people were arrested, including Venezuelan air force officers and activists of radical opposition. The subversive activities were guided by Western diplomatic missions. The names of those behind the plot are known but they cannot be brought to justice being protected by diplomatic immunity... 
Nil NIKANDROV | 27.02.2015

‘Little time for hardware withdrawal in E.Ukraine’ – Russia’s OSCE rep

Published time: February 27, 2015 21:08 
RIA Novosti / John Trast
RIA Novosti / John Trast
251012
Both sides of the Ukraine conflict were given little time to withdraw their weapons, Andrey Kelin, Russia’s representative to the OSCE, said. Despite their fulfillment of the Minsk agreements, there is significant mistrust between the parties, he added.
The both parties have begun the withdrawal of military hardware, OSCE observers confirmed on Friday. Another confirmation regarding the actions of Kiev troops came from anti-government forces leader Aleksandr Zakharchenko.
However, there are still reports of shelling – for instance at the Donetsk airport. OSCE monitors visited the site on Friday. Both parties are blaming each other and various uncontrolled groups for the ceasefire violations.
RIA Novosti / Michail Voskresensky
RIA Novosti / Michail Voskresensky

The “in general” lasting truce enabled the head of OSCE special Monitoring Mission, Ertugrul Apakan, to report to the Security Council that both sides of the conflict are fulfilling the Minsk agreements. The Friday discussions – the first meeting of the Security Council since the signing of the Minsk agreements on February 17 – were held behind closed doors.
However, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, said after the meeting that the US and UK were trying to involve the OSCE in missions not covered by the mandate. Churkin accused the two countries of trying to rewrite the Minsk deal and "lecture the OSCE on what to do."
RT invited Andrey Kelin, Russia’s permanent representative to the OSCE, to discuss the situation.
RT: The chief of the OSCE’s Ukraine team has just been speaking within the last hour to the UN Security Council. He reiterated that the team welcomes the withdrawal, but went on to say...that he can’t get full confirmation of the final destination of both sides of artillery. So what's the problem?
Andrey Kelin: Well, that is true. And I fully sympathize with his position. This situation, it is still a post-war situation, I cannot even call it a post-war situation, the conflict is still hot and mistrust is very big. And you can imagine the issue of verification of withdrawal; that is something that should be carefully discussed and carefully approached. I also recall that in the plan that was designed earlier in September, the earliest plan gave quite a lot of time for withdrawal and verification – a month. And after that, the situation of verification could have been established. Now what we are seeing right now it is the initial stage of withdrawal in the agreements of Feburary 12. This period has been shortened to two weeks actually, so this will continue. Now we are seeing they are withdrawing beyond a certain line of limit, but as for the verification I think it will be the next stage.
RT: Anti-government forces say they‘ve withdrawn most of their hardware, but they’re saying Kiev’s only taking about 20 percent. Kiev, in turn, says the same thing back. As you see it, who’s telling the truth?
AK.: I will not make any opinion of that until it will be said by the OSCE observers...I know that yesterday and today they are following the columns. And yesterday evening they started to follow the columns of withdrawal also by the government forces. So I think in the coming hours we will see a report on the activities of OSCE observers. So far, it is not yet published but my prime information is that they are satisfied with what is happening, with the level of access, with the itineraries and data. Data has been provided primarily by the DPR and LPR, and this is important.
RIA Novosti / Michail Voskresensky
RIA Novosti / Michail Voskresensky

RT: And how broad of an access do the OSCE observers have, to check what is really going on?
AK.: And again we are coming back to the war situation which, I hope, ended just two days ago. Although we still see occasional shelling by both parties, one is trying to shell the other. We can make a [verdict] that shelling is less and less and last night was nearly peaceful. At least, we can say people start to go once again to work, schools and so on. As for the question that you asked, the issue of mistrust, of course it is present and we should talk about it; how to reach the end state of withdrawal and the even more difficult issue – how to start a settlement? The political discussion, since this political discussion is supposed to start 14 days after the start of withdrawal.
RT: Are things progressing in the right direction generally, based on what you've seen?
AK.: I hope very much that they are progressing, and it is not only my opinion but this is also an opinion of the OSCE, of the observers, and they are now completing point number one of the agreement of the February 12. So they will come to point number two and then will be the even more difficult point number three. As I said, the initial discussions on the future status of the LPR and DNR [that are] supposed to be fixed in the laws by the Verkhovna Rada.

OSZE bestätigt: Ostukrainische Volkmilizen ziehen Waffen ab


Die täglichen OSZE-Berichte bestätigen, dass die „Seperatisten“ ihre schweren Waffen abziehen. Außerdem insistiert die OSZE darauf, dass alle Seiten ihre Waffen, den Minkser-Vereinbarungen entsprechend, zurückziehen. RT sprach mit dem stellvertretenden Chef der OSZE-Mission über seine Einschätzung der aktuellen Lage.
Quelle: RT
Quelle: RT

Chinese diplomat lectures West on Russia’s ‘real security concerns’ over Ukraine

Published time: February 27, 2015 12:50
Edited time: February 27, 2015 14:21 

Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.(Reuters / How Hwee Yong)
Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.(Reuters / How Hwee Yong)
1.5K240
Western nations should heed Russia's legitimate security concerns over the volatile situation in Ukraine, a top Chinese diplomat has said in a rare public statement on the crisis that has damaged relations between Russia and the West.
Qu Xing, China's ambassador to Belgium, said the Ukrainian crisis came about due to the ongoing “game”– a metaphor similar to that used by US geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, who referred to it as the “grand chessboard” – between Russia and the West, which has not abated despite, or because of, the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Arguing that outside interference by various powers inflamed the Ukrainian situation, Xing said Moscow would naturally feel threatened unless Western powers engaged in a more constructive approach.

Xing advised Western powers to “abandon the zero-sum mentality” in their efforts to deal with Moscow and the Ukraine crisis and “take the real security concerns of Russia into consideration," Reuters reported, quoting state news agency Xinhua.

China in the past has urged all involved parties to sit down and negotiate for peace.

The Chinese ambassador, whose Brussels office is in the same city as NATO’s headquarters, then offered some insight as to what motivates the United States on the international stage, and what could lead to its possible decline.

“The United States is unwilling to see its presence in any part of the world being weakened, but the fact is its resources are limited, and it will be to some extent hard work to sustain its influence in external affairs,” he was quoted as saying.
Reuters / Jason Lee
Reuters / Jason Lee

Xing said Washington's involvement in Ukraine could “become a distraction in its foreign policy.”

The Chinese diplomat’s comments represent a sharp departure from the relentless wave of hostile rhetoric coming from the West, which has gone to great lengths to blame Russia as the aggressor in the crisis.


Russia has been accused of arming eastern Ukrainian militia and dispatching soldiers and armaments as reinforcement – claims Moscow has denied on numerous occasions. There were even suggestions that Russia was somehow involved in the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.

Despite the extreme nature of the allegations, no substantive evidence has ever been presented to support such claims.

Indeed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has blamed the United States as being the primary destabilizing factor in Ukraine.

“Through every step, as the crisis has developed, our American colleagues and the EU under their influence have tried to escalate the situation,” Lavrov told participants at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month.

Lavrov pointed to the failure of the EU to engage Russia over Brussels’ efforts to have Ukraine sign an economic association agreement with the bloc; the involvement of Western political figures during the Maidan protests; the failure of the West to condemn Kiev for branding its own citizens “terrorists;” and for supporting a coup that led to the toppling of a democratically elected president.

“The US made it public it brokered the transit of power in Ukraine. But we know perfectly well what exactly happened, who discussed candidates for the future Ukrainian government on the phone, who was at Maidan, and what is going on [in Ukraine] right now,” Lavrov said.

China is a member of BRICS, the economic association that includes Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.
source: http://rt.com/news/236127-china-russia-west-ukraine/e:

US guilt in Ukraine crisis 'considerable, obvious' – Duma speaker

“For a quarter of century the key principles of the United Nations had been systematically violated. The US and other Western nations neglected the fundamental rules of international law, widely used double standards and didn't hesitate to intervene directly into other nations' sovereign affairs. The impact of this policy is fully felt by the peoples of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and now Ukraine,” Lavrov said at a diplomatic scholars’ meeting in Moscow.
Published time: February 27, 2015 10:21
Edited time: February 27, 2015 11:57 

Reuters / Maxim Shemetov
Reuters / Maxim Shemetov
1221072
Instead of promoting a peaceful resolution for the crisis, Washington and its allies are bent on imposing sanctions against Russia, “partially to cover up their own guilt for the events,” Sergey Naryshkin told a media conference in New Delhi.
“The guilt of the United States of America for those events is considerable and obvious to the entire world,” he stressed.
Naryshkin added that the sanctions policy is nothing but “economic blackmail that has nothing to do with law.”
He said that the conflict in Ukraine “poses a risk to international security, first of all to European security.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.(Reuters / Maxim Shemetov)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.(Reuters / Maxim Shemetov)

Meanwhile Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the travails of Ukraine are a direct result of Western interventionism.
“For a quarter of century the key principles of the United Nations had been systematically violated. The US and other Western nations neglected the fundamental rules of international law, widely used double standards and didn't hesitate to intervene directly into other nations' sovereign affairs. The impact of this policy is fully felt by the peoples of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and now Ukraine,” Lavrov said at a diplomatic scholars’ meeting in Moscow.
Apart from sanctions Russia sees a more direct threat to the fragile ceasefire in Ukraine. The UK announced it would send military trainers to help Kiev build up its army. Officials in Moscow see the move as potentially derailing the truce.

“Britain, which was not part of the Normandy format [Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine, which negotiated the ceasefire], is apparently prepared to derail the entire process. What kind of EU unity over a political resolution in Ukraine are we talking about here?” a source close to the Kremlin told journalists on Friday.
“Statements from London that say there’s no military solution to the Ukrainian crisis amid this move appear to be at least hypocritical and a case of gambling with the security of all Europe in worst-case scenario,” the source added.
The ceasefire brokered by the four nations in the Belarusian capital, Minsk, appears to be holding up despite numerous violations. The level of violence reported in eastern Ukraine has considerably decreased, and both Kiev and the rebel forces are pulling back heavy weapons from the front line under OSCE observation.
However little trust remains between the combatants, and both warn that they would turn their weapons back and resume hostilities if attacked. On Friday, Kiev reported that three of its troops had been killed over the previous 24 hours, after two previous days with no combat losses.
On Friday, Russia sent its 16-truck humanitarian aid convoy to the war-torn regions in eastern Ukraine. Rebel military engineers are using the calm period to search for unexploded shells and other remnants of the battles and dispose of them, RT correspondent Marad Gazdiev reports from the scene.
Source:http://rt.com/news/236107-ukraine-crisis-us-guilt/

What’s Behind Ukraine’s Secret Weapons Deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE)?

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 26.02.2015 | 22:24
 
U.S. President Barack Obama apparently is going ahead with his plan for NATO missiles to be placed in Ukraine aimed against Moscow, but found a way to do it that won’t violate the warnings by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin against Washington’s directly supplying those arms to Ukraine (such as is demanded of Obama by congressional Republicans, and even by a few hawkish Democrats — all passionate supporters of Hillary Clinton). Obama’s subordinate (or dependent local leader), the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, is now arranging to receive those weapons via a less direct channel; and this arrangement couldn’t happen if the U.S. White House were opposed to it. The idea might even have originated inside the White House.
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015, in Abu Dhabi, the capital of United Arab Emirates, Poroshenko placed the finishing touches on the purchase of Western, mainly U.S., weapons, via the UAE, from Western firms such as, perhaps, Lockheed, GE, Krupp, Euromissile, etc., which will be paid for by Western taxpayers, via IMF ‘loans’ to Ukraine, which money comes from taxpayer contributions to the IMF, but which ‘loans’ can never be paid back to the IMF — they’ll inevitably default, because these ‘loans’ are at the very end of the long line of creditors of Ukraine, which is a bankrupt country, having been looted for decades (and especially during the past year) by its aristocrats (called “oligarchs”), who have already spirited tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars off to Western tax-haven countries, so that only Ukraine’s public (who received little if any benefit from those debts of the Ukrainian Government) will pay even the pennies-on-the-dollars that Ukraine’s bondholders will be receiving (and the recipients will be only the holders of the oldest of Ukraine’s bonds, which won’t be the IMF, EU, or U.S., Ukraine’s post-coup ‘lenders’).
This is called the IMF’s “austerity” program, for looted nations such as Greece and Ukraine, and it holds sacred the thefts by aristocrats, while it transfers all of aristocrats’ losses off onto their respective publics, who (as Ukrainians now will) pay it via their stripped governmental services and hiked taxes; and these poor people then serve aristocrats as virtual slaves (low-wage labor), many of whom thus migrate to wealthier countries, which, in turn, reject the burden of caring for them, thus producing yet more resentments and hatreds against these poor people, regardless of how they behave.
Here is the way this Ukrainian arms deal works:
The deal itself was publicly, but only vaguely, announced on Tuesday, the 24th, along with “what Poroshenko described as a ‘very important negotiation about the facilitation of the United Arab Emirates investment in the Ukraine.’ He declined to provide specifics of the deal.” The reason why Arabic royals (in this case the Al Nahyan family that controls Abu Dhabi) are naturals for this — the logical persons to serve as the middle-men to sell Western-made weapons to Russia’s new (since the time of Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup) enemy, Ukraine — is that the U.S. aristocracy has, for at least 70 years, been allied with Sunni aristocracies, against, originally, the Soviet Union, and then Russia. Russia had been the chief supplier of oil and gas to the other Soviet republics; it was and is the local oil-and-gas giant. Whereas Russia’s aristocrats bonded instead with Shia Iran (which alliance was interrupted during 1953-79 by the CIA’s coup there and then the Shah’s ultimate overthrow and then the restoration of Iran’s alliance with Russia), the American aristocrats had bonded with Sunni Saudi Arabia, and with other Arab royals, in UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. So, with the exception of Armand Hammer’s Occidental Petreoleum, which bonded with Libya’s pro-Soviet Sunni anti-imperialist and anti-Western Muammar Gaddafi, Western oil companies generally allied with the Saud family, who had allied with the most intensely Sunni clergy of all, who were the followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who had personally agreed in 1744, with Muhammad bin Saud, that the Sauds and Wahhabs would jointly control the Kingdom and ultimately the world — Wahhabs controlling the laws, and Sauds controlling the military.
In short: America’s aristocracy bonded with Sunni aristocrats, and Russia’s aristocracy bonded with Shia ones. Ukraine has now joined the Sunni alliance, and this is done with Obama’s blessing.
America’s progressives might find it hard to understand, but America’s far-right aristocratic Koch brothers, who are allied with Big Oil on almost everything else, have no part in Big Oil’s alliance with the Sauds, and consequently the Kochs’ Cato Institute actually did an honest analysis of U.S.-Saudi relations, concluding,
“The United States should reassess the current Washington-Riyadh axis. The American commitment to the Saudi royal family is a moral blemish and a practical danger. It has already drawn the United States into one conventional war and has helped to make Americans targets for terrorism, which generated far more casualties in one day than did the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, and the Afghanistan campaign (so far) combined.”
Instead, most of America’s aristocrats who are heavily invested in crushing Russia are Democrats, such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar. These are the CIA Democrats. Another example of that is Markos Moulitsas. Of course, CIA Republicans dominate the anti-Russian campaign, but virtually the entire U.S. aristocracy is either funding it or else doesn’t much care either way about it. None cares about the extermination of the residents in Ukraine’s former Donbass region. This is why the U.S. media are now pouring forth with virtual unanimity against Russia — as if it were Russia that were surrounding NATO, instead of NATO that’s surrounding Russia. Even though Obama’s Ukrainian Government is carrying out an ethnic-cleansing campaign, its victims are being portrayed as if they were ‘terrorists’ and even ‘Russians.’ The victims are just former Ukrainians.
On 11 February 2015, I headlined “Al Qaeda’s Bookkeeper Spills the Beans” and reported that the person who had kept the financial books for Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda during the period leading up to 9/11, and who entered each and every donation into their financial books, including each one of the many multi-million-dollar donations, which poured in from Saudi and other Arab royals, provided sworn testimony recently, in a U.S. prison where he has been held incommunicado for more than a decade in order to protect Saudi and other Sunni royals — testimony that he swore upon the Quran, which he holds dearer than anything else — and, in this sworn testimony he explained in detail the profound interdependency between the Wahhab clergy and the Saud family, and the resulting dependency that Al Qaeda had upon both that clergy and that royal family, so that even the other Sunni royal families (such as in Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE) are beholden to the Saudi royal family and its Wahhabist clerics.
In other words: the U.S. aristocracy’s allliance with the Sauds explains an important part of the reason why the U.S. Government’s explanation of 9/11 is based upon lies.
A little-noticed news story in Al-Monitor, on 27 January 2015, from Bruce Reidel, reported that, “ Feb. 14 marks the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the US alliance with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On Feb. 14, 1945, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt met with King Abdul-Aziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud in Egypt and the two forged a partnership that has endured despite occasional severe strains for the last 70 years.” Reidel went on:
“The meeting was a closely held secret for security reasons. Only a handful on each side knew it was coming. FDR and Ibn Saud met on the USS Quincy, a cruiser, in the Great Bitter Lake along the Suez Canal, as World War II was coming to an end. FDR arrived from the Yalta summit with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Roosevelt’s health was very poor; he had only weeks to live. Ibn Saud had come from Jeddah on an American destroyer, the USS Murphy, with an entourage of bodyguards, cooks, slaves, an astrologer, a fortune-teller and other retainers and some sheep. The king only reluctantly agreed to leave his wives behind in Jeddah. It was his first trip outside the Arabian Peninsula aside from a brief visit to Basra in Iraq. The two agreed to work together to ensure stability in the post-war Middle East. The United States would ensure security for the kingdom, and the Saudis would ensure access to their oil fields. The United States acquired use of Dhahran air base for operations in the Middle East. US oil companies were already operating in the kingdom. Saudi Arabia declared war on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan two weeks later, securing a seat in the United Nations.”
Barack Obama wants to continue the program that George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and G.W. Bush, worked on before him, to surround Russia with NATO missiles. The takeover of Ukraine, and the enlistment of the Arabic oil sheikhs in assisting further to turn the screws against Russia, are key components in doing that: crushing Russia’s resistance to American domination.
Whereas, for FDR, the alliance with Sunni Islam was purely anti-communist, against the Soviet Union, the U.S. Presidents after 1980 were and are anti-Russian, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. The U.S. aristocracy intend to dominate the aristocracy in every other nation, and Russia is the only militarily powerful nation that is opposed to being controlled by this global Empire. Consequently, President Obama, who is an agent for America’s aristocracy, wants to cripple if not destroy Russia. And this is why, in his National Security Strategy 2015, 17 of the 18 times he uses the term ‘aggression’ are applying it against Russia. Russia’s President Putin would have to be an idiot not to recognize that today’s United States (its aristocracy, not the American public, who are quite different) is extremely hostile.
Russia could be the bulwark that, along with the rest of Europe and America, could restrain Islamic extremism; but, since America’s aristocracy is primarily concerned with crushing Russia, Islamic terrorism will probably only continue to grow.
Furthermore, events such as 9/11 are necessary for the Arabic aristocrats in order for them to keep their clerics with them and thereby control their own nation’s public.
Here is an official photo of Poroshenko with Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Al Nahyan:
Screen Shot 2015-02-24 at 7.30.39 PM
So: the U.S. ends up being allied with Islamic terrorists, while accusing Russia of backing ‘terrorists’ in the former Ukraine, whose only crime is that they don’t want to be slaughtered.
On 12 February 2015, was issued a “Statement by IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde on Ukraine,” which opened: “Ms. Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), statement today in Brussels, Belgium: ‘I am pleased to announce that the IMF team working in Kiev has reached a staff-level agreement with the Ukrainian government on a new economic reform program that would be supported by an Extended Fund Facility of SDR 12.35 billion (about $17.5 billion, €15.5 billion) from the IMF, as well as by additional resources from the international community.” Violating even the IMF’s own prohibitions against pouring loans into a nation that’s at war, the IMF was here making clear that they were 100% behind Obama’s Ukrainian proxy war against Russia. This is where the money will come from to finance Ukraine’s acquisition of more weapons to exterminate or else drive out the residents in the area of Ukraine that had voted 90% for the democratically elected Ukrainian President that Obama overthrew.
It’s ongoing mass-murder on the installment plan, with the IMF providing most of the funds.
Because the loaned money is going to pay the ethnic-cleansing campaign, it’s not going toward the needs of the Ukrainian people. This is extreme austerity, and it started immediately, a day after the day, 26 February 2014, when Arseniy Yatsenyuk became appointed to run the country, as he had been selected to do by Victoria Nuland of Obama’s State Department 22 days prior. As Kommersant reported, on 6 March 2014: “the strategy of the government was approved in Parliament on 27 February and on 3 March the Ministry of Finance sent an action plan for approval to the Ministry of Economic Development. The document is striking in its scale. … ‘Under the Knife’ go social costs. Already in March, the payment of pensions will be reduced to only 50% of the designated pension amounts.” But an uproar held that up. However, now it’s being done.
On December 11th: “Cabinet wants to reduce schooling to 9 years [from 12 years], to reduce the cost of the budget Finance Ministry proposes to amend the legislation governing the humanitarian sphere, the sphere of public administration, pensions, social security, the work of the prosecution and the army.”
On December 19th: “Education Minister Sergey Kvit noted that the department, which he heads, will never agree to such a proposal.”
On December 24th: “Education Minister Sergei quits.”
Pensions are now set to be halved, even in the greatly depreciated Ukrainian currency; and public schooling is to be reduced to only 9 years. All of that IMF (and U.S., and EU) money goes instead to pay to mass-murder the residents in Ukraine’s former Donbass region, the area shown on this map in which the residents voted 90% for Viktor Yanukovych, whom Obama overthrew, and where all of the residents are officially ’terrorists.’ The phrase for that used to be: “free-fire zone.” Obama wants the residents exterminated, and the IMF and EU are going along with that.
The circuitous way in which Ukraine will be buying its weapons is designed to avoid triggering a declaration of war by Vladimir Putin, or else to make non-obvious to the public why he would be justified in doing so.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.