Archive for the ‘United Kingdom’ Category

Ukraine attacks Russian armored column which entered Donbass Thursday night; August 8 (2014) Security Council meeting on Ukraine — Trancript (U.N. Doc. S/PV.7239) and links to webcast

Friday, August 15th, 2014

Ukrainian military forces have engaged the Russian armored column which entered the Ukraine near Luhansk Thursday evening, and according to Kiev destroyed at least part of it.

See Michael Birnbaum, “Ukraine forces destroy most of a column of Russian military vehicles, president says, Wasington Post, August 15, 2014 (2:02 p.m.).

Overt Russian military intervention, as occurred Thursday night when a column of Armored Personnel Carriers and related equipment crossed over the border into the Ukraine near “separatist” controlled areas including Luhansk, represents an overt act of war.

The incursion constitutes a flagrant violation of Article 2 paragraph 4 of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

Russian military intervention in the Ukraine was discussed at the U.N. Security Council meeting on August 8, 2014. The statements of the representatives (see links to Transcript and Webcast, below) are quite revealing in terms of what is going on in the Donbass, and the illegality of Russian military intervention under the U.N. Charter and international law.

See the minutes of the U.N. Security Council meeting on the Ukraine, August 8, 2014, here.

Links to the Webcast of the meeting, in both English and the original language of the speaker, as well as the Press Release on the meeting, are found here.

The Security Council should reconvene in emergency session immediately.

Delegates should set forth clear evidence regarding Russian military intervention in the eastern Ukraine, both by irregular and by regular forces, and table a resolution condemning the Russian invasion.

While Russia will surely veto the resolution, a vote on it will force other members to take a position. China should be lobbied very hard by EU, NATO and other civilized countries to at least abstain on the vote.

Defending Russian aggression in the Ukraine is not in the long-term interests of China, a rising global power with important responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Just because Russia has trashed its “brand” through its overt policies of aggression is no reason for China, which has an increasingly attractive “brand” throughout the world, to do likewise.

In the meantime, Western countries should actively press countries which abstained on the last General Assembly resolution on the Ukraine, including the other BRICS countries besides China, to vote in favor of a new General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s military intervention in the country.

Once this lobbying has lined up the votes in the General Assembly, the Security Council resolution can be put to a vote. Following the Russian veto of that resolution, a similar resolution should be taken up for consideration and put to a vote in the General Assembly.

In the meantime, the U.S. and the EU should adopt further “stage 3″ sanctions (including a ban on all existing defense contracts), and begin supplying serious military training, arms and equipment to the Ukraine.

The “containment” of Russia’s xenophobic nationalism and aggression must begin now, in earnest.

All declarations and promises from Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials should simply be ignored, unless promises can be specifically monitored and verified as they are implemented, in real time.

Russian war propaganda should likewise be ignored, except that investigations into whether such “propaganda for war” constitutes an international crime should be opened and vigorously pursued.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Russian military vehicles violate territorial integrity of Ukraine, crossing into Donbass near Luhansk; Whether invasion follows may depend on immediate response of the West

Thursday, August 14th, 2014

Developing

A column of Russian miltary vehicles including Armored Personnel Carriers (APC’s) have crossed the border into the Donbass area of the Ukraine near Luhansk.

This action constitutes an open and flagrant violation of Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter. Members of the U.N. Security Council should convoke an immediate emergency meeting of the Council to lay out evidence of the border violation, and table a resolution condemning this act of war.

In the past, Vladimir Putin has probed for weaknesses and pulled back when he encountered strong opposition. Whether a full invasion follows the current incursion may depend on the force with which the West reacts and the strength of the actions they immediately take.

See

(1) By Roland Oliphant, Kamensk-Shakhtinsky and Tom Parfitt (in Kharkiv), “Russian armoured vehicles and military trucks cross border into Ukraine
Exclusive: Telegraph witnesses Russian armoured vehicles and military trucks cross the border from Russia into Ukraine, ” The Telegraph, August 14, 2014 (8:15 PM BST).

“A column of armoured vehicles and military trucks crossed the border from Russia into Ukraine on Thursday night, in the first confirmed sighting of such an incident by Western journalists.”

(2) Shaun Walker (on the Russia-Ukraine border), “Russian military vehicles enter Ukraine as aid convoy stops short of border; Column of 23 armoured personnel carriers and support vehicles approach the border, while 280 trucks come to halt separately,” The Guardian, August 14, 2014 (15.38 EDT).

The Guardian saw a column of 23 armoured personnel carriers, supported by fuel trucks and other logistics vehicles with official Russian military plates, travelling towards the border near the Russian town of Donetsk – about 200km away from Donetsk, Ukraine.

After pausing by the side of the road until nightfall, the convoy crossed into Ukrainian territory, using a rough dirt track and clearly crossing through a gap in a barbed wire fence that demarcates the border. Armed men were visible in the gloom by the border fence as the column moved into Ukraine. Kiev has lost control of its side of the border in this area.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Could the Russian truck convoy be a feint? Watch carefully the rest of the border, and what is coming with the convoy. After Putin, when the Maidan comes to Red Square.

Thursday, August 14th, 2014

Developing

What will remain of Putin’s current glory, built on the invasion and “annexation” of part of a key European country and rejection of the bedrock principles of the U.N. Charter, when the Maidan comes to Red Square?

Social media report a New York Times reporter has been allowed to look inside trucks in the convoy of his own selection, and that he found only goods for humanitarian assistance.

What was striking about the pictures that have emerged is that the trucks are not fully loaded. Not more than 20-25% of the space within the truck was filled.

If this truck was representative, that means one of two things:

(1) either far fewer trucks were necessary to transport the “humanitarian assistance” in the convoy;

(2) or additional cargo may yet be added to the trucks before they reach the separatists.

Moreover, given Putin’s cunning tactical brilliance as a KGB man, the Ukraine and the West should be looking very closely at what is passing into the Ukraine at other points along the border.

Also, at least one photograph on social media shows a tank being transported by a military vehicle alongside the “humanitarian aid” truck convoy. So special care should be taken to monitor what else enters the Ukraine, alongside or behind the “humanitarian aid” convoy.

The West Should Act Now

The U.S., the EU, and NATO should not hesitate one minute longer to take very strong additional measures against Russia and Vladimir Putin, the Russian clown with nuclear missiles. These measures should include harsh sanctions with immediate effect, and significant military aid to the Ukraine beginning at once.

Trashing the Russian “Brand

Putin and the Russians who have given him their support have trashed the “Russian brand” in the short space of six months. As long as Russia occupies the Crimea, Russia will become increasingly isolated from the West and the other civilized nations of the world.

Only the departure of Putin will open the road toward a rapprochement with the West, and the development of arms control, confidence-building, military and economic ties with the Western democracies.

The latter, in the coming years, should and probably will work much more energetically and successfully to secure backing for sanctions against Russia, for its aggression against the Ukraine and continuing occupation of the Crimea, by the other nations of the world, including the BRICS countries.

This is the way they can safeguard their access to Russian markets once Putin is gone.

When the Maidan Comes to Red Square

Albert Camus wrote in his famous “Letter to a German Friend” the following:

“And you who were already conquered in your greatest victories, what will you be in the approaching defeat?” – Albert Camus, First Letter to a German Friend(1943)

What will remain of Putin’s current glory, built on the invasion and “annexation” of part of a key European country and rejection of the bedrock principles of the U.N. Charter, when the Maidan comes to Red Square?

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

Commentary: Putin and Russia, the Ukraine, and Appeasement by the West

Thursday, August 14th, 2014

Boris Wischnewskij recalls, in an Op-Ed in the Süddeutscher Zeitung on August 14, Winston Churchill’s terse note to Neville Chamberlain upon the latter’s return from Munich, where he had agreed to Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. Wrote Churchill:

“You had the choice between war and disgrace. You have chosen disgrace and will get war.” (Translation from the German)

See Boris Wischnewskij (Gastbeitrag), “Putin unter Druck: Unterschätzte Macht des knurrenden Magens,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14. August 2014 (07:21 Uhr).

“Die Beliebtheit des russischen Präsidenten stützt sich auf TV-Propaganda. Doch sobald die gar nicht so wohlhabende Mehrheit begreift, dass man vom Mitfiebern nicht satt wird, dass man den Kühlschrank nicht an den Fernseher anschließen kann – dann wird Putin in den Umfragen abstürzen.”

Wischnewskij concludes his article, which analyzes how Putin’s popularity could fall as the economic effects of his aggression are felt, with a comment on the West’s attempted appeasement of Putin, following Russia’s invasion and annexation of the Crimea. He writes:

Als Russland nun dabei war, sich die Krim zurückzuholen, reagierte der Westen schlapp, man versuchte, Putin zu beschwichtigen. In diesem Frühling fühlten sich manche russische Oppositionelle an 1938 erinnert, an den sogenannten Anschluss von Sudetenland und Österreich, an das Münchner Abkommen.

Churchill schrieb 1938 an Chamberlain nach dessen Rückkehr aus München: “Sie hatten die Wahl zwischen Krieg und Schande. Sie haben sich für die Schande entschieden und werden den Krieg bekommen.”

An diesen Satz muss ich in diesen Tagen öfter denken.

As we follow the progress of the 280 trucks dispatched from an army base near Moscow to deliver “humanitarian assistance” to Luhansk, Donetsk and the Donbass, we need to bear in mind that since the invasion of the Crimea we have witnessed from Putin and the Russians an unbroken chain of lies, broken promises, and war propaganda bearing little relation to the truth. At the same time, the irregular forces Putin dispatched to the eastern Ukraine are responsible for a lawless reign of terror in areas under their control.

We have absolutely no reason to believe anything Putin or the Russians say or promise. Any undertakings with them must be made subject to strict outside monitoring and verification.

The Trenchant Observer

Russian truck convoy nears Ukraine, amid confusion; Igor Girkin (aka Igor Strelkov) reported as seriously wounded; Putin’s triumphant return to the Crimea — with link to maps of conflict zone

Wednesday, August 13th, 2014

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.

–Winston Chuchill, “Sinews of Peace” speech, Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946.

Latest News and Opinion

See

(1) Neil MacFarquhar, “Confusion and Alarm as Russian Aid Convoy Heads to Ukraine,” New York Times, August 13, 2014.

Regarding Igor Girkin (alias: Igor Strelkov), MarFarquhar reports the following:

The dispute over the convoy comes as Kiev is bearing down militarily on the separatist rebels — one of whose leaders, Igor Strelkov, was badly wounded on Wednesday, Russian news media reported — forcing many of them to retreat into the region’s two major cities, Donetsk and Luhansk, which they control.

The timing of this report on Girkn by Russian media is a bit suspicious, coming only days after the resignation of the President of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Alexander Borodai, on August 7, 2014.

(2) Masha Gessen (op-ed), “Food import ban means Russia is fully at war with the West, Wasington Post, August 12, 2014.

(Masha Gessen is a Russian American journalist and the author of “The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin.”)

Background

See also the following articles by The Trenchant Observer:

(1) “What if Russian truck convoy enters into Ukraine without Kiev’s authorization?” August 12, 2014.

(2) “Putin’s Trojan Horse: Military aggressor sends military-style aid convoy to Ukraine as its irregular forces are encircled,” August 12, 2014.

(3) “NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Russian military intervention in Ukraine ‘a high probability’”, August 11, 2014.

Putin’s Triumphant Return to the Crimea

Like a triumphant Roman emperor returning to Rome, Vladimir Putin returned to the Crimea today for a great Russian celebration of the Russian invasion and (purported) annexation of the Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

He was accompanied by the entire government leadership and 200 members of the Duma (parliament) including the leaders of all political parties.

See Moritz Gathmann (Moskau), “Besuch in Sewastopol: Putins patriotische Krim-Festspiele,” Der Spiegel, 13. August 2014 (17:48 Uhr).

The event, which continues through August 14 when Putin is scheduled to make a major speech at Yalta, signals the assumption of near absolute power by the new Russian “Leader”.

The cult of Putin, and the extraordinary degree to which he has successfully used aggression and xenophobic nationalism to consolidate his power, is becoming reminiscent of the role of Adolf Hitler in the Third Reich, summarized in the endlessly repeated slogan,

“Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer!”

See, e.g.,

(1) “The virus of nationalism and military aggression: Adolf Hitler in Vienna, March, 1938; Vladimir Putin in Sevastopol,” The Trenchant Observer, June 30, 2014.

The Leader of a nation with large numbers of nuclear weapons, who with his nation and its leadership has rejected the West, and the bedrock principles of the U.N. Charter and international law, has become an extremely dangerous threat to the national security of every member of NATO, the EU, and the civilized nations of the world.

Appeasement has failed.

Now we must face the lawless nation and its Leader that the pacifism and appeasement of the West, in the face of Russian aggression in the Crimea and the Ukraine, has encouraged and enabled to gain force.

The Trenchant Observer

The Ukraine: Continuing Russian aggression, and the actions the circumstances require

Friday, July 25th, 2014

How the West and other civilized nations should respond–at this point–to Russian aggression in the Ukraine

Advice for foreign policy decision-makers in Europe and the United States:

1. Speak first of real “sanctions”, not “targeted sanctions”.

Jettison the illusions that the latter will change Russia’s course of action. Call the latter “targeted individual measures”, not “sanctions”– which is a highly misleading term when used to refer to “pinprick” measures in this context.

2. Immediately provide the Ukraine with military assistance.

Provide Ukraine with modern military equipment with which the armed forces can defend themselves and their country. Supply modern aircraft with advanced air-defense systems, at least one for every plane shot down by Russia or Russian-supplied missiles.

Provide other substantial military assistance, including sophisticated modern weapons.

3. Prepare contingency plans to respond to any nuclear threats by Putin.o

Prepare military contingency plans to be used in case Putin resorts to threats of using nuclear weapons. He and Mededev have made such veiled threats in the past. Putin has undertaken a course which could put his regime at risk.

See Maksym Bugriy (The Jamstown Foundation) “Nuclear Deterrence in the Context of the Ukrainian-Russian Conflict,” Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 11 Issue: 135, July 24, 2014 (06:48 PM).

Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine has led to a hot war where four nuclear powers support opposite sides (Russia and the U.S., as well as NATO members Great Britain and France).

Prepare for all contingencies.

4. Immediately halt delivery of all military equipment and technology to Russia.

Immediately halt all deliveries of military equipment and training of Russian forces (e.g., on how to operate Mistral-class warships, currently underway in France).

Avoid the political temptation to block only future contracts and deliveries. This is a matter of national security for all of the countries of NATO and the EU, as well as other civilized countries.

This is not an issue of honoring contracts, but rather of implementing the peremptory government decisions necessary for national defense.

The U. N. Charter authorizes measures of collective self-defense under Article 51, in response to armed attacks in violation of the prohibition of the threat or use of force contained in Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter.

These norms are universally recognized as jus cogens, i.e., peremptory norms from which there can be no exception by way of agreement. They override all other treaty norms, and any penalty clauses in the French contracts for the delivery of two Mistral-class warships to Russia, for example. Consequently, an international court or arbitral panel would be unlikely to uphold the penalty provisions in these contracts.

5. Move large numbers of NATO troops to Eastern European states that border Russia.

Lead NATO in reaching firm decisions to move NATO forces to forward bases in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, and Romania. Begin initial deployments immediately.

6. Select a strong EU foreign minister who can lead responses to Russian aggression.

Eschew normal political bargaining and elect Radoslaw Sikorski, or someone with his qualities (extensive experience as foreign minister, strong record on standing up to Russia and of successful negotiations) to be the new EU foreign relations chief. The Italian candidate, Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini, is hopelessly compromised because of her dealings with Russia after the invasion of the Crimea, in addition to her lack of experience, and should not receive further consideration.

Avoid selection of a compromise candidate who represents the lowest common denominator in Europe.

Sikorski was taped in a private conversation allegedly speaking disparagingly of American relations with Poland. U.S. Assistant Secretary od State State Victoria Nuland in a much more significant official though private communication, said, “F… the EU!” Call it even, and elect Sikorsky. He has demonstrated great abilities as foreign minister of Poland, and is uniquely qualified to lead the EU in meeting the challenge of Russian aggression in the Ukraine.

7. Stop threatening and start implementing sectoral sanctions.

Stop threatening serious sanctions in illusory attempts to influence Putin’s and Russia’s actions, and start implementing sectoral, stage-three sanctions immediately.

The threats have not worked, and they are extremely unlikely to work in the future. Empty threats only confirm Putin’s belief that he can “outfox” the West, and that he can continue to act with virtual impunity.

The “rational actor fallacy” should be avoided. The authoritarian state of Russia, caught up in the extreme emotions of xenophobic nationalism and unchecked military aggression, is not likely to act as a single rational mind calculating both long-term and short-term benefits. What drives Putin and his coterie is greed and the unquenchable thirst to remain in power.

Instead of talking about imposing “additional costs” on Russia, a formulation which implicitly rests on “the rational actor fallacy”, the West should be speaking of halting Russian aggression and reversing its effects.

The focus should not be on attempting to change Putin’s behavior through threats of future sanctions, but rather on changing NATO and EU minds so that forceful actions can be taken now to stop Putin and Russia.

8. Publish detailed white papers.

Publish detailed white papers detailing Russian acts of aggression in the Crimea and in the eastern Ukraine.

9. Publish detailed legal memoranda.

Publish detailed legal memoranda setting forth Russian violations of international law, including in particular Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, and justifying measures taken in response under Article 51 of the Charter and other provisions of international law.

10. Lobby governments not to abstain on votes in the General Assembly.

Actively lobby all governments, including in particular the BRICS and other countries which abstained on General Assembly Resolution A/RES/262 approved on March 27, 2014. Make it clear to these countries that their votes in the General Assembly affect the vital national security interests of Europe, NATO, and the United States, and that they will weigh heavily in considering bilateral issues and concessions. In short, make it clear to them that they will pay a significant price in the future if they vote against or abstain on resolutions such as G.A. Resolution 262 (March 27, 2014).

11. Stop “telephone diplomacy” and meeting publicly with Russian officials.

Stop the constant telephone calls to Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and other Russian officials, and stop public meetings with them. These actions have led to an excessive informality, and the cutting out or by-passing of other officials and experts in government decision processes. These two consequences have undermined the interests of the Western countries. Such informal conversations and meetings allow Putin to finely gage the resolve of leaders from different countries, and to use this information to divide them, particularly whenever the threat of the imposition of really serious sectoral sanctions becomes real.btrg

In a word, get serious and take forceful action in response to the Russian aggression in the Ukraine. Take actions that are commensurate with the gravity of Russian violations of international law that have been committed and and are still underway.

These violations constitute grave threats to peace and the national security interests of each nation concerned.

The Trenchant Observer

Obama hides behind European appeasers on sanctions; France blocks defense sector measures

Monday, July 21st, 2014

Developing

For recent news and commentary, see:

(1) Jennifer Rubin, “Truth telling at the U.N., obfuscation at the White House,” Washington Post, July 20, 2014.

(2) Carsten Luther, “MH17-ABSCHUSS: Keine Sanktion ist zu hart, Die Zeit, 22. juli 2014 (19:29 Uhr).

Der Abschuss von MH17 über der Ostukraine ist noch nicht endgültig aufgeklärt. Trotzdem darf der Westen nicht wieder den Fehler machen, zu lange auf Russland zu warten.

The Presidency of France is not what it used to be. Former President Nicholas Sarkozy is under criminal investigation for interference in judicial proceedings against him, notably for calling a high judge for details of how a corruption case against him was going.

Francois Hollande, the current president, has become an appeaser of Vladimir Putin, breaking the latter’s isolation from the West by extending invitations to Putin to attend the 70th anniversary celebrations of D-Day at Normandy, and dinner at the Elysee Palace, while simultaneously announcing his government’s decision to proceed with delivery of two Mistral-class helicopter transports and amphibious attack vessels to Russia, with the first delivery due this fall.

Now he is blocking the adoption of EU sanctions banning the export to Russia of military arms and equipment. The deal for the two warships is valued at $1.8 billion dollars.

In the last few days, Hollande has apparetly indicated that he would be willing to suspend the delivery of the second warship, but not the first.

That puts the price of France’s integrity and good name at somewhere under $1 billion.

That is what the United States and the rest of Europe get, today, in return for the Allied liberation of France in 1944 and 1945, and the Marshal plan which enabled it and the rest of Europe to emerge from the aftermath of World War II and achieve the prosperity that it knows today.

Cynics say they always knew France had a price, and that it is not unusual for French commercial interests to trump security and political interests, but that they simply didn’t know that the price could be so low.

In the United States, Barack Obama, under pressure from big business groups not to adopt unilateral sanctions against Russia that are not matched by the EU, sits and waits for Europe to take the lead.

Above all, the reigning illusion that pinprick “targeted measures” against a small number of individuals and highly-calibrated “targeted measures” against a few companies and banks will cause Putin and the Kremlin to change course retains its grip on political leaders’ imaginations, in Washington as in Europe.

The evidence that such “pinprick” measures potentially might change the course and foreign policy of a powerful state under the authoritarian control of Vladimir Putin and his coterie is utterly lacking, whereas the failure of this approach with respect to the Crimea and the eastern Ukraine is clear for all to see.

The pacifists in Washington and Europe remain in the delusional grip of beliefs that by empty threats and words they can change Putin’s course. They want to give him “one last chance” to halt his support of the so-called “separatists” in the eastern Ukraine.

They have made many such peremptory threats and “one last chance” requests for Putin to desist from his aggression in the Ukraine. Each time, the former KGB operative has cunningly offered them just the verbal concessions necessary to take the wind out of the sails of any movement to impose serious sectoral sanctions, i.e., sanctions against the Russian state and not just individuals or a few companies.

They also shrink from placing the one most obvious candidate on their sanctions list: Vladimir Putin himself.

Nor are they even thinking of rolling back the Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimea.

Given the transparent nature of their decision-making processes, their pacifism and appeasement manifested in a permanent lack of resolve, and their unwillingness to take even the most obvious measures to protect NATO members bordering Russia–e.g., by moving NATO troops from the safe heartland of Europe to forward bases in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania–the leaders of Europe are like children in the woods with the Big Bad Wolf, Vladimir Putin.

Anyone who expects good results to emerge from this constellation of dispositions and forces will surely be disappointed.

Despite her notable successes on the economic front in Europe, Angela Merkel’s legacy is likely to be defined in terms of her failure to respond to Russian aggression in the Ukraine. Hollande will likely be remembered for responding to challenges requiring great courage and statesmanship with the mentality and actions of a small-town merchant.

Instead of Winston Churchill and Charles De Gaulle, their names in the future will likely evoke memories of Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier, the English and French leaders who in Munich delivered the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia to their fate at the hands of Adolf Hitler and the Wehrmacht of the Third Reich.

As for Barack Obama and his indecisiveness and lack of resolve, what can be said, other than that he is the most incompetent president of the United States in foreign policy at least since 1932, who is laying the groundwork for a triumphant Republican sweep of the 2016 presidential elections by running on a strong national security platform and a repudiation of the Democrats’ withdrawal from world leadership in international affairs?

The Trenchant Observer

Putin’s de facto partners: EU members—-and their further responses to ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine

Wednesday, July 16th, 2014

Developing

See

Andreas Umland (Gastbeitrag), “Der Westen muss die Ukraine retten, Die Zeit, 16. Juli 2014.

“Russlands Vorgehen gegen die Ukraine stellt die internationale Ordnung und das Wertesystem der EU infrage. Der Westen muss endlich angemessen auf den Konflikt reagieren.”

At this juncture, as the EU is poised to impose a few mild additional “sanctions” on Russia for its continuing invasion of the eastern Ukraine, in addition to its invasion and annexation of the Crimes, one must simply ask whether the EU has become, in effect if not intent, a silent enabling partner of Vladimir Putin as he continues Russia’s aggression in the eastern Ukraine.

Putin is succeeding in achieving his objective of destabilizing the Ukraine, and promises to use all of the weapons at his command–from supplying the “separatists” (launched under Russia’s coordination and control), to economic pressures, to war propaganda–to keep the country off balance and to prevent it from consolidating a democratic government which will eventually join the EU, and potentially even NATO if Ukrainians deem that step necessary for their defense and NATO agrees to take them in.

Following the perfidy of François Hollande in breaking Putin’s isolation by inviting him to the 70th anniversary celebrations of the D-Day invasion on June 6, his invitation to Putin to visit Paris for a state dinner at the Elysée Palace, and his simultaneous announcement that France would deliver two Mistral-class warships to Russia beginning in the fall, over strenuous objections by the U.S. and other NATO countries, Angela Merkel of Germany, Barack Obama, and other Western leaders stumbled over each other to meet with Putin, the president of Russia and commander of an ongoing invasion of a European country.

Frequent telephone calls between Merkel, Hollande, Putin and Obama, and meetings on the sidelines of the Normandy celebrations, other international conferences and even the World Cup final in Rio de Janeiro on July 13, further restored Putin’s acceptance and respectability as a man you could do business with–without worrying about his invasion and annexation of the Crimea, and Russia’s ongoing invasion of the eastern Ukraine and use of economic weapons to destabilize that country.

Putin has offered the EU, NATO and the West a fig leaf behind which they can hide their pacifism and appeasement, by not overtly invading the eastern Ukraine with regular Russian troops (at least until now). He also has offered verbal concessions (when necessary to defuse pressure for real sanctions), but without implementing them on the ground.

The “sanctions” that the EU and the U.S. have imposed are not really sanctions in the classical sense, but rather targeted measures of reprisal aimed at a very limited number of individuals and companies. This allows Europe and the U.S. to announce “further sanctions” against Russia when in fact no serious sanctions, in the classical sense of the term, are being imposed.

The net effect of these “targeted sanctions”, and the continuing meetings and telephone calls with Putin, has been to enable Putin and Russia to continue their aggression in a process in which the united will of the West is progressively broken while the road of appeasement leading back to business as usual is increasingly accepted and followed.

No one in the West in a high leadersip position seems to have a strategic understanding of what is going on, and how these developments are undermining the strength and deterrent force of fundamental principles of international law and the U.N. Charter which are essential for the maintenance of international peace and security, including the prohibition of “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of any state (U.N. Charter Article 2 paragraph 4).

The consequences of the failure of the EU, NATO and the U.S. to repel Russian aggression have been thrown into stark relief since July 13, as Brazil, India, Russia, China, and South Africa hold their annual “BRICS” summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, without any one of them speaking out on Russia’s aggression against the Ukraine. Putin also visited Cuba, where agreement was reached to reopen Russia’s listening post at Lourdes (closed in 2001), as well as Nicaragua and Argentina, where he signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. Everywhere he was warmly received.

Looking at all of these developments, one can see that the U.S., NATO, the EU, and their allies have suffered a far-reaching geopolitical and strategic defeat because of their failure to respond effectively to Russian aggression in the Ukraine, in addition to their failure to engage in forceful diplomacy with Brazil, India, China, and South Africa. The latter all abstained in the vote on U.N. General Assembly resolution (A/RES/68/262) adopted on March 27, 2014 condemning the Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimea. Many African countries followed South Africa’s lead.

Looking at this broad picture as a whole, one can see clearly that the EU and the U.S. have in effect acted as silent partners with Putin and Russia in the latter’s aggression against the Ukraine. Succumbing to the temptations of appeasement in the face of Russian aggression and threats of further aggression, they have in fact emboldened Putin. Nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than after the invasion of the Crimea, when they responded with a slap on the wrist, in the form of the mildest of “targeted sanctions” aimed at only a few individuals. Shortly thereafter, undeterred, Russia annexed the Crimea.

By not responding effectively, the West has become the co-dependent enabler of Vladimir Putin and Russia in their ongoing aggression against the Ukraine. In Europe and the United States, appeasement and pacifism have triumphed when they were face-to-face with the mighty Russian Bear.

Indeed, Europe and the United States have become Putin’s silent partners, his co-dependent enablers, as he proceeds to tear down the fundamental principles of international law and the U.N. Charter which prohibit the threat or use of force across international frontiers. “Co-dependent” on the bully who abuses them, they also remain silent on Putin’s violations of fundamental human rights in Russia itself.

The fact that Putin has succeeded in breaking out of his isolation, and is even welcomed by the BRICS countries, Argentina, and others in Latin America and beyond, should serve as a loud wake-up call to the West and the community of states dedicated to the rule of law on both the international and the domestic planes.

It is time for Putin’s silent partners in aggression to end their co-dependent relationship with him and Russia.

It is time for them to understand the broader consequences of continuing Russian aggression.

It is time for them to act to bolster the deterrent effect of the U.N. Charter’s prohibition of the threat or use of force by imposing real, “third-stage” sanctions aimed at restoring the status quo ante existing prior to Russia’s invasion of the Crimea.

The Trenchant Observer

Der Scharfsinniger Beobachter
L’Observateur Incisif
El Observador Incisivo

REPRISE: Dare anyone say it? “We applaud the courage of the Ukrainian government and people in defending public order and the sovereignty and territorial independence of the Ukraine” — with latest news updates

Sunday, July 6th, 2014

In what may be a turning point in efforts to defend the country’s territorial integrity and repel Russia’s aggression and military intervention in the eastern Ukraine by special forces, intelligence operatives, and so-called Russian “volunteers” under their direction and control, Ukrainian forces have retaken Sloviansk and Kramatorsk and are pressing foreward with their “anti-terrorist” campaign. The so-called “separatists” withdrew first from Sloviansk to Kramatorsk, and then shortly thereafter from Kramatorsk to Donetsk.

See:

(1) Pilar Bonnet, “Los prorrusos acusan a Putin de traicionarles para mantener su poder; Los rebeldes creen que Rusia les abandona para evitar el conflicto con Occidente, El Pais, 6 de Julio 2014 (22:49 CEST).

(2) “Regierungstruppen wollen Donezk und Luhansk belagern
Die ukrainische Armee will die Städte Donezk und Luhansk blockieren und die Separatisten zur Kapitulation zwingen. Diese haben heftigen Widerstand angekündigt,” Die Zeit, 6. Juli 2014, 6. Juli 2014 (20:28 Uhr).

(3) Ukraine-Krise: Armee rückt auf Millionenstadt Donezk vor; Die Rebellenhochburg Slowjansk ist schon erobert – nun nähert sich das ukrainische Militär der Metropole Donezk. Dort halten sich prorussische Milizen zu Tausenden verschanzt. Es droht ein Belagerungszustand,” Der Spiegel, 6. Juli 2014 (17:48 Uhr).

(4) Le Monde avec AFP et Reuter, “Les forces ukrainiennes progressent vers Donetsk,” 6 Juillet 2014 (Mis à jour à 23h09)–avec carte / with map.

(5) Benoît Vitkine (Sloviansk, envoyé spécial), “Ukraine: le récit de la chute de Sloviansk, tournant de la guerre entre l’armée et les séparatistes,” Le Monde 06 Juillet 2014 (Mis à jour à 11h09)

(6) Alan Cullison (in Sloviansk) and Philip Shishkin (in Donetsk), “Ukrainian Government Troops Target Further Gains in East; Separatist Leaders Say Evacuation From Slovyansk Was Strategic,” Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2014 (Updated 11:51 a.m. ET).

(7) “A day in Sloviansk after liberation,” Kviv Post, July 6, 2014 (6:05 p.m.)(with photos).

REPRISE: Dare anyone say it? “We applaud the courage of the Ukrainian government and people in defending public order and the sovereignty and territorial independence of the Ukraine”

First published on May 3, 2014

In the face of Russian aggression, in the last few days the Ukrainian government has shown great courage in defending public order, and the territorial integrity, political independence and sovereignty of their nation.

Their courageous actions should make the authors of the cowardly responses of the West and the broader international community feel deeply ashamed. For the latter have merely paid lip service to the defense of freedom, human rights and international law, while engaging in a policy of pacifism and appeasement in the face of blatant Russian aggression.

Nor is the duty to act to uphold the U.N. Charter, international law, and the maintenance of international peace and security solely that of the United States and the West. The abstention by Brazil and other countries on the General Assembly resolution condemning the invasion and annexation of the Crimea, for example, will long remain as a black page in the histories of these countries.

The appeasement by the West and other countries is particularly clear with respect to the military invasion and annexation by Russia of the Crimea. These actions have upended the entire postwar international political and legal order. The demands of Western leaders for a restoration of the status quo ante in the Crimea have grown silent, while they have adopted no sanctions which can be realistically viewed as aimed at securing a reversal of the aggression and annexation.

In all communities, the force of law and its deterrent effect weakens when the community whose interests it protects do not act to uphold its norms.

Russia’s invasion and annexation of the Crimea, its attack on the eastern Ukraine through special operations forces and the organization, coordination and direction of pro-Russian militias and armed thugs–taking over public buildings and even towns by armed force, and its continuing threats of military intervention by massing combat-ready troops on the border poised to launch an invasion, have placed the entire postwar military, political and legal order in question in the greatest crisis of this nature since World War II.

Will anyone speak out in praise of the actions of the Ukrainian government, without which Russian aggression would triumph, and the rule of law and protection of the human rights of citizens in the eastern Ukraine would be lost?

Are Western leaders afraid to remind the world each time they speak that Russia has committed aggression in the Crimea and continues fresh acts of aggression in the eastern Ukraine?

Will they not only speak out in defense of international law and human rights, in defense of liberty and the rule of law, but also undertake immediate and concrete measures of a serious nature to come to the defense of the Kiev government and assist it in facing down Russian aggression?

Though Barack Obama and Angela Merkel and other world leaders seem oblivious to the fact, Ukrainian soldiers and security forces are today fighting to uphold the principles of the U.N. Charter and international law which guarantee their security and that of the citizens they represent.

If these leaders can grasp this point, might they not do more, through really significant actions, to aid the Ukraine in its defense of their common values of respect for international law and international human rights?

The future of their countries and of the international political and legal order are in their hands. If they are leaders, and not merely followers of ill-informed public opinions on critical foreign policy matters, can and will they lead?

The Trenchant Observer

Shift in funding source spells dim future for BBC World Service

Tuesday, July 1st, 2014

The decline in the quality of BBC World Service radio programs has been underway for some time, with the elimination of one of its two best news programs, “The World Today,” some time ago. The remaining top program, “Newshour”, has lost some of the editorial judgment it used to have, and it is not unusual to hear one of its reporters ranting at a government official somewhere in the world rather than analyzing and reporting the news.

In 2011, the World Service quit broadcasting in Mandarin Chinese.

The total budget for the BBC World Service for 2014/2015 is reported to be 245 million pounds, which is a pittance compared to the value of the operation in demonstrating the value of freedom of the press and providing independent news coverage beyond the headlines.

Its value is most appreciated, perhaps, by those living in countries without a free flow of information. Stations like the BBC World Service, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, or the Voice of America may provide the only source of independent news reporting in a number of countries ruled by dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

Now, the funding of the BBC World Service has shifted from a subsidy from the Foreign Office to funds provided from the proceeds of British television user fees. It should therefore come as a surprise to no one if in the future the interests of those paying the fees produce a cut-back in foreign language programs and even the English language program of the BBC World Service.

It is amazing that in a shrinking world the lights by which we see its contours and details are going out. For a pittance.

See

(1) Belinda Goldsmith (London), “Committee fears for BBC World Service under new funding,” Reuters, March 31, 2014.

(2) Judy Dempsey, “Stop the Decline of the BBC World Service!” Carnegie Europe, July 3, 2014.

The Trenchant Observer