Monday, March 3, 2014

In Crimea, Putin Has 'Lost His Mind'



СМИ: КАРТА захваченного Крыма - Актуальные новости

1 Share
Журналисты подготовили актуальную карту объектов, которые захвачены и заблокированы российскими военными. На данный момент в Крыму на мысе Фиолент вооруженные люди блокируют воинскую часть, ее называют центром разведки Военно-Морских сил Украины, сообщает ТСН
В поселке Новофедоровка Сакского района остается заблокированной военная часть морской авиации. По периметру стоят вооруженные российские военные без опознавательных знаков. 
На КПП керченского отряда морской охраны подъехали неизвестные с автоматическим оружием. Всего четыре автобуса, один из них с российскими номерами. 
В Севастополе украинские военные живым щитом охраняют склады с боеприпасами противовоздушной обороны. Территорию оцепили вооруженные российские военные, а вход на территорию заблокировали грузовиком. Штаб Военно-морских сил Украины был заблокирован и обесточен. 
В Новоозерном базу украинского флота ночью пытались занять солдаты российской армии. На защиту живым щитом стали неравнодушны крымчане. Украинские солдаты держат круговую оборону с оружием, ожидая новой попытки штурма. 
Напряженная ситуация в Бахчисарае, где снова блокируют инженерную военную часть №2904. 
Балаклавская бухта и аэродром в Бельбеке - частично под контролем подразделений Черноморского флота России. На военном аэродроме в Бельбеке российские военные ночью по светошумовыми гранатами штурмом взяли караульное помещение, ангар с самолетами и склад оружия. 
В Кировском россияне перекрыли взлетно-посадочную полосу, где базируется пилотажная группа "Украинские соколы". Российское подразделение находится в аэропорту Симферополя. 
Парламент и Совет Министров автономии с четверга захвачены российскими спецназовцами с армейским вооружением - пулеметами, снайперскими винтовками, гранатометами. 
700 воинов окружили украинскую военную часть в селе Перевальное. В Евпатории заблокирован 55-й зенитно-ракетный полк. 
Штурмом угрожали батальону морской пехоты в Феодосии. Под контролем российских солдат переправа через Керченский пролив. 
На автомобильных въездах на Крымский полуостров - в Чонгаре и Армянске - блокпосты, которые контролируют бойцы севастопольского "Беркута".
Read the whole story

· · ·

Яценюк: Вторжение в Украину готовилось последние четыре года - В Украине

1 Share
Премьер-министр Арсений Яценюк считает, что подготовка к военному вторжению в Украину шла последние четыре года. Об этом он сообщил сегодня на встрече с представителями украинского бизнеса, передает ЛIГАБiзнесIнформ
Отвечая на вопрос, не хотят ли турецкие, итальянские и американские фрегаты повторить учения Си-Бриз под Одессой, Яценюк сказал: "Вы мне задаете вопрос о том, рассматриваются ли военные опции по решению конфликта. Звучит красиво, но не надо превращать такие важные вопросы для безопасности региона в не очень правильный подход. Вы, наверное, хотите, чтобы смеялись над тем, что придут эсминцы и решат все проблемы. Я вам честно скажу: проблемы придется решать самим. Придется самим строить эсминцы, самим возобновлять обороноспособность страны, самим возобновлять все оборонное производство. Потому что на протяжении четырех лет, даже больше - пяти, была целенаправленная политика по подрыву обороноспособности Украины". 
Кроме того, утверждает Яценюк, в Украину была введена иностранная агентура - в Минобороны, Службу безопасности, Главное управление разведки, Службу внешней разведки. "Все, что произошло за последние четыре года, это преступление против государства. И то, что мы увидели с вами три дня назад, - это был только результат и следствие. Подготовка была четыре года назад", - сказал Яценюк.

Госдеп США об агрессии в Крыму: Мы смертельно серьезны - В Мире

1 Share
Секретарь Госдепартамента США Джон Керри заявил, что сегодня "все варианты на столе" для реакции на военные действия России на территории Украины. Среди таких действий являются экономические санкции и потенциально военные действия, сообщает Цензор.НЕТ
Керри отметил, что США будут действовать максимально быстро в случае, если президент РФВладимир Путин не выведет войска из Крыма.
Керри сообщил, что в телефонном разговоре президентов США и РФ Барак Обама предупредил Путина относительно ответственности за действия в Крыму.
"Россия должна понять, что это серьезно. Мы, а также другие друзья и союзники, смертельно серьезные. Так вести себя в 21 веке не возможно, и сидеть за столом и делать вид, что все идет, как обычно", - цитирует слова Керри АВС.
"Все не идет, как обычно, но мы верим, что есть альтернатива", - отметил Керри.

Did Russia’s cold warrior read Obama perfectly?

1 Share
Russia's cold warrior has been studying his on-again, off-again adversary in the White House for more than five years now -- and some lawmakers argue his military invasion in Ukraine shows he has been emboldened by President Obama's actions. 
"I think Putin is playing chess, and I think we're playing marbles. And I don't think it's even close," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told "Fox News Sunday." 
As Secretary of State John Kerry decries Vladimir Putin's "incredible act of aggression" in Ukraine, Republicans like Rogers suggest the Russian leader's military gambit shouldn't be that surprising. The administration tried to hit the "reset" button with Russia -- but, as Russian troops now secure control over the disputed Crimean Peninsula, some say all Putin saw was a series of green lights. 
Members of both parties are oddly aligned when it comes to what to do about Russia's incursion in Ukraine -- pursue trade and other economic pressure, they say, but not U.S. military action. But Republicans nevertheless are blaming Obama in part for Putin's aggression, pointing to a series of steps, or missteps, over the last five years. 
Rogers said the first was the controversial 2009 decision to abandon a missile-defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic. The administration argued at the time that it no longer needed the infrastructure to counter Iran and could make do by upgrading existing interceptors. 
But Russia was watching. 
"It caused huge problems for our allies and emboldened the Russians," Rogers said. "And it really has been a downhill slide." 
More recently, Obama faced off last year against Syria's Russia-backed Assad regime after drawing a "red line" over the movement and use of chemical weapons. Inspectors pointed to evidence that chemical weapons were used in that country, but the Obama administration ended up backing down, accepting an international deal -- which only has been partly completed -- to ship chemical weapons out of Syria. 
The Obama administration, though, all along has downplayed historical tensions between Washington and Moscow, which flared just before he took office during the standoff between Georgia and Russia over two separatist regions. 
Aside from the "reset," Obama underscored his approach several times during the 2012 campaign. In one infamous moment, he was caught on a live microphone telling then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he'd have "more flexibility" on missile defense after the election. 
"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," Medvedev was heard saying. 
Obama also tried to zing GOP rival Mitt Romney in a debate for calling Russia a geopolitical threat. 
"The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years," Obama quipped. 
Romney stood by his claim that Russia is a "geopolitical foe." 
In hindsight, Republicans say Obama has sent a series of signals like this to Moscow. 
"The Russian government has felt free to intervene militarily in Ukraine because the United States, along with Europe, has failed to make clear there would be serious, potentially irreparable consequences to such action," Sen. Bob Corker, top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement Thursday. 
On top of the administration's dealings with Russia, Congress and the Pentagon have also pursued steep cuts in defense spending as Obama repeatedly has touted the coming end of the Afghanistan war. His public speeches, as well as comments from bipartisan lawmakers, all reflect a war-weariness on behalf of the public. Whether that was taken as a signal that the U.S. would stand back should Moscow advance on its neighbors is an open question.   
Administration officials, though, made clear that in the case of Ukraine, the Pentagon is not preparing for military action. After Obama warned Russia there will be "costs" for intervening in Ukraine, a senior U.S. official confirmed the Pentagon has not prepared "any military contingencies" for the country. 
NATO, and congressional lawmakers, appear to be on the same page. 
But Kerry, who plans to travel to Kiev on Tuesday, and the rest of the administration argue that they will take a range of steps to put heavy pressure on Putin. This could include everything from economic sanctions to Security Council resolutions to reconsideration of Russia's membership in the G-8. The U.S. and its allies already have announced they will suspend preparation work for a looming G-8 summit scheduled in Russia. 
Putin is "not going to have a Sochi G-8," Kerry told NBC's "Meet the Press." "He may not even remain in the G-8 if this continues. ... He's going to lose on the international stage."
Read the whole story

· · · ·

Андрей Зубов: Это уже было

1 Share
Друзья. Мы на пороге. Мы на пороге не включения нового субъекта в состав РФ. Мы на пороге полного разрушения системы международных договоров, экономического хаоса и политической диктатуры. Мы на пороге войны с нашим ближайшим, родственнейшим народом Украины, резкого ухудшения отношений с Европой и Америкой, на пороге холодной, а, возможно, и горячей войны с ними.
Ведь все это уже было. Австрия. Начало марта 1938 г. Нацисты желают округлить свой рейх за счет другого немецкого государства. Народ не очень жаждет этого — никто их не ущемляет, никто не дискриминирует. Но идея великой Германии кружит голову радикалам — местным наци. Чтобы поставить точку в споре о судьбе Австрии, ее канцлер Курт Алоис фон Шушниг объявляет на 13 марта плебисцит. Но наци и в Берлине, и в Вене это не устраивает. А вдруг народ выскажется против аншлюса? Канцлера Шушнига заставляют подать в отставку 10 марта, на его место президент назначает лидера местных нацистов Артура Зейсс-Инкварта, а германские дивизии уже входят тем временем в австрийские города по приглашению нового канцлера, о котором он сам узнал из газет. Австрийские войска капитулируют. Народ или восторженно встречает гитлеровцев, или в раздражении отсиживается по домам, или срочно бежит в Швейцарию. Кардинал Австрии Иннитцер приветствует и благословляет аншлюс… С 13 марта начались аресты. Канцлер Шушниг был арестован еще накануне. Плебисцит провели 10 апреля. В Германии за объединение с Австрией проголосовали 99,08%, в самой Австрии, ставшей Остмарк Германской империи — 99,75%. 1 октября 1938 г. также были воссоединены с единокровной Германией чешские Судеты, 22 марта 1939 г. — литовская область Клайпеды, превратившейся в один день в немецкий Мемель. Во всех этих землях действительно жили большей частью немцы, повсюду многие из них действительно хотели соединиться с гитлеровским рейхом. Повсюду это воссоединение прошло под фанфары и крики ликования обезумевшей в шовинистическом угаре толпы и при попустительстве Запада.
«Мы не должны обманывать, а тем более не должны обнадеживать малые слабые государства, обещая им защиту со стороны Лиги Наций и соответствующие шаги с нашей стороны, — говорил Невилл Чемберлен в британском парламенте 22 февраля 1938 г., — поскольку мы знаем, что ничего подобного нельзя будет предпринять».
И совсем иное говорил Адольф Гитлер 23 марта 1939 г. с балкона на Театральной площади только что присоединенного Мемеля. За два часа до того он театрально вплыл на борту новейшего линкора «Германия» в мемельский порт. «…Немцы не собираются никому в мире делать ничего плохого, но нужно было прекратить страдания, которым в течение 20 лет подвергались немцы со стороны целого мира… Мемельских немцев Германия однажды уже бросила на произвол судьбы, когда смирилась с позором и бесславием. Сегодня мемельские немцы… опять становятся гражданами могучего Рейха, решительно настроенного взять в свои руки свою судьбу, даже если это не нравится половине мира».
И все казалось таким лучезарным. И слава Гитлера сияла в зените. И перед Великой Германией трепетал мир. Присоединение областей и стран к Рейху без единого выстрела, без единой капли крови — разве фюрер не гениальный политик?
А через шесть лет Германия была повержена, миллионы ее сынов убиты, миллионы ее дочерей обесчещены, ее города стерты с лица земли, ее культурные ценности, копившиеся веками, превратились в прах. От Германии были отторгнуты 2/5 территории, а оставшееся разделено на зоны и оккупировано державами-победительницами. И позор, позор, позор покрыл головы немцев. А все начиналось так лучезарно!
Друзья! История повторяется. В Крыму действительно живут русские. Но разве кто-нибудь притеснял их там, разве там они были людьми второго сорта, без права на язык, на православную веру? От кого их надо защищать солдатам российской армии? Кто нападал на них? Ввод войск иностранного государства на территорию другого государства без его разрешения — это агрессия. Захват парламента лицами в униформе без опознавательных знаков — это произвол. Принятие каких-либо решений парламентом Крыма в таких обстоятельствах — фарс. Сначала парламент захватили, премьера сменили на пророссийского, а потом этот новый премьер попросил у России помощи, когда помощники уже тут, уже день как контролируют полуостров. Как две капли воды похоже на аншлюс 1938 г. И даже референдум-плебисцит через месяц под дружественными штыками. Там — 10 апреля, здесь — 30 марта.
Просчитала ли российская власть все риски этой невероятной авантюры? Уверен, что нет. Как и Адольф Алоизович в свое время не просчитал. Просчитал бы — не метался по бункеру в апреле 1945 под русскими бомбами, не жрал бы ампулу с ядом.
А если Запад поступит не как Чемберлен с Деладье в 1938, а введет полное эмбарго на закупки российских энергоносителей и заморозит российские авуары в своих банках? Российская экономика, и так агонизирующая, рухнет в три месяца. И начнется смута здесь, по сравнению с которой майдан покажется райским садом.
А если крымские татары, которые категорически против русской власти, которые помнят, что эта власть сделала с ними в 1944 г. и как не пускала назад до 1988, если крымские татары обратятся за защитой своих интересов к единоверной и единокровной Турции? Ведь Турция не за три моря, а на другом берегу того же Черного. И Крымом владела подольше, чем Россия, — четыре века владела. Турки — не чемберлены и не деладье: они в июле 1974 г., защищая своих соплеменников, оккупировали 40% территории Кипра и, игнорируя все протесты, до сих пор поддерживают так называемую Турецкую Республику Северного Кипра, которую никто не признает, кроме них. Может быть, кому-то хочется иметь Турецкую Республику Южного Крыма? А ведь если горячие головы из крымских татар поднимутся на борьбу, то мусульманские радикалы со всего мира с радостью присоединятся к ним, а в особенности с Северного Кавказа и Поволжья. Не принесем ли мы бурю с крымских разоренных курортов в наш российский дом? Что нам — своих терактов мало?
И наконец, приобретя Крым, раздираемый внутренней распрей, мы навсегда потеряем народ Украины — украинцы не простят русским этого предательства никогда. Что, думаете, не будет, что это уж слишком, перемелется — мука будет? Не надейтесь, дорогие русские шовинисты. В конце XIX века сербы и хорваты считали себя одним народом, только разделенным границами, конфессией и графикой алфавита. Они стремились к единству — сколько книг было об этом написано ими тогда, умных, добрых книг. А сейчас мало найдется народов, столь озлобленных друг на друга, как сербы и хорваты. Сколько крови пролилось между ними, а все за какие-то кусочки земли, какие-то городки и долинки, в которых они могли бы жить вместе богато и радостно. Могли бы, да вот не сумели. Алчность до братской земли из братьев сделала врагов. А в повседневной жизни разве так не бывает? Стоит ли терять братский народ навсегда из-за призрачных вожделений? Да и раскол Русской церкви тогда уже неизбежен. Ее украинская половина отколется от московской навсегда.
Но еще более ужасным поражением обернется успех Кремля в присоединении Крыма. Если все легко получится, то завтра в Россию запросятся населенные русскими области Казахстана, там, глядишь, и Южная Осетия с Абхазией, и Северная Киргизия. За Австрией последовали Судеты, за Судетами — Мемель, за Мемелем — Польша, за Польшей — Франция, за Францией — Россия. Все начиналось с малого…
Друзья! Нам надо опомниться и остановиться. Наши политики втягивают наш народ в страшную, в ужасающую авантюру. Исторический опыт говорит, что ничего не обойдется так. Мы не должны вестись, как повелись в свое время немцы на посулы Геббельса и Гитлера. Ради мира в нашей стране, ради ее действительного возрождения, ради мира и настоящей дружественности на пространствах России исторической, разделенной ныне на многие государства, скажем «нет» этой безумной и, главное, совершенно ненужной агрессии.
Мы потеряли столько жизней в ХХ веке, что единственно верным нашим принципом должен быть принцип, провозглашенный великим Солженицыным: сохранение народа. Сохранение народа, а не собирание земель. Земли собираются только кровью и слезами.
Ни крови, ни слез нам больше не надо!
Автор — доктор исторических наук, профессор Андрей Зубов, ответственный редактор«Истории России, ХХ век»
Read the whole story

· · · · ·

были воссоединены с единокровной Германией чешские Судеты, 22 марта 1939 г. — литовская область Клайпеды, превратившейся в один день в немецкий Мемель. Во всех этих землях действительно жили большей частью немцы, повсюду многие из них действительно хотели соединиться с гитлеровским рейхом. Повсюду это воссоединение прошло под фанфары и крики ликования обезумевшей в шовинистическом угаре толпы и при попустительстве Запада.

«Мы не должны обманывать, а тем более не должны обнадеживать малые слабые государства, обещая им защиту со стороны Лиги Наций и соответствующие шаги с нашей стороны, — говорил Невилл Чемберлен в британском парламенте 22 февраля 1938 г., — поскольку мы знаем, что ничего подобного нельзя будет предпринять».
И совсем иное говорил Адольф Гитлер 23 марта 1939 г. с балкона на Театральной площади только что присоединенного Мемеля. За два часа до того он театрально вплыл на борту новейшего линкора «Германия» в мемельский порт. «…Немцы не собираются никому в мире делать ничего плохого, но нужно было прекратить страдания, которым в течение 20 лет подвергались немцы со стороны целого мира… Мемельских немцев Германия однажды уже бросила на произвол судьбы, когда смирилась с позором и бесславием. Сегодня мемельские немцы… опять становятся гражданами могучего Рейха, решительно настроенного взять в свои руки свою судьбу, даже если это не нравится половине мира».
И все казалось таким лучезарным. И слава Гитлера сияла в зените. И перед Великой Германией трепетал мир. Присоединение областей и стран к Рейху без единого выстрела, без единой капли крови — разве фюрер не гениальный политик?... Читать целиком →
А через шесть лет Германия была повержена, миллионы ее сынов убиты, миллионы ее дочерей обесчещены, ее города стерты с лица земли, ее культурные ценности, копившиеся веками, превратились в прах. От Германии были отторгнуты 2/5 территории, а оставшееся разделено на зоны и оккупировано державами-победительницами. И позор, позор, позор покрыл головы немцев. А все начиналось так лучезарно!
Друзья! История повторяется. В Крыму действительно живут русские. Но разве кто-нибудь притеснял их там, разве там они были людьми второго сорта, без права на язык, на православную веру? От кого их надо защищать солдатам российской армии? Кто нападал на них? Ввод войск иностранного государства на территорию другого государства без его разрешения — это агрессия. Захват парламента лицами в униформе без опознавательных знаков — это произвол. Принятие каких-либо решений парламентом Крыма в таких обстоятельствах — фарс. Сначала парламент захватили, премьера сменили на пророссийского, а потом этот новый премьер попросил у России помощи, когда помощники уже тут, уже день как контролируют полуостров. Как две капли воды похоже на аншлюс 1938 г. И даже референдум-плебисцит через месяц под дружественными штыками. Там — 10 апреля, здесь — 30 марта.
Просчитала ли российская власть все риски этой невероятной авантюры? Уверен, что нет. Как и Адольф Алоизович в свое время не просчитал. Просчитал бы — не метался по бункеру в апреле 1945 под русскими бомбами, не жрал бы ампулу с ядом.
А если Запад поступит не как Чемберлен с Деладье в 1938, а введет полное эмбарго на закупки российских энергоносителей и заморозит российские авуары в своих банках? Российская экономика, и так агонизирующая, рухнет в три месяца. И начнется смута здесь, по сравнению с которой майдан покажется райским садом.
А если крымские татары, которые категорически против русской власти, которые помнят, что эта власть сделала с ними в 1944 г. и как не пускала назад до 1988, если крымские татары обратятся за защитой своих интересов к единоверной и единокровной Турции? Ведь Турция не за три моря, а на другом берегу того же Черного. И Крымом владела подольше, чем Россия, — четыре века владела. Турки — не чемберлены и не деладье: они в июле 1974 г., защищая своих соплеменников, оккупировали 40% территории Кипра и, игнорируя все протесты, до сих пор поддерживают так называемую Турецкую Республику Северного Кипра, которую никто не признает, кроме них. Может быть, кому-то хочется иметь Турецкую Республику Южного Крыма? А ведь если горячие головы из крымских татар поднимутся на борьбу, то мусульманские радикалы со всего мира с радостью присоединятся к ним, а в особенности с Северного Кавказа и Поволжья. Не принесем ли мы бурю с крымских разоренных курортов в наш российский дом? Что нам — своих терактов мало?
И наконец, приобретя Крым, раздираемый внутренней распрей, мы навсегда потеряем народ Украины — украинцы не простят русским этого предательства никогда. Что, думаете, не будет, что это уж слишком, перемелется — мука будет? Не надейтесь, дорогие русские шовинисты. В конце XIX века сербы и хорваты считали себя одним народом, только разделенным границами, конфессией и графикой алфавита. Они стремились к единству — сколько книг было об этом написано ими тогда, умных, добрых книг. А сейчас мало найдется народов, столь озлобленных друг на друга, как сербы и хорваты. Сколько крови пролилось между ними, а все за какие-то кусочки земли, какие-то городки и долинки, в которых они могли бы жить вместе богато и радостно. Могли бы, да вот не сумели. Алчность до братской земли из братьев сделала врагов. А в повседневной жизни разве так не бывает? Стоит ли терять братский народ навсегда из-за призрачных вожделений? Да и раскол Русской церкви тогда уже неизбежен. Ее украинская половина отколется от московской навсегда.
Но еще более ужасным поражением обернется успех Кремля в присоединении Крыма. Если все легко получится, то завтра в Россию запросятся населенные русскими области Казахстана, там, глядишь, и Южная Осетия с Абхазией, и Северная Киргизия. За Австрией последовали Судеты, за Судетами — Мемель, за Мемелем — Польша, за Польшей — Франция, за Францией — Россия. Все начиналось с малого…
Друзья! Нам надо опомниться и остановиться. Наши политики втягивают наш народ в страшную, в ужасающую авантюру. Исторический опыт говорит, что ничего не обойдется так. Мы не должны вестись, как повелись в свое время немцы на посулы Геббельса и Гитлера. Ради мира в нашей стране, ради ее действительного возрождения, ради мира и настоящей дружественности на пространствах России исторической, разделенной ныне на многие государства, скажем «нет» этой безумной и, главное, совершенно ненужной агрессии.
Мы потеряли столько жизней в ХХ веке, что единственно верным нашим принципом должен быть принцип, провозглашенный великим Солженицыным: сохранение народа. Сохранение народа, а не собирание земель. Земли собираются только кровью и слезами.
Ни крови, ни слез нам больше не надо!
Автор — доктор исторических наук, профессор Андрей Зубов, ответственный редактор«Истории России, ХХ век»
Read the whole story

· · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2

In Crimea, Putin Has 'Lost His Mind'

1 Share
R
ussian President Vladimir Putin's decision to deploy troops across the strategic Ukrainian region of Crimea has sparked an international outcry. Many Russians, too, are indignant. One of the most stinging attacks so far has come from Andrei Zubov, a noted political commentator who has compared Putin to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. Zubov, a 62-year-old historian and professor of philosophy at the prestigious Moscow State Institute of International Affairs (MGIMO), spoke to RFE/RL's Claire Bigg. 


RFE/RL: On March 1, you published a column in Russia's "Vedomosti" daily in which you compare Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to deploy troops in Crimea to the annexation of Austria, together with the German-speaking Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and Lithuania's Memel Territory, by Adolf Hitler in 1938-39. What makes these events similar, in your opinion?
Andrei Zubov:

 Germans formed an ethnic majority in those territories. In all these places, they led perfectly normal lives. In Austria, they were the main ethnic group. In Sudetenland, they enjoyed self-governance, they had the right to use their own language, attend their own schools, publish newspapers. It was the same in Memelland, where they even had an autonomous status and their own parliament. These Germans were not repressed in any way.
But Hitler had a maniacal desire to restore the Reich, destroyed in the wake of World War I. This is precisely why these Anschluss were conducted. In all three cases, the local population did not strive for unification. But thanks to the activities of the secret services, of the SS, and of the Nazi party, public opinion gradually shifted. In the end, these territories were seized through unlawful annexations.

Exactly the same happened in Crimea. People without identification badges emerged, armed to the teeth and carrying brand new weapons. The main buildings, including parliament, were seized. Then the parliament, defended by special forces, chose a new prime minister. Everything was established retroactively and more troops were sent in. It's exactly the same scenario.
Putin is pursuing different goals that Hitler. Hitler strove to expand [German] territory and chauvinistically brainwash his people. I think the main goal here is to make Ukrainians hateful to Russians, so that the Maidan is not perceived by Russians as their own experience. So that it is seen as the experience of an enemy that needs to be rejected.
RFERL: You point out in your article that Russia faces international sanctions, political isolation, an irreparable fall-out with its Ukrainian neighbor, and possibly even retaliation from Turkey, which has close ties with Crimean Tatars. It seems like a very high price to pay for the sake of turning Russians against Ukrainians. Do you think Putin is aware of the risks?
Zubov:
 It's hard for me to judge, I haven't spoken to Putin personally. But in this case, not a single political analyst will make any serious prognosis. We always make prognoses based on the assumption that the politician, even if selfish and cruel, is intelligent and rational. But what we are now witnessing is the behavior of a politician who has clearly lost his mind.
These actions are absurd because of [the possibility of international] sanctions and of the sharp economic downturn, which is causing the collapse of the Russian financial market. If this continues, it will lead to an impoverishment of the population in a matter of months and huge social protests.
RFE/RL: What prompted you to pen such a virulent critique of Putin's actions toward Ukraine?
Zubov:
 Firstly, I wanted to tell the truth and bring Russians to their senses. People have been going crazy on the Internet, pledging to forgive Putin everything if he succeeds in returning Crimea. Secondly, I wanted to show Ukrainians that not everybody in Russia shares Putin's opinions, that there also is another Russia. This is my duty as a Russian citizen. I'm very grateful to the "Vedomosti" newspaper for its decision to immediately publish my text online on Saturday [March 1] evening.
RFE/RL: What was the initial reaction to your piece at "Vedomosti"? Did you encounter any resistance from editors there? After all, the independent online channel "Dozhd" is currently being threatened with closure simply for publishing a World War II opinion poll that some deemed offensive.
Zubov:
 I don't how they reacted. What I know is that it was done immediately. I sent them my article and they got back to me, asking whether I agreed to have the text posted online right away. I gave my consent and it went up.
RFE/RL: So this column was entirely your initiative?
Zubov:
 Absolutely. When I wrote this text, I did not think any newspaper would publish it. I thought I would have to circulate it on social networking sites.
RFE/RL: Your article has sparked a lively discussion online. Are you following this debate?
Zubov:
 I am, to a certain extent. But I did what I did and now I don't want to continue this polemic online. I have received many letters of support, though, and not a single one of condemnation. Many people have called me both from Russia and abroad.
RFE/RL: In the context of Russia's deepening crackdown on dissent, comparing Putin to Hitler is a bold gesture. Aren't you afraid?
Zubov:
 Of course I'm afraid. When a soldier takes up arms, he is scared of being killed in the end. But there are times when you need to take up arms. I'm an old person -- too old to go to battle with a rifle. My computer is my rifle.
Read the whole story

· · ·

New Cold War? Obama, Putin Are Split

1 Share
March 3, 2014 12:44 p.m. ET
President Barack Obama talking on the phone in the Oval Office with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the situation in Ukraine Saturday. Reuters
There are many differences in style and substance between President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the Ukraine crisis has brought into sharp relief the most important one: The American leader believes the world has moved beyond the Cold War, and his Russian counterpart seems more comfortable moving back into it.
In fact, this difference probably is true of the countries the two men lead, not just of the leaders themselves. Americans tend to see the Cold War in the rearview mirror as a wildly expensive period of ideological struggle that was settled decisively in favor of the rightful victor, democratic capitalism. Russians tend to view it as a period in which Moscow played its rightful role as a superpower with a large and clearly defined sphere of influence and an important voice on every world issue.
The differences help explain the depth of the disconnect between the U.S. and Russia as they circle each other warily over the future of Ukraine. By the American reckoning, a new set of standards ought to apply to 21st century international behavior, and the grounds for excusing one superpower's behavior because it believes it is involved in an existential struggle against the other have largely disappeared. By the other reckoning, the Russian one, big nation-states still have the clear right to protect their regional influence and interests.
Seen this way, the differences go well beyond disputes over tactics to a broader disagreement about how much the tide of history has moved on in the two decades since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is one thing to see the current crisis simply as a struggle over the fate of Ukraine, and quite another to see it as a zero-sum game in which the influence of one superpower inevitably goes down if the influence of the other goes up.
Americans tend to think a globalized economy is wiping away traditional borders and holds more power over the course of events than do traditional alliances, and ethnic distinctions are blurring amid the inexorable movement of the world's population across borders. In the other, Russian view, economic spheres of influence still are paramount and national identities hold sway.
The differences were clear in the two sides' descriptions of a 90-minute phone conversation the two leaders had over the weekend. In that call, according to the White House's readout, President Obama characterized the struggle in Ukraine as a case of allowing Ukrainians to exercise their right to self-determination. In the Kremlin's recounting of the conversation, Mr. Putin asserted Russia's "right to protect its interests."
Indeed, Mr. Putin has often framed his intervention in Ukraine in terms that echo the very origins of the Cold War. He claims his intervention on behalf of Ukraine's ousted president was undertaken to counter a "coup" by right-wing, even neo-fascist, parties. Flash back to Soviet rhetoric about the rise of pro-American military rulers in Central America in the 1980s, and the terminology will sound quite familiar.
President Obama, by contrast, has explicitly rejected the frame of Cold War-like competition to explain recent tensions. "I don't think there's a competition between the United States and Russia," he said two weeks ago, referring to tensions over both Ukraine and Syria. "Now, Mr. Putin has a different view on many of those issues, and I don't think that there's any secret on that. And our approach as the United States is not to see these as some Cold War chessboard in which we're in competition with Russia."
Perhaps the different world views aren't surprising, considering the striking contrasts in the background of these two leaders.
Mr. Putin's formative experience came as a young officer in the paramount Cold War institution of his country, the KGB. Moreover, he served not just in the KGB but on assignment for that spy service in the very crucible of the Cold War, East Germany, from 1985 to 1990.
And, by all appearances, he thrived in that environment. On Mr. Putin's personal website he recalls his time in East Germany and reports: "My work was going well. It was a normal thing to be promoted just once while working abroad. I was promoted twice."
That Putin experience unfolded just a couple of years after a young college student named Barack Obama completed a thesis at Columbia University on how the U.S. and the Soviet Union could negotiate deep cuts in Cold War nuclear arsenals.
Now, just as there was a North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, Mr. Putin seems to see a similar set of rival alliances unfolding. He sees something called a Eurasian Economic Union to offset the well-established European Union. It is a Cold War concept—and it's no coincidence that Ukraine is central to it.
Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
Read the whole story

· · · ·

Russia Seizes Border Posts in Crimea, Says Ukraine

1 Share
Updated March 3, 2014 9:27 a.m. ET
Russia has moved military vehicles into place along its border with Crimea astensions with Ukraine escalate. WSJ Moscow bureau chief Greg White joins the News Hub to discuss. Photo: AP.
Ukraine accused the Kremlin on Monday of violently seizing border posts and making moves to significantly expand its forces in Crimea, while Russia's currency and stock markets plunged dramatically following the Russian military occupation of the breakaway region.
Ukraine's State Border Service said Russian forces had violently taken over border posts on the peninsula and are massing armored military vehicles on its side of a narrow sea crossing separating the region from Russia, increasing pressure on Ukrainian forces still in the region.
Ukraine's newly appointed prime minister, Arseniy Yatsensyuk, said there was little chance of resolving the standoff in the "short term." But he said there was no evidence that Russian forces have tried to push out of Crimea into mainland Ukraine and that he doesn't believe they plan to do so.
Russia has taken advantage of the new, weak government in Kiev by swiftly moving its troops into the Ukrainian province of Crimea. James Marson explains the events that led to this standoff.
Russian officials had no immediate comment about the report of troop movements on the Russian side of the ferry crossing. A Russian customs official reached at the crossing said that the ferry was running normally.
The sharp escalation of military action in Crimea sent Russia's stocks, bonds and currency into steep decline Monday morning. The ruble sank to record lows against the U.S. dollar and euro, prompting the Bank of Russia to announce a surprise rise in interest rates by 1.5 percentage points, while Moscow's Micex index was down 11% in afternoon trading.
"All the Russian assets are being sold now. It's panic. The market is nervous and one should not wait for positive news," said Egor Fedorov, an analyst at ING Bank in Moscow.
Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull his troops out of Crimea saying, "we are on the brink of disaster." Photo: Getty Images
Hundreds of Russian troops surrounded a Ukranian military base in Crimean town of Perevalnoe early Sunday morning. Photo: Getty Images
Russia's deputy economy minister, Andrei Klepach, said that the central bank's move had nothing to do with inflation and was purely aimed at limiting losses in the ruble, the Interfax news agency reported.
Ukrainian leaders accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of bringing their two nations to the brink of war after Russia's upper house of parliament authorized him on Saturday to deploy troops in Ukraine. The Kremlin claims that Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine are under threat from the new government, which was ushered in after the ouster of its ally, President Viktor Yanukovych .
As military tension has increased, pro-Ukrainian officials in Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine have come under pressure from Russia and pro-Russian local leaders to switch allegiances.
The border guard suggested the latest moves could be part of an attempt to scare military units loyal to Kiev to abandon the country's young government.
"In the last few hours the pressure from the Russian military against Ukrainian border guards has significantly increased," the border service said in a statement. "The Russians special forces have taken control of several border units using brutal physical force and threat of arms and fear-mongering."
Armed men stand outside the cabinet of ministers building in Simferopol on Monday. Reuters
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree Monday creating a company to build a long-planned bridge connecting Russia to Crimea. The Kerch Strait separating Russia from Crimea is less than 3 miles wide at its narrowest point.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday that Russian military intervention is simply aimed at protecting Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Ukraine from "the threat of violent actions from ultranationalists" until the situation in the country stabilizes.
The U.S. and leaders in Europe have condemned Russia's actions, with the Group of Seven nations saying they won't participate in meeting in the Russian resort of Sochi this summer, and some threatening possible sanctions.
Mr. Lavrov countered that the backlash from the global community failed to take into account the lessons of World War II. He urged world leaders not to blindly back the new pro-Western government taking form in Kiev, which he said failed to abide by a Feb. 21 peace agreement with Mr. Yanukovychand instead drove him from power. Russia still recognizes Mr. Yanukovych as the legitimate president of Ukraine and has given him refuge.
Ukraine's border service said Russian forces are now controlling at least three border positions, including the Kerch border post near the sea crossing with Russia.
Late on Sunday, Russian forces broke windows and doors and destroyed the communication equipment inside the military building, according to the Ukrainian statement.
Each attack was conducted by groups of about 100 Russian servicemen, the border guard said.
If the Ukrainian border service reports are true, it would indicate that the Russians are strengthening their positions on both side of the waterway, from the Russian side with armored vehicles and on the Crimean side by forcing the evacuation of the administrative buildings at the Kerch border post and the of the naval unit post there.
Write to Margaret Coker at margaret.coker@wsj.com and Alexander Kolyandr atAlexander.Kolyandr@wsj.com
Read the whole story

· · · · · ·

How Moscow Orchestrated Events in Crimea

1 Share
March 2, 2014 11:07 p.m. ET
Russia has moved military vehicles into place along its border with Crimea as tensions with Ukraine escalate. WSJ Moscow Bureau Chief Greg White joins the News Hub to discuss. Photo: AP.

Putin's Dance: One foot on a slippery slope, another one - up in the air... | How Moscow Orchestrated Events in Crimea - WSJ

Прибытие на Кирилловский полигон.

Наблюдение за военными учениями

Владимир Путин наблюдал за военными учениями на Кирилловском полигоне в Ленинградской области. Главу государства сопровождали Министр обороны Сергей Шойгу, командующий войсками Западного военного округа Анатолий Сидоров и начальник Главного управления боевой подготовки Вооружённых Сил Иван Бувальцев.




How Moscow Orchestrated Events in Crimea

1 Share
March 2, 2014 11:07 p.m. ET
Russia has moved military vehicles into place along its border with Crimea as tensions with Ukraine escalate. WSJ Moscow Bureau Chief Greg White joins the News Hub to discuss. Photo: AP.
SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine—A week ago, Dmitry Polonsky was a fringe political activist in the Ukrainian province of Crimea, signing up middle-aged men rankled by the new authorities in Kiev to a small pro-Russia militia.
Russia has taken advantage of the new, weak government in Kiev by swiftly moving its troops into the Ukrainian province of Crimea. James Marson explains the events that led to this standoff.
Today, as thousands of Russian troops swarm through Crimea, Mr. Polonsky's star is rising. He introduces himself as an adviser to Crimea's new prime minister. His Russian Unity party, though holding only three of 100 seats in the regional assembly, is the de facto authority in the Black Sea peninsula that has cut itself off from mainland Ukraine. On Sunday, the party's leader said he would be raising an army to defend Crimea against invasion from Kiev.
"The government of Crimea will be owned by Crimeans," Mr. Polonsky told a gathering Sunday, as Russian flags waved above the crowd.
The sudden rise of Russian Unity shows how the Kremlin, faced with a pro-Europe uprising in Kiev that emerged victorious, responded by helping push a once-marginal group of Russian nationalists into power—a feat of political stagecraft that played out like clockwork under the cover of chaos.
The turn of events in Crimea shows how adroitly Moscow has used old allies and long-simmering resentments to fill a power vacuum left by the Feb. 22 overthrow of Ukraine's Russian-backed president, Viktor Yanukovych . By potentially transforming Crimea into a dubious unrecognized republic and destabilizing Ukraine's east, Moscow has gained a crucial lever of power over the new, weak government in Kiev.
Russian solders walk as a local resident holds a Russian flag outside of a Ukrainian military base outside of Simferopol, Ukraine, on Sunday. Associated Press
In seizing control of Crimea, long an autonomous region of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putinappears for the moment to have reversed what looked like a major political setback. But he has also provoked perhaps the largest rift between Moscow and the West since the fall of the Soviet Union. With Ukrainian and Russian troops facing one another at bases in Crimea, he also risks a shooting war.
Mr. Putin has said that Russia is defending threats to Russians and to Russian-speakers in Crimea. Moscow says it reserves the right to defend Russian citizens as well as "compatriots"—a vague term the Kremlin uses to refer to residents of the former Soviet Union.
Even before Ukraine's new interim leader had picked a cabinet to regain control of the country last week, Crimea was on a path toward independence, in a seemingly choreographed string of events that saw Crimea's assembly building seized by unknown gunmen. They presided over a closed-door session where deputies kicked out the old Crimean leadership and appointed a new, Moscow-friendly leader.

Related Video

Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull his troops out of Crimea saying, "we are on the brink of disaster." Photo: Getty Images
Hundreds of Russian troops surrounded a Ukranian military base in Crimean town of Perevalnoe early Sunday morning. Photo: Getty Images
Russia has over the past week funneled thousands of troops into Crimea. Some came directly from Sochi, where they had been providing security for the Olympic Games.
The U.S. said the troop influx continued Sunday, as Russian infantry units surrounded the vastly outnumbered Ukrainian military on bases in the peninsula. Ukrainian military officials said Russian soldiers have been arriving by the thousands aboard troop ships and Ilyushin aircraft. They estimated the number of Russian forces now on the peninsula at 13,000.
Mr. Putin's argument that Russia is protecting Russians is one few Western governments accept, as there have been no signs of systematic attacks on Russians inside Ukraine, and especially not in Crimea, which is overwhelmingly Russian-speaking. But with Western leaders so far only expressing moral outrage, Mr. Putin appears to be betting he can face down the West in a part of the world he views as vital to Russia's security and economy.
Mr. Putin has fought bitterly to defend what the Kremlin calls its "sphere of privileged interests" in former Soviet countries. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has inserted itself into ethnic conflicts with neighboring states to assert its influence. In 2008 it invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia to defend the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
Mr. Putin is taking a much bigger gamble in Ukraine because the loss of influence there could deal a blow to his presidency. Many Russians still struggle to see Ukraine as an independent country, given bonds of history and religious ties.
Crimea is even closer, having been Russian territory until 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine, then a Soviet republic. When the Soviet Union collapsed Crimea remained part of newly independent Ukraine, despite its majority of ethnic Russians.
Mr. Putin long cultivated a close relationship with Mr. Yanukovych, the deposed Ukrainian president. He even traveled to Ukraine to campaign for Mr. Yanukovych in 2004, before the Ukrainian's disastrous defeat after botched efforts to win the polling through what was widely alleged to be vote fraud.
After Mr. Yanukovych came to power in Kiev in 2010, powerful businessmen and politicians from his home region of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine took up prominent posts in Crimea. But when support for Mr. Yanukovych collapsed after deadly clashes in Kiev last month, so did the rule of his allies. Leaders in Kiev were too far away and distracted with consolidating power to fill the vacuum in a distant region such as Crimea.
Moscow, however, had for years cultivated contacts in Crimea, and in recent months appears to have been laying the groundwork to take a bigger role. Vladislav Surkov, a top Kremlin political strategist, visited last month before Mr. Yanukovych's fall to meet with local leaders. Mustafa Jemilev, a deputy in Ukraine's parliament, said Moscow had long been funding pro-Russia groups and giving them a media platform.
The leader of a Russian nationalist party with ties to the Kremlin came to Crimea and signed a cooperation pact with Sergei Aksyonov, the head of the Russian Unity party and then one of its three deputies in the regional assembly.
After Mr. Yanukovych fled Kiev on Feb. 21, Russian Unity sprang into action. It started signing up people for self-defense militias at a rally two days later to defend the region from the new government in Kiev. These volunteers, called to protest or stand guard in a moment's notice, would become a critical means of presenting the change in power as the people's will.
Mr. Aksyonov allied with Vladimir Konstantinov, speaker of the local assembly. Though Mr. Konstantinov belonged to Mr. Yanukovych's party, he quickly broke ranks with it and made the first widely broadcast comments about Crimean separatism even before the rally, saying the region would break off and seek to rejoin Russia in the event of a Ukrainian collapse.
The same day, a crowd gathered in Crimea's most Russian-dominated city, Sevastopol, and by a show of hands declared their support for a Russian citizen, Alexei Chaly, as the new de facto mayor. The next day an angry crowd of nationalists effectively installed Mr. Chaly as mayor by threatening to storm the city administration. The city council held an emergency vote that confirmed his authority.
The political passions then moved to Simferopol, Crimea's regional capital. Hundreds of Crimean Tatars, an ethnic minority that supports the new rulers in Kiev, rallied outside the regional parliamentto support Ukraine's territorial integrity. Russian nationalists mobilized an opposing protest.
One man died of a heart attack after someone released pepper spray and the crowds collided. But widespread violence was averted, and the Tatars returned to their hometowns.
Before dawn the next morning, truckloads of unidentified men with guns showed up and took control of the Crimean parliament building. They also seized the executive branch building. Police walled off half of downtown Simferopol.
What initially seemed like a chaotic seizure of buildings by random armed radicals, throwing the city into uncertainty, started to exhibit signs of a carefully plotted takeover.
Anatoly Mogilyov, the Crimean prime minister from Donetsk appointed by Mr. Yanukovych, showed up to try to negotiate, but one militant said he wasn't "authorized" to do so, according to local media reports. The gunmen nevertheless allowed Mr. Konstantinov to convene an emergency session of parliament.
It wasn't public. Outsiders couldn't enter to determine whether there was a quorum or how many people voted. But its decision was announced to a group of roaring Russian nationalists gathered outside: The deputies had fired Mr. Mogilyov and replaced him with the leader of the Russian Unity party, Mr. Aksyonov.
They also voted to hold a referendum on Crimean statehood, initially set for May 25 but now slated for March 30.
The following morning, heavily armed troops without insignia or markings on their vehicles took up positions around Crimea's main airports and other installations. They gradually fanned out through much of the peninsula. Ukrainian officials said they were Russian troops and demanded they return to the Russia's Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol. Moscow ignored them.
By Saturday, Mr. Aksyonov was in full control. Russian state television arrived at his office for a live feed, where he said he had appealed to Russia to help him "bring order" to the peninsula.
Citing the large numbers of armed men and military equipment coursing through the roads without insignia, he said he asked Moscow to send troops. Troops from the Black Sea Fleet also would help provide security for "vital facilities" across Crimea, he said, even though by then they were already there.
Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying Kiev-allied gunmen tried to take control of the Crimean Interior Ministry in Simferopol in an attack that resulted in casualties. A top official at the local special forces unit and people who live next to the building said no such attack occurred.
In Moscow, sleepy parliamentarians were rousted for emergency sessions Saturday. They approved appeals to Mr. Putin to "take all possible measures" in Ukraine. Mr. Putin responded with a formal request for the authorization to deploy troops "until the normalization of the social-political situation." The vote in favor was unanimous.
By that time, arriving Russian troops no longer bothered to hide the license plates on their vehicles, which showed their origin. The Kremlin maintained that it hadn't given the order to invade and said the troops were simply providing security for the Black Sea Fleet base at the tip of the peninsula.
Russian flags went up on the border between Crimea and mainland Ukraine, as local units of riot police loyal to Russia started checking cars alongside volunteer militiamen with guns. The Russian troops fanned out further on Sunday, surrounding all military installations in Crimea controlled by the Ukrainian army to prevent them from responding.
Meanwhile, in Kiev, Ukraine's new government fired its top naval officer after only one day in the job after he swore allegiance on national television to the new separatist leaders in Crimea. It wasn't immediately clear whether other Ukrainian naval officers followed Rear Admiral Denis Berezovsky to defect to the side of the pro-Russian Crimean authorities...

Vladimir Putin's new plan for world domination


Vladimir Putin's new plan for world domination

Vladimir Putin's new plan for world domination » The Spectator

1 Share

Listen

Mary Wakefield and Freddy Gray discuss Putin's master plan
It’s been a generation or so since Russians were in the business of shaping the destiny of the world, and most of us have forgotten how good they used to be at it. For much of the last century Moscow fuelled — and often won — the West’s ideological and culture wars. In the 1930s, brilliant operatives like Willi Muenzenberg convinced ‘useful idiots’ to join anti-fascist organisations that were in reality fronts for the Soviet-backed Communist International. Even in the twilight years of the Soviet Union the KGB was highly successful at orchestrating nuclear disarmament movements and trade unionism across the West.
Now, after two decades in the economic basket, Russia is decisively back as an ideological force in the world — this time as a champion of conservative values. In his annual state of the nation speech to Russia’s parliament in December, Vladimir Putin assured conservatives around the world that Russia was ready and willing to stand up for ‘family values’ against a tide of liberal, western, pro-gay propaganda ‘that asks us to accept without question the equality of good and evil’. Russia, he promised, will ‘defend traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilisation in every nation for thousands of years’. Crucially, Putin made it clear that his message was directed not only at Russians — who have already been protected from ‘promotion of non-traditional relationships’ by recent legislation — but for ‘more and more people across the world who support our position’.
He’s on to something. Ukraine’s near-revolutionary turmoil this week pits East versus West — but it’s also a culture war between social conservatives and social liberals. The forces against the government in Kiev tend to be aligned with the EU and modern ‘democratic values’, including gay rights; whereas government supporters tend to be more Russophile and their banners include ones that say ‘EURO = HOMO’. These are precisely the battle lines on which Putin has raised his conservative ideological standard.
A recent report by the Centre for Strategic Communications, a Kremlin-connected think tank, neatly summarised Putin’s ambition: it’s entitled ‘Putin: World Conservatism’s New Leader’. The report argues that large, silent majorities around the world favour traditional family values over feminism and gay rights — and that Putin is their natural leader. ‘The Kremlin apparently believes it has found the ultimate wedge issue to unite its supporters and divide its opponents, both in Russia and the West, and garner support in the developing world,’ says Radio Free Europe’s Brian Whitmore. ‘They seem to believe they have found the ideology that will return Russia to its rightful place as a great power with a messianic mission and the ability to win hearts and minds globally.’
Putin’s siren call has found support in some unexpected quarters. The conservative American commentator — and one-time arch anti-communist — Pat Buchanan was one of the architects of the Reagan-era ‘Moral Majority’ movement which heralded the rise of the Christian right as a political force. Now he’s full of praise for Putin’s ‘paleo-conservative moment’. The great ideological struggle of the 21st century will be between ‘conservatives and traditionalists in every country arrayed against the militant secularism of a multicultural and transnational elite’, Buchanan wrote in a recent blog post. ‘While much of American and western media dismiss him as an authoritarian and reactionary, a throwback, Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans.’ The Illinois-based World Congress of Families, an organisation that promotes family values, has already accepted an invitation to hold its eighth annual International Congress in Moscow. ‘Russia could be a great ally for conservatives, on issues like defending the family, abortions, even strengthening marriage and promoting more children,’ the Congress of Families managing director Larry Jacobs told the state-run RIA news agency.
But the Kremlin’s true target audience is not on the right-wing fringes of western politics but people in what was once called the Soviet sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union, Middle East and Africa. Russian diplomats and academics have taken a leading role in promoting an anti-gay-rights resolution in the United Nations’ Human Rights Council in Geneva, building a coalition of conservative nations behind a resolution declaring that human rights had to be subordinate to ‘traditional values and cultural sovereignty’. (In 2011 the US backed a resolution explicitly protecting sexual minorities under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights — but Russia stepped in to lead the counteroffensive.) ‘Russia has been using this issue to develop a constituency in Muslim and African countries,’ says Mark Gevisser, an Open Society Fellow who is writing a book on the global debate on gay rights. ‘This brand of ideological moral conservatism was originally minted in the US. It is highly ironic that these countries are mounting an anti-western crusade using a western tool.’ Moscow plays on opposition to gay rights most effectively closer to home. Last November, when it looked like the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was close to signing an Association Agreement with the European Union, billboards appeared across the country warning that the ‘EU means legalising same-sex marriage’. The campaign was paid for by Ukraine’s Choice, a group associated with the Kremlin-connected politician and businessman Viktor Medvedchuk.
But Putin’s new mission goes deeper than political opportunism. Like the old Communist International, or Comintern, in its day, Moscow is again building an international ideological alliance. The Comintern sought to bring ‘progressives’ and left-wingers of every stripe into Moscow’s ideological big tent; Putin is pitching for moral leadership of all conservatives who dislike liberal values. And again, like the Comintern, Putin appears convinced that he is embarking on a world-historical mission. It’s certainly true that such a moral mission has deep roots in Russian history. Many previous occupants of the Kremlin have set themselves up as defenders of orthodoxy and autocracy — notably Nicholas I, the ‘gendarme of Europe’, and the arch-conservative Alexander III. Putin quoted the 19th-century conservative thinker Nikolai Berdyaev in his Duma speech. ‘The point of conservatism is not that it prevents movement forward and upward,’ Putin said, ‘but that it prevents movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.’
It would be easy to dismiss Putin’s conservative Comintern as another Sochi-style vanity project if it weren’t for the fact that Russia’s hard power is growing in parallel with its soft power. For the first time in a generation Moscow called the shots on a major international diplomatic issue last year, when Sergei Lavrov’s plan to supervise Syria’s chemical weapons disarmament derailed US plans for military strikes on Damascus. Over recent years Moscow unsuccessfully backed local despots in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and Libya — and they lost their heads, just like old Soviet clients from Afghanistan to Yugoslavia. But with Syria that run of failure is finally changing. Moscow’s diplomatic protection in the UN, backed by Russian weapons, intelligence and military expertise, finally means something again. If Harry Truman wanted to make the US the arsenal of democracy, then Putin seems to have a similar plan for Russia to be the arsenal of reaction.
There’s a third plank to Russia’s ambitious programme to shape the world in its image: an ongoing campaign to redesign the global architecture of the internet to allow more control by individual states. Since the foundation of the world wide web, its effective control centre has been at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — known as ICANN, the non-profit organisation that assigns internet addresses and traffic routes based in Los Angeles, California. Russia has long demanded that ICANN be moved out of the US — and has been quick to seize on the leaks of the National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden’s reports as a tool to topple the US from the moral high ground of internet user freedom and embarrass Washington.
Last November a delegation of Russian senators and Foreign Ministry officials paid an official visit to the US to complain to American service providers for failing to guarantee user privacy. They also renewed demands to reform ICANN. A logical enough demand, on the face of it, after Snowden’s revelations revealed deeply flawed oversight systems over America’s spies. But the problem with dismantling ICANN is that it could lead to an increase in the control allowed to individual states not only over their own internet space — which they have already — but over the entire world wide web. In other words, Russia could block someone it doesn’t like in Germany by invoking an anti-terror clause and shutting down opponents’ domain name server, or DNS, the basic address book of the internet. Without a DNS, web pages become unfindable and effectively disappear.
The issue of who controls the internet will be debated at a major international conference next year, the biggest such confab since 2005. Strategically, Russia has clearly set its sights on two goals: wresting control of the internet away from the US, and creating a new definition of ‘cyber-terrorism’ that’s as loose as its own legislation on ‘extremism’, which has recently been used to prosecute eco-activists, peaceful protestors, independent media outlets and gay activists. Russia’s suggestion is to shift control of the internet away from ICANN to the International Telecommunication Union or ITU, the United Nations agency responsible for co-ordinating global use of the radio spectrum and satellite orbits. The ITU’s basic charter guarantees freedom of access to the internet — except, crucially, in cases of cyber–terrorism. Over the last ten years Russia has tried three times in the UN and once in the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to push through resolutions on cyber terror on the internet. But such legislation has been opposed by the US and Europe because ‘the only practical implications of such a move would be to allow countries to suppress dissent,’ says Alexander Klimburg, an adviser on cyber security to the OSCE.
Conservative values, international diplomacy, the architecture of the internet: apparently diverse areas where Russia is exercising international influence. They are all united by a common theme, the same one that is trumpeted very plainly by the Sochi Games: Russia is back as a major global player, and doesn’t care how much it costs to show it. The scheme has feet of clay, of course, as does Putin’s rule itself, insofar as it is founded on sky-high energy prices which are already beginning to tumble under the assaults of cheap shale gas and alternative energy. But for the time being at least, Putin has the means and now the plan to project Russian power, both hard and soft, beyond Russia’s borders for the first time since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
This article first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 22 February 2014



Flight Of The Bumblebee - Rimsky-Korsakov


...the relentless anti-Americanism on state media was in the past dismissed as crude propaganda that served a transparent political purpose but appeared now to reflect the actual worldview of the Kremlin. “It’s a catastrophe for Ukraine and for Russia,” he said. “The problem is that quite a few people in Russia don’t understand the consequences. They believe the country is strong and can do whatever it wants to do.”

Putin Engages in Test of Will Over Ukraine

1 Share
MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin has left little doubt he intends to cripple Ukraine’s new government, forcing it to make concessions or face the de facto partition of areas populated predominantly by ethnic Russians, from the Crimea to Odessa to the industrial heartland in the east.
That strategy has been pursued aggressively by subterfuge, propaganda and bold military threat, taking aim as much at the United States and its allies in Europe as Ukraine itself. The pivotal question now for Kiev and Western capitals, is how boldly Mr. Putin continues to push his agenda, risking a more heated military and diplomatic conflict.
So far, the Kremlin has shown no sign of yielding to international pressure — but it also has not taken the most provocative step yet, openly ordering Russian troops to reinforce those already in Crimea and expand its incursion into southern or eastern Ukraine.
Asked on Sunday about President Obama’s suspension of preparations to attend the Group of 8 summit meeting scheduled for June in Sochi — along with Canada, France and Britain — Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, replied cuttingly and dismissively. “It’s not a minus for Russia,” he said. “It will be a minus for the G-8.”
Mr. Putin has yet to make public remarks on the crisis in Ukraine, leaving his ultimate goals uncertain and unpredictable. Still, his strategy is aimed at blunting the impact of a popular uprising that sought to push the country away from Russia and deepen ties with Europe, and Mr. Putin has already left the fledgling government disorganized, discredited and forced to compromise on terms that would keep the country firmly within Russia’s sphere of influence, especially regarding the Crimea peninsula.
The Kremlin’s pledge to protect compatriots in Ukraine from suppression of a Western-minded majority mirrors Russia’s role in other disputed territories of the former Soviet republics over the years, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Those two breakaway regions of Georgia survived in a diplomatic limbo after the collapse of the Soviet Union with overt and covert Kremlin pressure until war erupted in 2008 and Russia routed ill-prepared Georgian troops.
Russia brushed aside strong warnings from the United States and others at the time and recognized them as independent countries — and paid little price for it in the long run. Mr. Putin appears to be calculating again that Russia is too important for other countries to respond more forcefully, despite warnings like those by Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday that the United States would consider an array of sanctions that could include freezing assets and travel of senior officials here.
“As brilliant as the man is, he has only one pattern,” Nina L. Khrushcheva, a professor of international affairs at the New School in New York, said of Mr. Putin. Ms. Khrushcheva, the great-granddaughter of Nikita S. Khrushchev, whose decision to cede Crimea to Kiev’s jurisdiction instead of Moscow’s in 1954 is a disputed legacy at the heart of Russia’s claims in Ukraine, added, “It’s a clever pattern, but he has only one.”
The stakes in Ukraine are, however, much higher than the war with Georgia. And given Ukraine’s strategic position in the center of Europe, so are the risks. Russia has significant trade with Ukraine, but even more so with Europe. Its gas monopoly, Gazprom, has already made it clear that it was prepared to forgo discounts on natural gas that Russia offered the government of President Viktor F. Yanukovych and to collect on the debt Ukraine already owes. As it did in 2006 and 2009, Russia could turn off the supply to Ukraine. But since its pipelines pass west through Ukraine, that would mean cutting off Russia’s largest customers in Europe, too.
Any escalation of Russia’s military intervention, especially if it meets resistance and bloodshed, will almost certainly rattle investors and plunge Russia’s unsteady economy into free fall. With the value of the ruble already falling, there was quick speculation of a rocky start when the stock market opens on Monday.
For now, such calculations appear to be secondary to the fury that the toppling of Mr. Yanukovych’s government has caused inside the Kremlin. Ukraine has deep historical, social and religious connections to Russia that are often underestimated in the United States, especially. More significantly, Mr. Putin and the close circle of aides he relies on most, view the overthrow of Mr. Yanukovych as a coup orchestrated by the West to undercut Russia’s vital interests.
Sergei Utkin, the head of the Department of Strategic Assessment, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that the relentless anti-Americanism on state media was in the past dismissed as crude propaganda that served a transparent political purpose but appeared now to reflect the actual worldview of the Kremlin. “It’s a catastrophe for Ukraine and for Russia,” he said. “The problem is that quite a few people in Russia don’t understand the consequences. They believe the country is strong and can do whatever it wants to do.”
How Mr. Putin perceives these events remains central to what happens next, experts said. Does he believe he has already succeeded by making clear that Russia has the will and the means to force its agenda in Ukraine? Or does he feel the job is only half done and that having stoked Russian nationalism, he has no choice but to plow ahead?
The deployment of Russian troops across Crimea — which Mr. Peskov refused to acknowledge — has already effectively severed Crimea from Ukrainian control, even as it provoked tense confrontation with Ukrainian troops at some bases. It allowed a new regional leader to plead for Russia’s protection and gave the Kremlin the pretense to oblige.
Ethnic Russian supporters — abetted by Russia’s secret services, according to Ukrainian and foreign officials — are now mounting demonstrations in other cities, including Kharkiv and Donetsk, that could lead to similar calls for Russian intervention.
The unanimous vote by Russia’s upper house of Parliament on Saturday night to authorize an intervention, after a debate that vilified the United States in ways reminiscent of the darkest periods of the Cold War, took place after the first Russian reinforcements had already begun arriving, according to Ukrainian and other Western officials. The vote nevertheless gave Mr. Putin a strong hand to play, threatening a much larger conventional military operation to protect “citizens and compatriots” in Ukraine, as Mr. Putin said in telephone conversations with Mr. Obama and the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, according to the Kremlin.
Mr. Peskov said that Mr. Putin had not yet ordered the operation but now had “the full array of options available to him” if the crisis worsened. He emphasized that Russia supported a unified Ukraine, but also argued that the country’s new leaders had violated the agreement brokered by the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland to establish a unity government that would leave Mr. Yanukovych in place as president until new elections in December.
He suggested a diplomatic resolution would begin with a return to the terms of those agreements. That would mean the dismissal of the new interim government that the United States and others have already endorsed and the return of Mr. Yanukovych, who appeared on Friday at a surreal news conference in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don after dropping out of sight for a week. “He may be the last man to present himself for the presidency,” Mr. Peskov said, reflecting the greatly diminished reputation of Mr. Yanukovych in Moscow now, “but he is the legitimate one.”
For now, though, with a large-scale military exercise in western Russian already underway, the country felt very much on a war footing. By Sunday, an information campaign swept like an orchestrated gust through state-controlled news media. There were frenetic reports of clashes in Ukraine, of fascist threats to ethnic Russians and of the flight — entirely unsubstantiated — of 675,000 Ukrainians crossing Russia’s frontier as refugees. (One channel, in fact, showed a short line of cars at Ukraine’s border with Poland, not Russia.)...