Schlagwort-Archive: Crimea

DOKUMENTIERT: Ivan KATCHANOVSKI The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine – NDS 15.09.2015

Dank eines Hinweises der Nachdenkseiten dokumentiere ich eine Neuveröffentlichung des Canadiers Ivan Katchanovski:

The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine
This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered
various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. Original PDF below
Quelle: Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D. School of Political Studies University of Ottawa

Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference

(Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association in San Francisco, September 3-6, 2015)

China Just Sided With Russia Over The Ukraine Conflict – zerohedge

 
China Just Sided With Russia Over The Ukraine Conflict
 
When it comes to the Ukraine proxy war, which started in earnest just about one year ago with the violent coup that overthrew then president Yanukovich and replaced him with a local pro-US oligarch, there has been no ambiguity who the key actors were: on the left, we had the west, personified by the US, the European Union, and NATO in general; while on the right we had Russia. In fact, if there was any confusion, it was about the role of that other „elephant in the room“ – China.
 
To be sure, a question few asked throughout the Ukraine civil war is just whose side is China leaning toward. After all the precarious balance of power between NATO and Russia had resulted in a stalemate in which neither side has an obvious advantage (even as the Ukraine economy died, and its currency hyperinflated, waiting for a clear winner), and the explicit or implicit support of China to either camp would make all the difference in the world, not to mention the world’s most formidable axis.
 
Today we finally got the answer, and the winner is… this guy —  (image Putin)
 
Xinhua reported that late on Thursday Qu Xing, China’s ambassador to Belgium, was quoted as blaming competition between Russia and the West for the Ukraine crisis, urging Western powers to „abandon the zero-sum mentality“ with Russia.
 
Cited by Reuters, Xing said that Western powers should take into consideration Russia’s legitimate security concerns over Ukraine.
 
Reuters‘ assessment of Xing speech: „an unusually frank and open display of support for Moscow’s position in the crisis.
 
Speaking in very clear and explicit language, something diplomats are not used to doing, the Chinese ambassador said the „nature and root cause“ of the crisis was the „game“ between Russia and Western powers, including the United States and the European Union.
 
He said external intervention by different powers accelerated the crisis and warned that Moscow would feel it was being treated unfairly if the West did not change its approach.
 
„The West should abandon the zero-sum mentality, and take the real security concerns of Russia into consideration,“ Qu was quoted as saying.
 
His comments were an unusually public show of understanding from China for the Russian position. China and Russia see eye-to-eye on many international diplomatic issues but Beijing has generally not been so willing to back Russia over Ukraine.
 
As noted above, China has long been very cautious not to be drawn into the struggle between Russia and the West over Ukraine’s future, not wanting to alienate a key ally. And yet, something changed overnight, with this very clear language, warning some could say, that China will no longer tolerate Pax Americana, and even the mere assumption of a unipolar western world, let alone the reality.
 
Qu’s comments take place just as talks between the United States and its European allies over harsher sanctions against Moscow.
 
On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Western powers of trying to dominate and impose their ideology on the rest of world. The United States and European delegations slammed Moscow for supporting rebels in eastern Ukraine.
 
Qu said Washington’s involvement in Ukraine could „become a distraction in its foreign policy“.
 
And then, Qu’s slap in the face of Obama: „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.
 
Especially if and when China decides to send a few peacekeepers of its own into Ukraine. You know – just to make sure US influence in external affairs isn’t „sustained“ too much.
 

=======
Martin Zeis
globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

What Russians Think Of Western Sanctions Submitted by Vineyard of the Saker

Note: „… Der Westen hat für die Mehrheit der russischen Bevölkerung seine Glaubwürdigkeit verloren. ( For the majority of the Russian people the West has lost his credibility ). Vertrauensvolle Zusammenarbeit – das war einmal. ( Trustful cooperation, that’s history ). Jetzt geht es aus russischer Perspektive darum, sich zur Wehr zu setzen und sich nicht reinreden zu lassen.“ (zit.a. Gabriele KRONE-SCHMALZ: Russland verstehen. Der Kampf um die Ukraine und die Arroganz des Westens (Verlag C.H. Beck – München, Feb. 2015), S. 85f

zerohedge, Feb 17, 2015 — http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-17/what-russians-think-western-sanctions

What Russians Think Of Western Sanctions
Submitted by Vineyard of the Saker,

I parse the Russian media (corporate and social) on a daily basis and I am always amazed at the completely different way the issue of western sanctions is discussed. I think that it is important and useful for me to share this with those of you who do not speak Russian.

First, nobody in Russia believes that the sanctions will be lifted. Nobody. Of course, all the Russian politicians say that sanctions are wrong and not conducive to progress, but these are statements for external consumption. In interviews for the Russian media or on talk shows, there is a consensus that sanctions will never be lifted no matter what Russia does.

Second, nobody in Russia believes that sanctions are a reaction to Crimea or to the Russian involvement in the Donbass. Nobody. There is a consensus that the Russian policy towards Crimea and the Donbass are not a cause, but a pretext for the sanctions. The real cause of the sanctions is unanimously identified as what the Russians called the „process of sovereignization“, i.e. the fact that Russia is back, powerful and rich, and that she dares openly defy and disobey the „Axis of Kindness“.

Third, there is a consensus in Russia that the correct response to the sanctions is double: a) an external realignment of the Russian economy away from the West and b) internal reforms which will make Russia less dependent on oil exports and on the imports of various goods and technologies.

Fourth, nobody blames Putin for the sanctions or for the resulting hardships. Everybody fully understands that Putin is hated by the West not for doing something wrong, but for doing something right. In fact, Putin’s popularity is still at an all-time high.

Fifth, there is a wide agreement that the current Russian vulnerability is the result of past structural mistakes which now must be corrected, but nobody suggests that the return of Crimea to Russia or the Russian support for Novorussia were wrong or wrongly executed.

Finally, I would note that while Russia is ready for war, there is no bellicose mood at all. Most Russians believe that the US/NATO/EU don’t have what it takes to directly attack Russia, they believe that the junta in Kiev is doomed and they believe that sending the Russian tanks to Kiev (or even Novorussia) would have been a mistake.

The above is very important because if you consider all these factors you can come to an absolutely unavoidable conclusion: western sanctions have exactly zero chance of achieving any change at all in Russian foreign policy and exactly zero chance of weakening the current regime.

In fact, if anything, these sanctions strengthen the Eurasian Sovereignists by allowing them to blame all the pain of economic reforms on the sanctions and they weaken the Atlantic Integrationists by making any overt support for, or association with, the West a huge political liability.

But the Eurocretins in Brussels don’t care I suppose, as long as they feel relevant or important, even if it is only in their heads.

zerohedge, Feb 17, 2015 — http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-17/what-russians-think-western-sanctions

What Russians Think Of Western Sanctions
Submitted by Vineyard of the Saker,

I parse the Russian media (corporate and social) on a daily basis and I am always amazed at the completely different way the issue of western sanctions is discussed. I think that it is important and useful for me to share this with those of you who do not speak Russian.

First, nobody in Russia believes that the sanctions will be lifted. Nobody. Of course, all the Russian politicians say that sanctions are wrong and not conducive to progress, but these are statements for external consumption. In interviews for the Russian media or on talk shows, there is a consensus that sanctions will never be lifted no matter what Russia does.

Second, nobody in Russia believes that sanctions are a reaction to Crimea or to the Russian involvement in the Donbass. Nobody. There is a consensus that the Russian policy towards Crimea and the Donbass are not a cause, but a pretext for the sanctions. The real cause of the sanctions is unanimously identified as what the Russians called the „process of sovereignization“, i.e. the fact that Russia is back, powerful and rich, and that she dares openly defy and disobey the „Axis of Kindness“.

Third, there is a consensus in Russia that the correct response to the sanctions is double: a) an external realignment of the Russian economy away from the West and b) internal reforms which will make Russia less dependent on oil exports and on the imports of various goods and technologies.

Fourth, nobody blames Putin for the sanctions or for the resulting hardships. Everybody fully understands that Putin is hated by the West not for doing something wrong, but for doing something right. In fact, Putin’s popularity is still at an all-time high.

Fifth, there is a wide agreement that the current Russian vulnerability is the result of past structural mistakes which now must be corrected, but nobody suggests that the return of Crimea to Russia or the Russian support for Novorussia were wrong or wrongly executed.

Finally, I would note that while Russia is ready for war, there is no bellicose mood at all. Most Russians believe that the US/NATO/EU don’t have what it takes to directly attack Russia, they believe that the junta in Kiev is doomed and they believe that sending the Russian tanks to Kiev (or even Novorussia) would have been a mistake.

The above is very important because if you consider all these factors you can come to an absolutely unavoidable conclusion: western sanctions have exactly zero chance of achieving any change at all in Russian foreign policy and exactly zero chance of weakening the current regime.

In fact, if anything, these sanctions strengthen the Eurasian Sovereignists by allowing them to blame all the pain of economic reforms on the sanctions and they weaken the Atlantic Integrationists by making any overt support for, or association with, the West a huge political liability.

But the Eurocretins in Brussels don’t care I suppose, as long as they feel relevant or important, even if it is only in their heads.

======
Martin Zeis
globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
martin.zeis@gmxpro.net

Valentina POP et al.: Merkel: Ukraine can go to Eurasian Union; euobserver, 25.08.2014

http://euobserver.com/foreign/125331
euobserver-News,  25.08.2014
Merkel: Ukraine can go to Eurasian Union
BY VALENTINA POP AND ANDREW RETTMAN
BRUSSELS – Germany’s Angela Merkel has said Ukraine is free to “go to” Russia’s “Eurasian Union”, amid signs of a new willingness to make peace with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Speaking to German public broadcaster ARD on Sunday (24 August), the German chancellor said her visit to Kiev on Saturday was designed to prepare for peace talks between Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko and Putin in Minsk on Tuesday, but warned the public not to expect a „breakthrough”.
She mentioned Ukrainian “decentralisation”, a deal on gas prices, and Ukraine’s “trade relations” with Russia as elements that could bring about an accord.
„And if Ukraine says we are going to the Eurasian Union now, the European Union would never make a big conflict out of it, but would insist on a voluntary decision,“ Merkel added.
„I want to find a way, as many others do, which does not damage Russia. We [Ger-many] want to have good trade relations with Russia as well. We want reasonable relations with Russia. We are depending on one another and there are so many other conflicts in the world where we should work together, so I hope we can make progress”.
(…)
Full text attached  (pdf-file) and available via:  http://euobserver.com/foreign/125331

Merkel-Ukraine_can_go_to_Eurasian_Union140825.pdf

​From Minsk to Wales, Germany is the key – Pepe Escobar RT 28.08.2014

​From Minsk to Wales, Germany is the key

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia.

August 28, 2014 09:27
Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko (L), Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (top centre R) and Belarus‘ President Alexander Lukashenko (3rd R from Putin) meet with high-ranking officials and presidents from Kazakhstan and the European Union in Minsk, August 26, 2014.(Reuters / Alexei Druzhinin)
9201888
Tags
Belarus, EU, Economy, Gas, Germany, Politics, Russia, USA, Ukraine
The road to the Minsk summit this past Tuesday began to be paved when German Chancellor Angela Merkel talked to ARD public TV after her brief visit to Kiev on Saturday.

Merkel emphasized, “A solution must be found to the Ukraine crisis that does not hurt Russia.”

She added that „There must be dialogue. There can only be a political solution. There won’t be a military solution to this conflict.”

Merkel talked about “decentralization” of Ukraine, a definitive deal on gas prices, Ukraine-Russia trade, and even hinted Ukraine is free to join the Russia-promoted Eurasian Union (the EU would never make a “huge conflict” out of it). Exit sanctions; enter sound proposals.

She could not have been more explicit; “We [Germany] want to have good trade relations with Russia as well. We want reasonable relations with Russia. We are depending on one another and there are so many other conflicts in the world where we should work together, so I hope we can make progress”.

The short translation for all this is there won’t be a Nulandistan (after neo-con Victoria ‘F**k the EU’ Nuland), remote-controlled by Washington, and fully financed by the EU. In the real world, what Germany says, the EU follows.

Geopolitically, this also means a huge setback for Washington’s obsessive containment and encirclement of Russia, proceeding in parallel to the ‘pivot to Asia’ (containment and encirclement of China).

It’s the economy, stupid
Ukraine’s economy – now under disaster capitalism intervention – is… well, a disaster. It’s way beyond recession, now in deep depression. Any forthcoming IMF funds serve to pay outstanding bills and feed the (losing) creaking military machine; Kiev is fighting no less than Ukraine’s industrial heartland. Not to mention that the conditions attached to the IMF’s ‘structural adjustment’ are bleeding Ukrainians dry.

Taxes – and budget cuts – are up. The currency, the hryvnya, has plunged 40 percent since early 2014. The banking system is a joke. The notion that the EU will pay Ukraine’s humongous bills is a myth. Germany (which runs the EU) wants a deal. Fast.

The reason is very simple. Germany is growing only 1.5 percent in 2014. Why? Because the Washington-propelled sanction hysteria is hurting German business. Merkel finally got the message. Or at least seems to have.

The first stage towards a lasting deal is energy. This Friday, there’s a key meeting between Russian and EU energy officials in Moscow. And then, later next week, it will be Russian, EU and Ukrainian officials. The EU’s energy commissioner, Gunther Oettinger, who was in Minsk, wants an interim deal to make sure Russian gas flows through Ukraine to Europe in winter. General Winter, once again, wins any war.

(L-R) Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, Belarus‘ President Alexander Lukashenko, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, European Commissioner for Energy Guenther Oettinger, European Commissioner for Trade Karel De Gucht pose on the sideline of a summit in Belarus‘ capital of Minsk on August 26, 2014. (AFP Photo / Kirill Kudryavtsev)

Here, essentially, we have the EU – not Russia – telling Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to stuff his (losing) ‘strategy’ of slow-motion ethnic cleansing of eastern Ukraine.

Moscow has always insisted the Ukraine crisis is a political problem that needs a political solution. Moscow would accept a decentralization solution considering the interests – and language rights – of people in Donetsk, Lugansk, Odessa, Kharkov. Moscow does not encourage secession.

Poroshenko, on the other hand, is your typical Ukrainian oligarch in a dance of oligarchs. Now that he’s on top, he does not want to become road kill. He might, if he relies on ‘support’ by the neo-Nazis of Right Sector and Svoboda, because then there will never be a political solution.

The Empire of Chaos, needless to say, does not want a political solution – with a neutral Ukraine economically tied to both the EU and Russia; economic/trade integration across Eurasia is anathema.

It’s all about NATO
In parallel, every EU diplomat with a conscience – well, they do exist – knows that the non-stop hysteria about the Russian‘threat’ to Eastern Europe is a Washington-peddled myth designed to boost NATO. Secretary-General Anders ‘Fogh of War’ Rasmussen sounds like a scratched CD.

It’s hardly a secret in Brussels that larger EU powers simply don’t want permanent NATO bases in Eastern Europe. France, Italy and Spain are forcefully against it. Germany is still sitting on the wall, carefully weighing how not to antagonize both Russia and the US. Needless to say, the Anglo-American “special relationship” badly wants the bases, supported by the hysteria unleashed by Poland and the Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

So Fogh of War is on a predictable roll, talking “rapid reinforcements”, “reception facilities”, “pre-positioning of supplies, of equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, and headquarters” and “a more visible NATO presence.” This graphically proves, once again, that the Empire of Chaos couldn’t give a damn about Ukraine; it’s all about NATO expansion – the key talking point next week at the Wales summit.

The no-holds-barred neoliberal asset-stripping, wild privatization and outright looting of Ukraine, disguised as loans and ‘aid’, is now unstoppable. Yet gobbling up Ukraine’s agriculture and energy potential is not enough for the Empire of Chaos. It wants Crimea back (that future NATO base in Sevastopol…). It wants missile defense deployed in Poland and the Baltics. It would even love regime change in Russia.

And then there’s MH17. If sooner rather than later is proved the Empire of Chaos fooled Europe into counterproductive sanctions based on the flimsiest ‘evidence’, German public opinion will force Merkel to act accordingly.

Germany was the secret behind the Minsk summit. Let’s see if Germany will also be the secret behind the Wales summit. In the end it’s up to Germany to prevent Cold War 2.0 getting hotter by the day all across Europe.

Battleground Ukraine: A Comprehensive Summary (From A Russian Perspective) …

A wide ranging analysis of the 2013-2014 situation in Ukraine, its antecedents and consequences from the perspective of a senior Russian academic

A lecture transcript  by Andrei Fursov (Director of Russian Studies, Moscow University. Member of the International Academy of Sciences) dated 2014/04/14

Subjects: Ukraine coup 2014, The Great Game
Source: You Tube (Link)
Disclaimer (item 3)
Transcribed from the spoken Russian and compiled from translated English dubbed text. All headings added by Wikispooks to aid with readability and citation

Wikispooks Comment


This is an impressive, comprehensive analysis of the February 2014 Ukraine coup from the perspective of a senior Russian academic. It details the interests and affiliations of the main Ukrainian domestic players – oligarchical clans many of whose leaders have dual nationality – with some shocking and little known detail. It exposes the glaring hypocrisies and double standards of the western sponsors of the coup and their Russian/Ukrainian ‚5th Column traitors‘. It sees the coup and Russia’s successful incorporation of Crimea as major game-changing events in the on-going, US-lead post-WWII machinations of the West to subdue Russia to its own agenda and outlines how Russia should now respond.

All-in-all a must-read for westerners needing to understand what is really happening in both the Ukraine and the wider Anglo-US-NATO globalisation drive which it brings into sharp focus (…)

Zerohedge, 30.04.2014 — www.zerohedge.com/print/487925

Ukraine – Analyse von Alexander Rahr – Zs Internationale Politik 2010!

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:

Von: „E.Schenk“ <e.schenk>
Datum: 22. März 2014 15:34:06 MEZ
An: globalcrisis%martin.zeis
Betreff: Ukraine – Analyse von Alexander Rahr – Zs Internationale Politik 2010!

Hallo zusammen,

zum Verständnis der innerukrainischen Konfliktlage und der Mittelstellung des
Landes zwischen EU-NATO und Russland möchte ich eine faktenreiche Analyse von
Alexander Rahr aus dem Sommer 2010 empfehlen, der in seiner beruflichen
Laufbahn sowohl westlichen wie östlichen Organisationen verpflichtet war und
ist (s. u.)

Die Analyse erlaubt einen differenzierten Blick auf die politischen Akteure in
der Ukraine (Janukowitsch, Juschtschenko, Timoschenko) und Russland und ist
geeignet die derzeitige gefährliche Schwarz-weiß-Malerei in Deutschland zu
hinterfragen.

Es folgen zunächst Auszüge aus dem Beitrag,
der vollständige Text ist noch abrufbar unter:
https://zeitschrift-ip.dgap.org/de/ip-die-
zeitschrift/archiv/jahrgang-2010/mai-juni/schweiz-des-ostens

und im Anhang als pdf-Datei verfügbar.

Viele Grüße

Elke Schenk

Schweiz des Ostens
Blockfreiheit als Überlebensstrategie?

01.05.2010 | von Alexander Rahr
Internationale Politik 3, Mai/Juni 2010, S. 84 – 89

Die Wahl Viktor Janukowitschs zum Präsidenten der Ukraine war eine Zäsur. Eine
NATO-Mitgliedschaft ist damit vom Tisch. Wobei Janukowitsch auch keine
ergebene Anbindung an Russland sucht – er sieht sein Land als Brücke zwischen
Europa und Asien und möchte gleichermaßen Sicherheitsgarantien vom Westen wie
von Russland erhalten.

Bedeutet Janukowitschs Aufstieg das Ende der ukrainischen Westintegration und
den Beginn einer Rückkehr nach Russland? Mitnichten, denn trotz ihrer
Russophilie wollen die mächtigen ostukrainischen Wirtschaftseliten ihre
nationale Unabhängigkeit bewahren. … Dennoch will Janukowitsch für eine
Entspannung des von seinen Vorgängern Juschtschenko und Timoschenko mit
zahlreichen Konflikten überladenen Verhältnisses zu Moskau sorgen.
Die Ukraine gehört zu denjenigen europäischen Ländern, die von der Finanzkrise
am schwersten getroffen wurden; die Industrieproduktion und der Export brachen
um 40 Prozent ein, die Inflation stieg auf 20 Prozent. Die Regierung
Juschtschenko hatte es sträflich versäumt, die notwendigen Reformen für mehr
Marktwirtschaft und Rechtssicherheit durchzuführen. Das Land ist mit 35
Milliarden Dollar bei westlichen und russischen Gläubigern so hoch
verschuldet, dass es das teure russische Gas ohne westliche Kredite nicht
bezahlen kann. …
Eigene Geldmittel stehen der rohstoffarmen Ukraine kaum zur Verfügung.
Janukowitsch muss auf Unterstützung von außen hoffen – auf Russland und die
EU. Er wird, so steht zu erwarten, eine Schaukelpolitik zwischen den beiden
großen Nachbarn in Ost und West betreiben, die seit dem Zerfall der
Sowjetunion typisch für die Ukraine geworden ist. Auf reine Wohltaten seiner
„strategischen Partner“ wie in früheren Jahren kann er nicht hoffen. Die EU
und Russland werden der Ukraine jeweils Bedingungen für weitere Kredite
diktieren.
Opferrolle vorwärts
Janukowitschs Vorgänger Juschtschenko hatte die Strategie verfolgt, darauf zu
hoffen, dass er sein Land durch das Schüren von Konflikten mit Russland in
einer Art „Opferrolle“ verankern könnte. Indem er die Ukraine in die
„Frontlinie“ der „Verteidigung des freien Westens“ gegen ein „neoimperiales
Russland“ einreihte, glaubte er, einen raschen Beitritt zu NATO und EU
erreichen zu können. … Darüber hinaus setzte sich Juschtschenko dafür ein,
die Verwendung der russischen Sprache in der Ukraine so weit wie möglich
einzuschränken, und errichtete Denkmäler für ukrainische Nationalisten, die im
Zweiten Weltkrieg an der Seite Hitlers gegen Stalin gekämpft hatten.
Schließlich erklärte er die von Stalin künstlich erzeugte Hungersnot gegen die
Bauern im Süden der Sowjetunion zu einem Genozid am ukrainischen Volk, und in
den beiden Gaskonflikten mit Russland 2006 und 2009 nutzte die Ukraine ihr
Transitmonopol für russische Energielieferungen, um Moskau zu erpressen.

Janukowitsch hat vorgeschlagen, das Gasversorgungsnetz der Ukraine, das aus
37 000 Kilometern größeren und kleineren Pipelines besteht, in ein
trilaterales Gaskonsortium zusammenzuführen; eine Idee, die noch aus der Zeit
vor der orangenen Revolution stammt. Neben ukrainischen Firmen sollen
russische und europäische Konzerne daran jeweils zu 30 Prozent beteiligt
werden. …
Doch Juschtschenko betrachtete das nationale Pipelinenetz als Symbol der
ukrainischen Souveränität, das niemals an Russland fallen dürfe. Und erst,
nachdem die finanziellen Schwierigkeiten der Ukraine so gravierend wurden,
dass an eine ökonomische Alleinbetreibung des Transitsystems durch Kiew nicht
mehr zu denken war, bot Juschtschenko der EU-Kommission ein bilaterales
Konsortium an – ohne Beteiligung von Gasprom.
Da Russland dies als Versuch empfand, das Transitmonopol für politische Zwecke
zu instrumentalisieren, begann Moskau zielstrebig mit der Verlegung von
Gaspipelines in Umgehung der Ukraine und anderer Transitstaaten in
Mittelosteuropa. Zwei von ihnen, North Stream durch die Ostsee und South
Stream durch das Schwarze Meer, stehen heute kurz vor der Realisierung.

Und so hat Janukowitsch für sein Land den Status der Blockfreiheit ausgerufen.
Die Ukraine soll weder der NATO noch dem kollektiven Sicherheitspakt der GUS
beitreten.

Putin wäre bereit, mit der Ukraine über alle möglichen Subventionen im
Energiebereich zu diskutieren – wenn Kiew der Zollunion beitreten würde.
Letzteres freilich würde gegen die Prinzipien von Kiews Mitgliedschaft in der
WTO verstoßen. (warum das??? ES)
Janukowitsch kann auf eine solide Mehrheit im Parlament bauen. Auch aus den
Reihen der orangenen Revolutionäre sind mittlerweile einige Politiker zu ihm
übergelaufen. Die von ihm eingesetzte Regierung besteht allerdings
ausschließlich aus Vertretern der Ostukraine. Die Elite der nationalistischen
Westukraine, die das Land 20 Jahre lang regiert hat, ist in die Opposition
gedrängt worden. Janukowitschs Entscheidung, sein Kabinett ausschließlich mit
Vertretern der ostukrainischen „Partei der Regionen“ zu besetzen, dürfte sich
letztlich als falsch erweisen. … So aber provoziert Janukowitsch die
Auflehnung der gesamten Westukraine gegen seine Politik.

Keine andere ehemalige Sowjetrepublik wurde, mit Ausnahme der baltischen
Staaten, vom Westen in ihrer Souveränität so gestärkt wie die Ukraine …
Die Gründe dafür hat der frühere amerikanische Präsidentenberater Zbigniew
Brzezinski einmal folgendermaßen auf den Punkt gebracht: „Solange es in Europa
eine unabhängige Ukraine gibt, wird kein neues russisches Imperium mehr
entstehen.“

https://zeitschrift-ip.dgap.org/de/ip-die-
zeitschrift/archiv/jahrgang-2010/mai-juni/schweiz-des-ostens

ALEXANDER RAHR ist Programmdirektor Russland/Eurasien bei der Deutschen
Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik in Berlin.
Weitere Informationen zur Vita laut Wikipedia:
Rahr war Mitarbeiter des Forschungsprojekts „Sowjetelite“ des Bundesinstituts
für ostwissenschaftliche und internationale Studien (BIOst). Er war Analytiker
in den Think Tanks von Radio Liberty und Rand Corporation. Achtzehn Jahre
arbeitete er für die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik (DGAP) und
war zuletzt Leiter des Berthold Beitz-Zentrums – Kompetenzzentrum für
Russland, Ukraine, Belarus und Zentralasien. Rahr sitzt im Lenkungsausschuss
des Petersburger Dialogs. Er ist Forschungsdirektor des Deutsch-Russischen
Forums. Seit Juni 2012 ist er Senior Advisor der Wintershall Holding GmbH und
berät den Präsidenten der Deutsch-Russischen Auslandshandelskammer AHK.
Rahr war an der Seite Hans-Dietrich Genschers wesentlich an der Erwirkung
einer Amnestie des ehemaligen Oligarchen und Kremlkritikers Michail
Chodorkowski beteiligt.

Ukraine-Analyse-Rahr-IP-2010_05.pdf

The legal right of self-determination

www.globalresearch.ca/crimea-vs-quebec-the-legal-right-to-a-referendum-on-self-determination/5373029

Crimea vs. Quebec: The Legal Right to a Refendum on Self-Determination

By Professor John Ryan Global Research, March 11, 2014 There has been a great hue and cry by the USA, Ukraine and other countries about the supposed illegality of the proposed referendum by Crimea on its future political status. They indignantly proclaim that this is a violation of international law. Amazingly, have Obama and the leaders of these other countries never heard of the situation in Canada with regard to Quebec? Quebec, as a province of Canada, has held two referenda (1980 and 1995) on the matter of independence from Canada . . . and a third referendum may be in the works in the near future. Quebec never had to get permission from Canada’s federal government to hold a referendum, and no one ever questioned the legality of Quebec’s referendum. Crimea is an autonomous region within Ukraine and seems to have the same rights as a Canadian province. So if it is perfectly legal for a province such as Quebec to hold a referendum on independence, why would it not be legal for Crimea to do the same? At no time did the USA object to Quebec holding a referendum on independence, so why the big brouhaha over Crimea? Moreover, what business would it be for the USA to have such objections – for Quebec or Crimea? The UN charter gives people the right to self-determination and by virtue of that right they are free to determine their political status. Quebec in Canada has exercised that right, and there should be no reason why Crimea could not do the same. John Ryan, Ph.D., Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg, Canada