Crimea! Crimea! Aggressive Russia is being aggressive and threatening towards Europe! But is it really so? The 2014 coup, backed by both the European Union and the United States, plunged the country in a downward spiral of lawlessness, violence and ultimately, it saw Nazism make a comeback in the Eastern European country. Why does our unelected European leadership believes, that it is advantageous for us to destabilise our own continent? This is a tale of strategic myopia, political inefficiency and vassalage to a foreign nation, all committed in the name of Democracy, as usual. Let us contextualise the Ukraine crisis in the framework of the shortsighted expansionistic policy carried on by the European Union, at the expense of the citizens of Ukraine (the Russian minorities especially) the citizens of the European Union herself and the citizens of Russia as well.
While it is very possible that the dirty work, in this coup, was carried on by Washington, as I'm trying to give a European perspective over the matter, let's outline why it was convenient also for Brussel. Let's start from 2012.
In 2012, Russia entered the WTO:
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible.
So the WTO is the body which writes the basic rules for liberalised global trade and checks the implementation of these rules. They are the body who are supposed to settle disputes in between countries (notoriously China opened a dispute against the United States for the 2018 tariffs imposed by Washington as part of what can be considered a trade war). To enter the WTO a country has to demonstrate that their economy is liberalised, i.e. it is not a centralised economy where the state manages and controls the economy.
Russia entered the WTO at the time with the active support of the United States and the EU. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, however, as soon as Russia entered the WTO, the EU requested of them to become a WTO-plus country. The WTO-plus status means that an acceding country might be obligated to enact more stringent policies, in terms of liberalisation, towards her economy than a member has, and the obligation to provide more information on their privatisation programs, than existing members have to give out. Such apparently was the case with China, when she acceded to the WTO, in 2001. If we consider the history of Russia as the Federation, we can see that this could be intended as a "soft" follow-up to the failed strategy of the 90's, when the West envisioned future Russia as a fully Western-style liberal democracy, and actively worked with Russian leaders in order to make this vision reality - as by expecting that Russia would enter WTO under WTO-plus conditions other members, like the EU, could monitor and address Russian economy towards the direction they wanted it to go. In this sense, it is clear that Russia was on the edge about the WTO-plus status; as parts of their economy would have needed more time to adjust to the change of being part of the WTO. However, we need to note how already in 2012, Russia was open, if not directly promoting, the idea of a Free Trade and Humanitarian zone from the Atlantic to the Pacific (this concept was even inserted into the Foreign Policy Concept in 2013). And this is the usual dynamic, once again, of Russia who tries to go along with the Western Europeans and we shun them out. I'm so done and over with this, I really am, and I am not even Russian.
At the same time that this was happening, however, the EU was pursuing an aggressive economic expansionistic policy towards the East; and they offered to Ukraine to sign a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA). Now this move can be considered, in my opinion, given the way it was brought about, as un unfair or unethical business move. And this is because Ukraine already had such an agreement with Russia (as she was part of the Eurasian Economic Union); which would have meant that Ukraine could have become a free transit zone for EU goods to the Russian market (so bypassing all other international trade rules). And this would have been possible by using such strategy as fashion manufacturers do; for the garment to be "Made in Europe" it just needs to have the very last step of the production chain happening in Europe (so one last stitch is applied in Europe? Slap Made in Europe on it). So EU manufacturers would have been able to send their "basically ready" products in Ukraine, where a change of label would have taken place and off they could go to Russia (and the wider EAEU), with no tariffs. In my opinion this was the actual objective of the agreement; as the Ukrainian market is a tiny market compared to the Russian market for European companies, and Ukrainians' purchasing power is very low.
This DCFTA was negotiated contextually to a wider agreement in between Ukraine and the EU, where Ukraine would agree to conform her governance, judiciary and economical system to the EU's system. Now, I disapprove of this move, because I don't believe cooperation with other countries needs to be subordinated to other countries changing their form of government; the EU seems here to be pursuing the same strategy that Germany was pursuing in the 40's, when they dreamed of a New World Order, where every country would have their same form of government.
Moreover, this commercially unethical move was in my opinion totally uncalled for; as Russia herself was already displaying a decent amount of will and intention to actively working with the EU to create a human-centred all around cooperation with the EU in the framework of Greater Eurasia (note also how in 2006 already Russia proposed that the CSTO and NATO would work together to strengthen the Eurasian security architecture). To place it even more in context these events, we need to note that around those years BRICS was founded; BRICS countries wanted to reform the IMF (proposal which apparently the at-the-time G8 shot down); they were talking on focusing on investments for developing countries (rather than the usual foreign help system), all things which all in all would have decreased the Western dominance of the globe (but which could have been positive for the EU, if they'd play to their strengths rather than to the interests of the US).
So, The EU was trying to influence Ukraine's internal matters; and they were unethically trying to get their goods into Russia (through Ukraine). In late 2013 however, President of Ukraine Yanukovich turned down the signing of the agreement (whatever his reasons were; it might not only have been because of not wanting to exacerbate relations with Russia, but also for example because he had noticed how countries like Germany already took advantage of lower production costs in Eastern Europe and how they used Eastern European workforce at a lower cost to increase their revenues, while still underpaying the workers there, and he didn't want that to happen to Ukraine; perhaps because he realised that ties with the EU always go together with ties to NATO and ties to American weapons manufacturers, and he didn't want to potentially find himself in the middle of a war, there are actually many logical reasons behind such a choice). And in this sense, we need to stress that the EU wilfully decided to pursue a policy where Yanukovich had to choose in between the (Eurasian Economic Union) EAEU and the EU; while they could have worked with Russia to integrate the both areas to the benefit of all, Ukraine, Russia and the EU.
Now this plan of a bigger trade area, including both the EU and the EAEU, wouldn't have worked for the United States and for the Vassals who are controlling the EU and working directly under the surveillance of the Superintendent; because it is very clear that if the EU and Russia would start working together with the goal of ensuring peace and fair social and economical development in their own continent many new opportunities would eventually arise (in the longer-term) for cooperation also in other areas of the globe (e.g. Africa). For the United States, it is very important to prop up the most vicious Vassals (Germany, Sweden, Finland, the Baltic states, Poland) and work with them to enact aggressive policies in contrast to Russian objectives (the first Russian objective being probably "we won't let anyone fuck us over") because it is indeed very obvious that given the resources, in terms of territory (space), in terms of hydrocarbon resources, in terms of financial capital and in terms of human capital, the possibilities for development of the Eurasian continent are very promising; and moreover, given the current context (where we we would seem to be going towards a renewed bipolarity in terms of global governance, where the poles are lead by the US on one side and China on the other) such a partnership could mean the mitigation of power for both bloc leaders (but especially the US, as China doesn't seem to be interested in "leading the world" in terms of governance, as historically they've never been involved in other countries' internal matters) and the birth of a third, more moderate centre of power. In other words: if the EU stops obeying the US, and partners in a fair and mutually beneficial manner with Russia, the US Empire is going to go down faster than it already is. And the Vassals cannot allow that to happen of course, because all of their power comes from being granted from the US herself. And I like to specify that the Russians didn't convince me that this would be a smart strategic direction for the EU; as I can very well look at a map and make basic political considerations based on geography myself, thank you very much. But I digressed a bit here.
After he turned down this agreement, a violent revolution, supported by both the EU and the US took place. The 21st of February 2014, the Ministers of Poland, Germany and France (standing in as representatives of the EU) and the Special Envoy acted as witnesses and guarantors of an agreement in between Yanukovich and the main opposition parties (Batkivshchyna, UDAR and Svoboda) in order to solve the crisis in Ukraine. According to the text of this agreement, the Constitution from 2004 would have re-entered into force; violence had to end, new elections had to be organised, etc.. The opposition parties, however refused to implement this agreement, and given their ties to the United States (neo-Nazi party Svoboda especially), they were supported by the West in behaving in this illegitimate manner. They then organised an unconstitutional coup the day after having signed the agreement, violently took power and ousted Yanukovich, who had to flee the country. Barack Obama admitted this himself in an interview with CNN, available on RT here. Listen for yourself, how he states:
Yanukovich then flee after we brokered a deal to transition the power in Ukraine
Barack Obama admits to have organised the "transition of power" in Ukraine - perhaps this is why the ministers of France, Poland and Germany, who had signed the February 21st agreement, didn't make too much fuss when the agreement was broken. It was never meant to be kept, really.
And let us be very clear here: "democracy" is not about a foreign country organising a "transition of power" - that's a coup d'état supported by foreign countries. The United States of America and the European Union do not have any right to "broker" any "transition of power" with the aim of placing in power of other countries leaders they like more than the leaders who are administering power in accordance with the laws of the country herself.
While the next democratic elections took place the 25th of May, the DCFTA and the Agreement with the European Union were signed the 21st of March. So yeah, we can see that the EU was more interested in supporting the neo-nazis violently seizing power in Ukraine than they were interested in acting as guarantors for the agreement they themselves signed (because they were the ones organising the coup with Washington, weren't they? We hope some leaks might come out, eventually, as it would seem that the same corporations working in Syria were working in Ukraine as well, isn't it?). EH. This is bad for the EU, definitely bad. We're systematically and constantly flouting treaties, disregarding previously signed agreements, working covertly to start coups an so on... The 28th of February the German Federal Foreign Office published a statement which stated how Germany, France and Poland were confident that the Nazis who organised the coup in Ukraine would be able to transition the country to democracy. This is fantastic, I'm not having any unpleasant historical flashbacks at all, am I?
But they are not Nazis, they will tell, horrified; it's just some right-wing activists who fly flags with Nazi symbols on them, and who occasionally organise torchlight processions. You are not a Nazi just because you use a Nazi symbol after all, isn't it? Let's dwell a second on a visual analysis of the symbology used by these parties and the Western rhetoric going with it. This is the image I used as the thumbnail for this piece (source):
The flag the girl is holding bears a symbol called Wolfsangel. It is inspired by wolf-traps and was used as one of the first symbols of the Nazi party (subsequently it was used as symbol for many Wehrmacht divisions). Now look at the Azov Battalion's (part of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine) symbol:
And now look at Svoboda's logo:
It is obviously the same Nazi symbol, that is in the actual Nazi propaganda image, isn't it? It is! Yet, Western press claims, that this party (Svoboda), and this special unit working with Ukraine's ministry of interior (Azov Battalion), who use Nazi symbols and holds torchlight rallies in Kiev, have got nothing to do with the Nazis. This is why they use Nazi symbols; because they are not Nazis. I should perhaps try to go around flying a swastika flag here in Helsinki city centre, and then when the police would come for me (because they probably would) I could just try to reply: no but I'm not a Nazi, I'm just flying the Nazi flag because I love my country. It's a tad nationalistic, but it has got nothing to do with actually being a Nazi. Or perhaps I should try to claim that the Nazi swastika is close enough to the same symbol coming from Asia, and that the difference is very tiny after all, and it is a symbol of peace and harmony. How do you think I'm going to fare with the police? Now I don't want to be redundant, but are you kidding me? We're denying the glaring, obvious blatant reality in front of our eyes here. If a party flies flags with Nazi symbols on them, they are not doing it because they despise the Nazis, isn't it? I don't even know what to say about this, honestly. It is an insult to the intelligence of whoever has a set of working eyeballs.
And more than this; every year, at the United Nations General Assembly, when a resolution proposed by Russia on criminalising the glorification of Nazism gets proposed, the United States and Ukraine vote against it (the only two nations doing so). "It's because we have freedom of speech here" - yeah, suuuure. And I've got shit in my head instead of a brain. In this country where journalists are heavily prosecuted (the "peacemaker" website leaked all of the names of the reporters covering the Donbas war and encouraged violence against them); in this country where access to the Russian language media for the Russian speaking population is heavily restricted; in this country where parties flying flags with Nazi symbols hold torchlight rallies in the city centre, they vote against a resolution criminalising the glorification of Nazism because of "freedom of speech". And by the way, the EU abstains, because we can't really upset the Baltics and Eastern Europeans, which are quickly going the same way Ukraine is going towards.
In any case, in February 2014 a Western backed coup took place in Ukraine. They proceeded to forbid the Russian national minorities to use their native language (Russian) in official documents (but don't we have OSCE who should oppose and contest these single handed decisions which damage the minorities' rights?). In the Autonomous region of Crimea, Russian was the majority's language. Let us try to understand the Crimean leadership state of mind here: there's a bunch of Russians who see the West backing with weapons and money a violent party flying Nazi flags. The same party enters the government. One of the first thing they do, it is to try to forbid you to use your native language. What do you do? You freak out. This is a perfectly reasonable reaction. I'm not even a Russian speaker and I'd be freaking out if I'd see violent riots led by a party which flies the Nazi flag in my city, imagine the Crimeans. They obviously were foreseeing that forcible displacement was coming (as it was clear, that while the EU wanted to get their goods in the Russian market with no tariffs, US led NATO wanted to get their hands over Crimea's strategic position). So the 11th of March 2014, they declared independence. Now I find that the declaration of independence makes a very interesting point:
We, the deputies of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Sevastopol City Council, based on the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and a number of other international documents enshrining the right of peoples to self-determination, as well as taking into account the confirmation by the UN international court in respect of Kosovo dated July 22, 2010 the fact that the unilateral declaration of independence by a part of the state does not violate any norms of international law, we jointly make a decision: [...]
AH! This is interesting, because the West keeps on saying that the Crimean independence declaration is completely and wildly illegitimate, while the Crimeans, in the Declaration herself reference Kosovo. Crimea did the same thing Kosovo did; and we remember that NATO started actively bombing Serbia to uphold the right of Kosovo to declare independence. What is the difference here then? Kosovo seceding was convenient to the West, because Yugoslavia used to be part of the non-aligned movement, hence by breaking Yugoslavia up the West would have gained a strategic advantage; but Crimea seceding would have meant that all of the money spent to foray the neo-nazis with weapons would go to waste. Now the their legal basis seem to be sound; Article 1 of the UN charter indeed mentions the self-determination of people; and indeed the UN International Court declared, with its July 22nd, 2010 decision, that Kosovo's declaration of independence indeed didn't breach international law. The people of Crimea had a reasonable fear that violence and forcible displacement would be used against them; they were already being relieved of their right to use their national language in all official documents. It is important to note that Russia recognised the independence of Crimea, while the West did not. If the West would have recognised the Independence of Crimea, then the situation would have probably ended with a (peaceful) stalemate (a bit like with Abkhazia and Ossetia in Georgia). But in this case Crimea was too much of a succulent bite to be left alone. With the Independence Declaration, they also declared that the newly independent Crimea would hold a referendum on her legal status on the 16th of March 2014; the choices were in between Uniting with Russian and Staying Independent. Turnout was high, results were clear; and Crimea reunited with Russia (and they are apparently pleased with their decision). The referendum was deemed illegitimate apparently because the Constitution of Ukraine wouldn't allow it; but then, if Kosovo Independence wasn't against international law then why would Crimea's declaration of independence be against international law (and the Helsinki OSCE declaration also states that territorial borders can be changed, in accordance with international law)? And if their declaration of independence was legitimate, as the UN decision of 2010 seems to suggest, then as a logical consequence the referendum was legitimate as well, as independent countries have the right to hold such referendums. I mean, did Kosovo have the right to declare independence according to Serbian law? I doubt so. Yet circumstances made it so, that it was imperative for them to secede, and the same can be proved for the Crimeans; the Nazi flags proudly flown by parties in the government and departments of the government itself (the Azov Battalion is part of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine) prove that there was immediate danger in terms of personal and collective safety for the culturally Russian national minorities in Ukraine.
What the Europeans claim, is that the autonomous region of Crimea wasn't granted the right to hold the referendum because the Ukrainian Constitution said so; but Crimea had declared independence when they called for the referendum, hence the Crimean authorities were working under the framework of the Constitution of Crimea, not the Constitution of Ukraine, and according to the articles 2 and 7 of the Constitution of Crimea the authorities had the right to hold referendums and to take action in order to protect the interests of the people of Crimea.
And in fact, in English language Ukrainian media outlet INTERFAX, we find a recent interview with the Lithuanian Ambassador to Ukraine (so someone from of those countries where they believe that the Nazis were the good guys, to give some context - and by the way, stop whining, Baltic States: Italy was occupied by the US at the end of WWII and contrarily to you, we're still under military occupation):
According to Sarapinas, this initiative correlates with the European Union's policy of non-recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea and the EU's demands on Russia to ensure the rights of the inhabitants of the peninsula.
So we see now that the legal opinion of the Venice Court of the European Council on the Crimean referendum was crafted ad hoc to pursue European Union policy, in order to ignore the legal claims of the Crimean people, who were besieged by Ukrainian forces flying Nazi flags, on their independence declaration, which is in line with legal precedents allowed by the UN, to concentrate on the legality of the referendum exclusively in relation to the Ukrainian constitution, which, at the time of the referendum, wasn't in force in independent Crimea anymore (Declaration of Independence, 11th of March 2014, referendum, 16th of March 2014). And in fact we see that it is a Finn, a Pole, a Hungarian and a Bulgarian who wrote that opinion (I have no doubt that the Finnish judiciary is as corrupt as the Finnish state-broadcaster - siis mä haluisin kysyä Kaarlo Tuorista, miksi Krimin itsenäisydestä ei puhutaan tässä ollenkaan? Kun YK:n on päättänyt aiemmin että ytsenäisyyten voidaan ilmoittaa jos populaatio on vaaralisessa tilanteessa? Ja voiko oikeasti väittää, että noita Nazi-lippuja eivät merkitsee vaara Venäläiselle väestolle? ).
But this sentence is interesting also on another level:
According to Sarapinas, this initiative correlates with the European Union's policy of non-recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea and the EU's demands on Russia to ensure the rights of the inhabitants of the peninsula.
Now, this is pathetic on so many levels. What does Ukraine here means with "ensure the rights of the inhabitants of the peninsula" when they're all Russian speaking and Ukraine is planning on banning the Russian language altogether? What do they mean with "ensuring the rights of the inhabitants of the peninsula" when the Azov Battalion flying Nazi flags was sent specifically to deal with the Russian national minorities? But no, definitely this Lithuanian ambassador doesn't think that the Russians have any rights (do you even think they are human, or what? asking for a friend); just look at how the Baltic States treat their national minorities (most of which are Russian speaking); they are Europeans, yet they are denied the basic political rights that every European citizens should have, as they can't vote, nor run for office, neither at the national level nor at the European level. The issue stems from the collapse of the USSR; the Baltic governments decided that in order to gain nationality, and thus full political rights, the Russian minorities had to pass a "history exam", where they apparently have to state that the Soviet Union caused WWII and the Nazis were the good defending forces, which they quite obviously refuse to do (I am not part of a Russian speaking minority, and I would refuse to say that as well).
Apparently the justification the Estonian government gives is "but they still have rights to receive State subsidies, the only difference in between citizens and non-citizens is that they can't vote" oh yeah, that's a small difference, isn't it, it's just about the same difference there is in between democracy and autocracy (and please explain, why did we attack Libya, if the difference in between voting and non-voting is so little? I mean the Libyans under Gaddafi had a decent welfare state as well, subsidies to study abroad, subsidies for buying a new house for just married couples, etc). Ah, the Good European Union Democracy, where a part of the population is denied civil and political rights just because they're Russian speaking! Not racist at all, isn't it.
And moreover; wether we consider the referendum legal or not, we cannot deny that the mere fact that the population of Crimea actually went out and voted is an indication of the popular will of the people of Crimea; the high turnout is a proof of that. And no one is disputing the fact that the turnout was high and the people of Crimea actually went out to vote in favour of reuniting with Russia. Beyond what is international law, people didn't want to be part of a country which would hamper their basic right to their language and who would have most likely chased them out of their houses, probably in a violent manner (see what they are doing to the people in the Eastern area of Donbass). Where is the respect for human rights here? Isn't this everything the EU talks about, human rights and equality and protection of minorities and so on? Here we're saying that the self-determination of a national minority who is afraid for their own collective safety is worth nothing, because we just want to help some Nazis get their hands over some Russians. EH.
Plus, under a purely military POV, it would seem to me that the unification of Crimea to Russia actually prevented a further military escalation (such as it is happening in the Donbas areas, where other Russian minorities are being harassed, not that they are themselves little angels, but they are the ones fighting for the right to use their native language) because there is literally zero possibility that the Crimeans (and the minorities in the East) would have given up their language and their land without putting up a fight.
Of course the West, after having supported an armed coup d'état and tried to bulldoze some Russian national minorities cried victimhood. Poor us, poor us, what are we going to do, when Bad Russia prevents us from taking over the strategic area we want? You see how much money we spent on this regime-change? We're the ones expanding, poor us, poor us. We brought democracy and joy to Ukraine, they are such a good democratic neighbour for Europe, isn't it. Or is it?
How is Ukraine doing today, now that they have finally been freed from the influence of “dictatorial” Russia? Is it a paradise for human rights? Is it a joyful land of equality for all? Most definitely not. In between harassing journalists and national minorities, the systematic and growing censorship, the documented war crimes and torture at the hands of Ukrainian Armed Forces, the doxing (and harassing) of political and non-political personalities (especially journalists) on the “МИРОТВОРЕЦЬ” (peacemaker) website, neo-nazi groups (many of which have infiltrated the government) rallying freely through the city, and elimination of Russian language media, (here is a full report on the situation), it would almost seem like Nazi Germany. Is this why we praise them so much? The Fourth Reich is a Woke Reich, but it is still a Reich, after all.
But the Ukraine crisis does not stop with Crimea (which is now part of Russia) - as two other areas of Ukraine, the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk Republic, are also rebelling against the central government. Both of these areas are populated by Russian speaking national minorities (Donetsk 74% and Luhansk 68%). In this sense it not difficult to see that like the people of Crimea, they were probably feeling threatened; and this is why the armed uprising and rebellion started (and keeps going on). I mean, perhaps the Russians there have not understood, like the Western "experts" that the Nazi flags they see being paraded around are not actual Nazi flags, they just look like it? I don't know?!
I mean what we are told, is that “Russian militias” entered the region illegally and are fomenting hatred; yet, when the government of Ukraine is systematically trying to eliminate the Russian language from the country (they keep on banning Russian language channels; they eliminate Russian language publications; they eliminated Russian language from primary schools - imagine if Finland would do the same with Swedish, or Italy would do the same with German!) it is very likely, if not glaringly obvious, that these people are actually fighting for their rights, and they are not “swayed” by the Russians. Especially now, when neo-nazi groups are freely holding rallies, and apparently the Lviv region has banned every Russian media language altogether.
So as far as we know, Russia is supporting them with humanitarian and diplomatic aid, but not with weapons. We are told that there are Soviet weapons around; yet in primis, the USSR also included other countries other than Russia; so the rebels could get their weapons anywhere; and in second instance, I'm ready to bet that it is not all that difficult if you are a rebel to find some illegal arms dealer selling Soviet weapons in all of the ex-USSR (my guess here would be that during the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was largely peaceful all notwithstanding, a lot of people got their hands over a lot of weapons, but because there was no immediate need for the weapons, they were stored to be sold on the black market at a later date).
The one who’s sending weapons into the country is, surprise surprise, the Superintendent, who gave about 620M in “aid” to Ukraine; 420M in State Department funds and 200M in Pentagon funds. EH.
And how proud they are to showcase that filling Ukraine up with weapons is a matter of bipartisan concern - everyone in the US government is truly happy to make a battleground of Europe; why on earth isn't any European pointing out that we've got already enough American weapons and bases on our soil? Oh right, because we're rehearsing WWII with NATO, so the more weapons on the continent, the better... GIVE IT UP FOR AMERICAN NUKES ON EUROPEAN SOIL!!!!
In order to solve this crisis, the Trilateral Contact Group was established in 2014, with the representatives of Russia, Ukraine and OSCE taking part. This group consultations gave way to the Normandy Format in 2015; and the Minsk II agreements (and the Minsk Package of implementation measures) were signed by the representatives of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany. This package gives guidelines for all the parties to follow in order to stop the war. It includes conditions for ceasefire, retirement of troops and weapons, it establishes that throughout the whole process OSCE will monitor the situation; but more importantly at point 11 it states that:
11. Carrying out constitutional reform in Ukraine with a new Constitution entering into force by the end of 2015, providing for decentralization as a key element (including a reference to the specificities of certain areas in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, agreed with the representatives of these areas), as well as adopting permanent legislation on the special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions in line with measures as set out in the footnote until the end of 2015
(you can see the footnote on the text I linked)
And this is the most important point, because this conflict is not going to stop until the national minorities of Donetsk and Luhansk will see their rights recognised; and while the reforms should have been carried on by the end of 2015, five years later we’re still waiting for them.
I've been trying to find Donetsk and Luhansk in the Ukrainian Constitution, no results.
And in this sense, when I read that following a meeting with Lavrov, Heiko Maas declared:
Russia must bring its influence to bear in order to ensure that words are followed by deeds.
I was a bit surprised; it is not Russia who needs to exert her influence to convince Ukraine to respect the Minsk Package of Implementation Measures. Ukraine should have followed words with deeds five years ago. Perhaps you should call the UK intelligence committee and go back to learn some English with them, what do you say? I can tell you; the ceasefire is going to hold much better than it is now when Ukraine will do what they are required to do. But instead, Ukrainian English language press seems to be defining the situation in these terms:
The demand of Russia about the enshrining of the special status of particular areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the Constitution of Ukraine will not be supported by the Verkhovna Rada as Syohodni reported citing Head of Ukrainian delegation at Minsk Talks Leonid Kravchuk.
(red highlight, mine)
And more than that; apparently Ukrainian politicians go around saying that the Minsk Package doesn’t say anything about the enshrining the special status of Donbass into the Constitution. Everyone, back to elementary school to learn some English. It’s literally spelt out in point 11, which I reported above. Is there even any way that such a sentence could be misinterpreted?
And this point, point 11, is of specific importance; as point 9 states:
Reinstatement of full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine throughout the conflict area, starting on day 1 after the local elections and ending after the comprehensive political settlement (local elections in certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions on the basis of the Law of Ukraine and constitutional reform) to be finalized by the end of 2015, provided that paragraph 11 has been implemented in consultation with and upon agreement by representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group.
(red highlight, mine)
So in this sense we can see that the package states clearly, that Ukraine has to recognise the autonomous status of Luhansk and Donetsk (point 11, we talked about it just above) before they can reinstate the borders. So what disagreement on the implementation can there be? There can be none - the document is very clear, isn't it? And this is quite possibly not Maas' own doing, but this is part of the aggressive, imperialist policy proposed by the European Union. The European Parliament in fact, is trying to mystify the situation, and presents the requests from the Russian national minorities as inexistent and unworthy; as in their version of events, they conveniently forget to mention exactly this point:
The version of events presented by the European Parliament is intentionally misleading; it makes it look like the Constitutional Reforms happen after the restoration of Ukrainian control over the area (given the numerical order). And come on, the document is like two pages long in simple English and the font is like 12 or 13, it is not really necessary to have a "summary", is it now.
The United Nations version of the text of the Minsk Package of Implementation Measures, on the other hand, states clearly that the paragraph order is not intended as a chronological order with which the events needs to happen. Restoration of borders cannot happen if the Constitutional reforms have not happened first (see the sentence underlined in black, in paragraph 9).
And fun fact: when you click on the highlighted link marked in blue at the end of the box:
"The Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements was published by the Elysée"
this is what you get:
"The page you're looking for doesn't exist". Coincidences?
Here is where you look for the text of the Minsk Package of Implementation Measures, European citizens:
Is the United Nations a tool for Russian disinformation as well, dear European Parliament? Or is it you who lie and cheat in order to be able to kill some people?
But Maas’s gaslighting operation doesn’t stop here, oh no, I wish it would. In the same interview, he declares:
The conditions for holding democratic elections in the areas not under government control, as provided for in the Minsk agreements, have not been met as things currently stand. Moscow must bring its influence to bear also in this regard.
So to understand why this sentence is malicious, we need to understand why aren’t these areas holding local elections. Is it because Russia is telling them so? NO. It’s because UKRAINE excluded these regions from the elections. In resolution No. 3809 approved by the Verkhovna Rada on 15.07.2020 (available from its institutional website), it is stated:
2. Elections of deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, deputies of local councils and village, settlement, city mayors in the temporarily occupied territories of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Sevastopol and in certain districts, cities, towns and villages of Donetsk and Luhansk regions shall not be called or held.
3. Due to the impossibility of ensuring the representation of common interests of territorial communities of villages, settlements and cities of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, elections of deputies of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast councils shall not be appointed or held.
(translated from Ukrainian with online translator)
So once again, Heiko, if you want local elections to be held maybe you should call on Ukraine, because their government quite literally excluded those areas from the electoral process. How does the Federal Foreign Office even work? This is what the Americans say, and this is what we’re going to repeat? Aren’t you ashamed of yourselves? And these people, who can’t even read English properly, these people who are doing the bidding of a third country, these people are “leading” Europe. Nobody voted them, they have an awful track-record as leaders and they got to the spot by mistreating economically half of Europe, but they still want to lead. What a joke. This is why we have wars - because absolutely inadequate German politicians are running the show.
So we have here Europe who, as usual, is shooting herself in the foot; as we'd be stronger if we'd not support the US in destabilising our continent, isn't it obvious? For how long will these pathetic lackeys continue doing the interest of a foreign nation rather than the interests of their own population?
WHAT WOULD AUTONOMOUS EUROPE DO?
Obviously Autonomous Europe wouldn’t have let Obama carry on a coup in Ukraine. We would have prevented him from furnishing help to neo-nazi groups; and thus no issues with Ukraine would have even come up. Right now, Autonomous Europe would of course stop lying in the faces of the Russians, and would get on one side, the US to stop getting weapons into the country and on the other side it’s be telling the Ukrainian leadership that there is no going back from the agreement they themselves signed. Also the people of Crimea have spoken - and Crimea is Russian, and Russian will stay. We definitely don't need a war in Europe, do we? DO WE?? In another instance, as I've pointed out now already multiple times, Autonomous Europe would not be pursuing such a policy of vassalage towards the United States; wake up, we're not the West, we're the Westernmost part of Eurasia, that's where our future lies, together with all of the fellow people of this super-continent. So we'd definitely stop the madness and start working with Russia seriously, as a first step.
And of course a solution must be found so that the minorities in the Baltic states (the non-citizens) are granted political rights, if not in those states, at least at the European level. We cannot have half a million people with no political rights just because they refuse to say that the Nazis were the good guys. Come on, this is a matter of decency, besides a matter for human rights.
------------------------ On a very last note, I’d like to specify that while I despise the American Government with all my heart, I have nothing against the American people - they are obviously been controlled and swayed as well. They are maybe the biggest victims of their government’s imperial plans; as when it will all come crashing down, and eventually it will, they’ll be screwed up more than anyone else (the whole supply and production chains have been moved abroad; SMEs have ben decimated by COVID and the obvious bipartisan will of the US political class NOT to save them; they find themselves with no safety network in terms of healthcare, social security, and if the dollar should crash, the depression following that is going to be way, way worse than 1929, without even mentioning how many weapons are lying around everywhere). But they should also know, that should they decide to phase out the Empire in a controlled manner and come back to reason, the rest of the countries are not going to hate you forever. You will be accepted into the multilateral community. But your government needs to be brought back down to earth first, unfortunately.
Ok, very last thing: if I had continued my law degree, I'd be suing you all to hell, for breach on international law, breach of agreements, human rights violations, everything I could. Consider yourselves lucky, I guess.