keskiviikko 26. marraskuuta 2014

Is “third world” Europe finished?

Bryan MacDonald is a Russia-based Irish journalist and media commentator who focuses on Russia and its hinterlands and international geo-politics.

Published time: November 11, 2014 15:32

Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone says “third world” Europe is finished and some British industrialists agree. However, the reality is far more complicated. It’s not the continent that's finished - it's Europe's neoliberal elites who are in peril.
Andy Street, the managing director of Britain’s prestigious retailer John Lewis claimed recently that France was “finished.” Mr. Street, wasn’t holding back, and described France as “sclerotic, hopeless and downbeat.” He added: “I’ve never been to a country more ill at ease… nothing works and worse, nobody cares about it.” Mr. Street has obviously never been to Africa or some pockets of Eastern Europe, then. He went on to describe Paris’ Gare Du Nord train station, as the “squalor pit of Europe.” Strong stuff.

Mr. Ecclestone, who has been moving F1 Grand Prix out of their traditional European bases, decided to lambast the entire continent. Not content with merely laying into his Gallic neighbors, he said all of Europe was “finished.” “Slowly but surely what I predicted about Europe is happening. What I said 10 years ago is that it would soon become a third world economy,” he told London’s Daily Telegraph. “Europe was built on Germany and France. That’s how it all started. France is gone and Germany doesn’t look good.”

The second part is correct. The modern EU stems from two post-war realities. Germany’s Ruhr had coal and steel resources and France didn’t. Also, France was afraid of another war with Germany - after two invasions in a quarter century - and interlinked prosperity guaranteed peace and mutual co-dependence. This was a great idea, no doubt about that. Sadly, it eventually led to the euro, which wasn’t such a good idea.

It’s not just the Brits who are bashing France, the Germans are joining in. Hans-Werner Sinn, President of Berlin’s Institute for Economic Research claims that “France’s industry has been dying for decades. Hiding the unemployed in government offices is not a healthy solution.”
There are 3.4 million people, officially, out of work in France. The real figure is probably much higher. For context, Napoleon’s famed Grande Armee numbered about 650,000 during its invasion of Russia - less than a fifth of the current jobless total. In theory, Francois Hollande could conquer most of Europe and make it all the way to Moscow, five times, with his army of the idle. Nonetheless, this would, like the euro, not be a very clever idea.

Before explaining the reasons for France’s woes and how the continent can be rebooted, let me first point out something important. British business leaders frequently use France as a convenient whipping boy, ignoring the failings of their country. The UK’s position, outside of London, is probably even more critical than that of France. While France has, undoubted, problems, the North of England is in a far worse state and is better compared to ex-communist states. It’s frightful.

There’s also the fact that the British, along with the Russians (for the most part), while geographically European, only see themselves as “slightly European.” This, possibly, comes from having been great empires and also from their location on opposite fringes of the continent. It also allows both to see Europe as a separate, far-away, entity - failing to account for how much their economies depend on it. In London discourse, Europe means the continental part; in Russia it generally means EU states.

Nevertheless, the problem is not France, or the UK (beyond London), nor Germany for that matter. It’s the failed ideology of neoliberal globalization. This ridiculous creed has crushed the working and middle-classes all over Europe. For the simple reason that it doesn’t work. You can't destroy your manufacturing base, via outsourcing, and then wonder why there are no decent jobs. Cause and effect - the two are completely interlinked

If you don’t believe me, look at the political parties which have suddenly gained popularity at the expense of the neoliberal establishment across the continent? From Ireland’s Sinn Fein to Spain’s Podemos and Greece’s Syriza, they all have common roots. All come from outside the center left elite, show little interest in trade unions and are working class in origin. As a consequence, the traditional European central-left are being decimated. Ireland’s Fianna Fail, Germany’s SPD and France’s Socialists are obvious examples.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) campaigners carry placards through Clacton-on-Sea in eastern England (Reuters / Suzanne Plunkett)
In countries which have veered rightwards, again the nascent movements are rooted in the formerly prosperous middle and once aspirational working-classes: UKIP in Britain, France’s Front Nationale and Hungary’s Jobbik to name a few. Indeed, not long ago, Front Nationale couldn't get elected if they gave gold bars to every person in France. Now they are the most popular party in the country, according to polls.

This is where Russia comes in. All these newly popular movements admire Vladimir Putin - their 
leaders have stated it on record. Now, why could this be? After Russia was crushed by American-sponsored neoliberalism in the 90’s, he changed course. Putin reversed privatization of key industries, faced down the oligarchs and restored state power. As a result, Russians have enjoyed the greatest prosperity they have ever known. The country has close to full employment, while Western Europe, though mostly wealthier by per capita GDP, is in a terrible state. Of course, neoliberalism enthusiasts hate Putin.

People across Europe are rebelling against a neoliberal agenda that is out of control. They feel disenfranchised and powerless and want rid of an establishment which is seen to have failed. The global banking crisis of 2008 was caused by failures in this flawed ideology. However, its acolytes have used the media to convince ordinary working people that they were to blame. Hence we have austerity for the majority and quantitative easing (money printing) for the super-rich. It's Robin Hood in reverse.

Is Europe finished? No, it's not. However, Europe, as it has been run for the past few decades, is finished. The era of unlimited population movement and huge financial transfers from west to east is, almost, kaput.

2017 is the key. If David Cameron gets re-elected, there will be an In/Out EU referendum in the UK in 2017. There’s a growing possibility that Front Nationale leader Marine Le Pen – who’s said she expects “nothing from Europe apart from destruction” – could win the French Presidential election which is also due that year. Furthermore, Switzerland will vote in late 2016 on the country's relationship with the EU. Should they vote to break ties - largely over free-movement of people - a crisis will emerge.

If the neoliberal elites want to salvage their beloved European project, their window to effect meaningful change is not quite closed. If they continue to fiddle while the Treaty of Rome burns, expect a very different Europe to emerge. One where national interests will trump collective ideals. A continent where some states will stoop to Ecclestone's “third world” description and others - freed from Brussels' shackles - will prosper.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


Neil Clark: I'm confused, can anyone help me?


Picture of Neil Clark

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs@NeilClark66


I'm confused, can anyone help me? Part 1.


Published time: April 15, 2014 10:06



An anti-government protester waves a flag in front of the seized office of the SBU state security service in Luhansk, eastern Ukraine April 14, 2014. (Reuters / Shamil Zhumatov)

I'm confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were 'pro-democracy protestors'.

The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

Now, just a few weeks later, we're told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not'pro-democracy protestors' but 'terrorists' or 'militants'.

Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I'm confused. Can anyone help me?




Pro-Russian activists gather outside the secret service building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lugansk on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Dimitar Dilkoff)

The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who handed out cookies. But there have been very large anti-government protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have received no such support, either from such figures or from elite Western media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from officials at the US State Department.

Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of 'democracy', McCain and Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of State John Kerry who said, “You just don't invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.” But I seem to recall the US doing just that on more than one occasion in the past 20 years or so.

Have I misremembered the 'Iraq has WMDs claim'? Was I dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which has led to the deaths of up to 1 million people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?




AFP Photo / Pool / Mario Tama

We were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and media 'experts' that the Crimea referendum wasn't valid because it was held under “military occupation.” But I've just been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have been hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a “historic moment for Afghanistan” and a great success for “democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote celebrated? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?




An Afghan policeman keeps watch as Afghan voters line up to vote at a local polling station in Ghazni on April 5, 2014. (AFP Photo / Rahmatullah Alizadah)

Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security and our 'way of life' in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless 'War on Terror' against them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical groups in their war against a secular government which respects the rights of religious minorities, including Christians.

When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders: their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media commentators are desperate to have toppled. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?



AFP Photo / Amr Radwan Al-Homsi
Then there's gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and backward country because it has passed a law against promoting homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.

Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they are genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?




US President Barack Obama shakes hands with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)

We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a cause of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do hold positions in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played a key role in the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government in February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the West. Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very acceptable in Ukraine? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?


We are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that NATO's concerns are about opposing the Russian ‘threat’. But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the US-led military alliance whose members have bombed and attacked many countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian military bases or missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the‘aggressive one’.

I'm confused, can anyone help me? Part 2

Picture of Neil Clark

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found atwww.neilclark66.blogspot.com. Follow him on Twitter

I'm confused. Jen Psaki, US State Department spokesperson, says that the Ukrainian government has 'every right' to use air strikes against its opponents in Ukraine on the grounds that it 'is defending the country'.
Yet in 2011, alleged air strikes by Libyan government forces against its opponents were used as a reason for the imposition of a 'no-fly zone' which was followed by a NATO-led military intervention against Libya. We were told that the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was 'killing his own people' and had to be stopped. 


The deaths of over 200 people in Libya was, according to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 'unacceptable'. But the Ukrainian government is killing its own people today, and despite more than 200 people being killed (as of 10th July the number of civilian deaths was 478, including seven children), western leaders do not say that the Ukrainian leader, Petro Poroshenko, has to be stopped, or that the bloodshed is 'unacceptable' and nor are there any calls for a 'no-fly zone' to be imposed. Why is it acceptable for the Ukrainian government to launch a military offensive, including air strikes against its own people, but unacceptable for the Libyan government in 2011 to do likewise? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

In the lead up to the US-led military intervention against Libya in 2011, western politicians and commentators couldn't stop talking about the country. These caring 'humanitarians', it seemed, had so much concern for the plight of the Libyan people. Three years on, and Libya is in chaos, with regular fighting between rebel militia. Only on Sunday it was reported at least seven people had been killed and over 30 injured in clashes between rival militias near Tripoli's international airport. But despite Libya's troubles, western politicians and leading commentators are no longer mentioning the country, in fact it seems they've forgotten about it all together. Why were they so interested in Libya and the plight of its people in 2011, but not interested today? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

In Britain, neocon pundits and politicians warn us repeatedly about the threat of radical Islam at home. We are told of alleged sinister plots by Islamic extremists to take control of our classrooms. Yet the same neocons who want us to be worried about the 'threat' of radical Islam, have supported the violent overthrow of the secular Syrian government by rebels dominated by Islamic jihadists who have beheaded and blown up many people. These same neocons also backed radical Islamic fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Why are the neocons so opposed to what they regard as Islamic extremism at home, but so supportive of it in certain countries abroad? If ' Islamic extremism' really is such a bad thing, then surely it is a bad thing everywhere? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

Britons who have fought with anti-government rebels in Syria have been arrested under anti-terrorist legislation when they have returned home.



Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters (Reuters / Khalil Ashawi)

Yet the British government wanted us to go to war against Syria last summer and has given rebels fighting the Syrian Army financial support. Why are Britons being criminalized for fighting for a cause i.e. the violent overthrow of President Assad which the British government and much of Britain's political/media elite enthusiastically supports? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

At time of writing, over 160 people, including about 30 children, have been killed in Israel's latest bombardment of Gaza, and thousands of citizens have fled. In 2011 I remember lots of western political figures and media commentators telling us that the US and its allies had a 'Responsibility to Protect' civilians in Libya from attack by government forces. But I haven't heard calls from the same people saying that there is a 'Responsibility to Protect' people in Gaza under attack from Israeli strikes. Nor have I heard them say there is a 'Responsibility to Protect' civilians in Ukraine coming under attack from Ukrainian government forces. Why does 'R2P' apply to some people but not to others? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

Israel has justified its military operation in Gaza on the grounds that it is fighting terrorism. Yet in 1999 I remember the Yugoslav government using the same arguments to justify its actions in Kosovo saying it was carrying out a counter-terrorist operation against the KLA (UCK) who had been killing, among others, Yugoslav state officials. But while Israel’s 'anti-terrorist' justifications are accepted by western leaders, Yugoslavia's were not, and the country was bombed for 78 days by NATO with its leader later sent to trial at The Hague for war crimes. Why is it ok for Israel to use military force in its 'anti-terrorist' campaigns, but not ok for the Yugoslav government to use military force in its 'anti-terrorist' campaigns in 1999? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

Before the Iraq war we were told by neocon supporters of military intervention that toppling Saddam Hussein was a crucial step in winning the 'war on terror'. When the interviewer said “If we go into Iraq and we take down Hussein?” Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, replied: “Then I think it's over for the terrorists.” Perle also said: “There can be no victory in the war against terrorism if, at the end of it, Saddam Hussein is still in power.” But it's over eleven years now since Saddam Hussein was in power and the 'war on terror' is still going on- in fact even tougher 'anti-terror' security checks at our airports are being introduced. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

Tony Blair says that “The starting point is to identify the nature of the battle. It is against Islamist extremism. That is the fight.” Yet this same Tony Blair led a war to topple a secular Arab leader, Saddam Hussein who was an enemy of Islamic extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and has also backed western intervention against the secular government of President Assad in Syria. The Assad government is fighting against ISIS, which also threatens the government in Iraq, yet Blair says that we must “support the Iraqi Government in beating back the insurgency.” Why should we be supporting the fight against ISIS in Iraq- but trying to topple a government which is fighting ISIS in Syria? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

I’m confused, can anyone help me? Part Three

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found atwww.neilclark66.blogspot.com. Follow him on Twitter


Get short URL Published time: November 18, 2014 17:11



Syrian men pretend they are casting their votes during a mock election calling for the "criminal" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to be stripped of his Syrian nationality, on June 3, 2014 in the mostly rebel-held city of Aleppo.(AFP Photo / Baraa AL-Halabi)
TagsConflict, Election, Human rights, Law,Politics, Protest, Pussy Riot, Violence, War

I’m confused. The first thing I’m confused about is democratic legitimacy after elections are held in war-torn countries.

Western leaders have hailed the recent parliamentary elections in Ukraine, as a great triumph of “democracy.”

Barack Obama said it was “an important milestone in Ukraine’s democratic development.” Top EU officials said it represented “a victory of the people of Ukraine and of democracy.”

Yet large parts of war-torn Ukraine took no part in the vote. Turnout, according to the Ukraine Central Election Commission was just 52.42 percent.

In May’s presidential elections, turnout, according to official figures, was 60.3 percent. They were won by Petro Poroshenko with 54.7 percent of the vote. Again, western leaders hailed the results as a great victory for “democracy.”
Now let’s consider the case of Syria, another war-torn country where there were also important elections this year.



Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada.

Unlike Ukraine’s elections, leading western politicians did not say the result of Syria’s first multi-candidate presidential election in over forty years represented an “important milestone in Syria’s democratic development”- even though, according to official figures, the turnout was much higher than in Ukraine, at 73.42 percent.

Far from it, the same people who hailed the elections in Ukraine haughtily dismissed the election in Syria as a “farce.”

“This election bore no relation to genuine democracy. It was held in the midst of civil war,” said British Foreign Secretary William Hague.

“Today’s presidential election in Syria is a disgrace,” said US State Department spokesperson Maria Harf.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called Syria’s election a “fake.” Fabius did not telephone Bashar al-Assad, the winner, to offer his “warmest congratulations” as he did with Poroshenko.

How come one election held in a country divided by war is hailed as a “victory of the people and of democracy” but another election- where the turnout is higher -denounced? Why are Poroshenko and the Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk deemed to be the legitimate representatives of the Ukrainian people but Bashar al-Assad, despite his higher level of popular support, denied any kind of democratic legitimacy? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

At the recent G20 summit in Brisbane, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Vladimir Putin to “get out of Ukraine.” Leaving aside the fact that there’s no hard evidence that Russia is in Ukraine - and that Harper didn’t produce any- the statement seems to imply that the Canadian Prime Minister doesn’t like other countries interfering in the affairs of others and believes in state sovereignty and the inviolability of state borders.

But in 2003, Harper was a strong supporter of the US-led invasion of Iraq (and wanted Canada to join in), a clear example of one county “getting” into another. He actually thought it was a “mistake” of the then Canadian government not to take part in the invasion of Iraq. Why is Stephen Harper so concerned about a non-existent Russian invasion of Ukraine, but happy to support a real, actual, and blatantly illegal invasion of Iraq?Does the Canadian Prime Minister support state sovereignty and the inviolability of state borders, or doesn’t he? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

David Cameron tells us that ISIS poses a “clear and present threat to the United Kingdom.” Yet only last year he was trying desperately to persuade Parliament to vote for air strikes against a secular Syrian government that was fighting ISIS and other radical extremists associated to al Al-Qaeda. Cameron describes ISIS as “an evil against which the whole world must unite,” but even now the British government, in common with other western governments is still working for the violent overthrow of the government in Damascus whose forces are the only ones on the ground in Syria capable of defeating ISIS. If defeating ISIS really was so important, why is the west trying to topple the anti-ISIS Syrian government? Why, if “the whole world must unite” against ISIS, won’t the British and western governments work with the Syrian government? I‘m confused. Can anyone help me?



Trenton Oldfield.(AFP Photo / Leon Neal)

To coincide with the launch of RT UK, we’ve seen a wave of attacks on RT by self-proclaimed “democrats” and “liberals” in the British media.Some of these attacks have urged Ofcom - the broadcasting regulator - to take action against RT. I always thought that being a “democrat” and “liberal” meant support for alternative voices being heard, not trying to stop people from hearing them. John Stuart Mill, the author of On Liberty, a classic text on liberalism, wrote of the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion” and that “all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”

So how come western “liberals” want to silence the opinions expressed on RT? Why are those who claim to be anti-censorship, so censorious when it comes to RT? I would have thought people calling themselves “democrats” and “liberals” would welcome a wide variety of news channels for people to watch, yet instead of that supporters of “free speech” are attacking a channel which broadcasts opinions which they don’t agree with it. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

Western politicians say that they are appalled by the “barbarism” shown by ISIS in the various beheading videos they have released.But if beheading people is so bad (as most people would agree that it is), why is there no similar condemnation of the beheadings which take place in Saudi Arabia? In August, Amnesty International reported a “surge” in beheadings in Saudi Arabia, amounting to at least 23 in three weeks. Why are beheadings by ISIS “savage” but the ones carried out in Saudi Arabia acceptable? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

Pussy Riot, the Russian punk protest group who were jailed after a demonstration in an Orthodox Cathedral in Moscow are feted as heroes in the West, with a whole range of public figures including the pop star Madonna coming forward to express their support. But there was no such celebrity support for Trenton Oldfield, a protestor who was jailed for six months in Britain after trying to disrupt the Oxford- Cambridge University boat race in 2012. Oldfield said he was protesting against elitism, inequality and government cuts. If Pussy Riot’s cause is deserving of “progressive” support, then why isn’t Oldfield’s? Why are some anti-government protestors who go to jail hailed as heroes, but others totally ignored? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

RT.com

lauantai 22. marraskuuta 2014

Euromaidan anniversary: 21 steps from peaceful rally to civil war

Euromaidan anniversary: 21 steps from peaceful rally to civil war


Published time: November 21, 2014 10:20



Protesters who went out to Kiev’s Maidan Square exactly a year ago have their goal – a deal with the EU – achieved. However, they hardly expected the protest would also trigger a bloody civil war which has already claimed 4,000 lives.

READ MORE: #Euromaidan’s 1st birthday: Ukraine’s journey to a coup

RT takes a look at the milestone events of the past 365 days, which brought Ukraine – and the world – to where it is now.

1
Then-President Victor Yanukovich’s unwillingness to sign an Association Agreement with the EU led to Maidan (Independence Square) in Ukraine’s capital Kiev filling with protesters on November 21, 2013. The rally participants were holding hands, waving flags and chanting slogans like “Ukraine is Europe!”



Protesters hold Ukrainian and European Union flags during a rally to support euro integration in central Kiev November 21, 2013. (Reuters/Gleb Garanich)

2
The brutal dispersal of a protest camp on the morning of November 30 was a turning point in the ensuing events. It’s still unclear whose idea it was to use force against demonstrators. Yanukovich laid the blame on the city's police chief and sacked him. But that was not enough for the Maidan protesters, who switched from demands of signing the EU deal to calls for the toppling of the government.


Riot police disperse people supporting EU integration in Independence Square in central Kiev, November 30, 2013. (Reuters / Inna Sokolovska)

3
Over the course of several weeks, which followed the face of Maidan started to change – peaceful protesters were more and more giving way to masked and armed rioters, often from far-right groups. A collective of radicals called the Right Sector were among the most prominent. Peaceful protests evolved into a continuous stand-off between the rallying people and riot police.



A Ukrainian anti-government protester throws a Molotov cocktail during clashes with riot police in central Kiev early on January 25, 2014. (AFP Photo / Dmitry Serebryakov)

4

The deadliest day of the Maidan protests came on February 20 when over a hundred people were killed in the center of Kiev, most of them by sniper fire. The ongoing official investigation blamed a group of elite soldiers from the Berkut riot police for the killings. But there is a lingering suspicion that the massacre was committed by somebody among the anti-government forces.



Protesters carry a wounded protester during clashes with poliсe, after gaining new positions near the Independence square in Kiev on February 20, 2014. (AFP PHhoto / Louisa Gouliamaki)

5

The day after the sniper shootings, Yanukovich and opposition leaders signed an EU-brokered agreement on ending the crisis. Rioting continued in Kiev despite this. The next day the opposition-driven Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, held an emergency session, where it was declared that the president was no longer in power. Yanukovich fled the country, labeling the events a coup.



Deputies of the Ukrainian parliament applaud after voting for a constitution change in Kiev on February 21, 2014. (AFP Photo / Genya Savilov)
6

Among its first post-coup decisions, the Rada revoked a law that allowed Russian and other minority languages to be recognized as official in multi-cultural regions, triggering unrest in the mostly Russian-speaking Crimea and eastern Ukraine.



Pro-Russian protesters hold a placard reading as they take part in a pro-Russian rally in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv on April 13, 2014. (AFP Photo / Sergey Bobok)

With calls rising among right-wing nationalists to go to dissenting regions and enforce loyalty through violence, local populations formed self-defense units and began to take over government buildings, similar to how anti-government protesters did it in Kiev and western Ukraine. In Crimea, the most Russia-leaning region of Ukraine, this drive was led by many local elected officials.



A man at a checkpoint on the motorway between Sevastopol and the village of Orlinoye on 16 March, 2014. (RIA Novosti / Valeriy Melnikov)

8

The Crimean people eventually voted for independence from Ukraine and to rejoin Russia at a March 16 referendum. The decision was made by 1.2 million, or 97 percent, of eligible voters. The result was not recognized by most Western nations, which claimed that the referendum was held ‘under a Russian gunpoint’ and implied that Crimea was taken by Russia through a military occupation.



Staff at a polling station in Simferopol count ballots after the referendum on Crimea's status. (RIA Novosti / Mikhail Voskresenskiy)

9

With anti-Kiev feeling growing in the other eastern regions, like Lugansk, Donetsk, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Mariupol, the prospect of a parade of secessions was becoming real. Kiev decided not to take any chances there and on April 15 launched what it called an 'anti-terrorist operation' against the anti-government protesters in the eastern regions. Special volunteer battalions were formed to take part in the operation. They are being supervised by the Ministry of Defense, but get their funding from various sources, including donations of some Ukrainian oligarchs.


AFP Photo / Anatolii Boiko

10
One of the worst episodes to have happened in Ukraine over the year occurred on May 2, when dozens of people died in flames in Odessa. Radicals set ablaze the local House of Trade Unions with protesters opposing the post-coup government in Kiev blocked inside. None of those responsible for the crime, however, have been identified. While Kiev did present its report on the massacre, the document was allegedly falsified, as one of the investigators withdrawing its signature in protest



A protester walks near the trade union building in Odessa May 2, 2014. (Reuters / Yevgeny Volokin)
11

In May 2013, rebels in the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions organized referendum on declaring independence from Kiev, a scenario that the use of force by the government sought to prevent. President Poroshenko, who came to power in May 25 early presidential election, intensified the military crackdown on the breakaway regions.



Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko holding the Presidential stemp during a ceremony of his oath in the Parliament in Kiev. (AFP Photo / Presidential Press-Service / Anastasiya Syrotkyna)

12
The armed conflict, which by that time had escalated into a fully-fledged civil war, took its toll on foreign civilians on July 17, when a Malaysian Airlines plane carrying 298 people was downed over Donetsk Region. Kiev and its Western backers accuse the rebels of shooting down the plane with a sophisticated Russia-supplied surface-to-air missile system. Rebels deny ever possessing such a system, while Moscow called for all possibilities to be taken into consideration, including those of Ukrainian troops being behind the deed one way or another.



OSCE experts examine the crash site of the Boeing aircraft of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17) from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. (RIA Novosti / Alexey Kudenko)
13

By mid-August the death toll in eastern Ukraine passed 2,000, according to conservative UN estimates. The majority of the fatalities were Ukrainian civilians trapped in the battle zone with either no chance to leave or refusing to abandon their homes even in the face of death.



A victim of the armed clash outside Karlivka village, Donetsk Region. (RIA Novosti / Natalia Seliverstova)

14

Lacking professional and motivated troops to attack rebel-held sites, the Ukrainian government resorted to using its superiority in heavy weapons, subjecting cities in the east to artillery shelling,airstrikes, incendiary attacks and other forms of warfare not allowed against residential areas. Human rights groups accused Kiev, as well as the rebels, of committing war crimes.



A house destroyed during an artillery shelling of Donetsk by the Ukrainian military. (RIA Novosti / Alexey Kudenko)

15

Those more fortunate fled the war-torn regions in their hundreds of thousands. According to the UN, by September the number of refugees in Ukraine surpassed 1,000,000, with 260,000 going to other parts of Ukraine and 814,000 to Russia. Moscow offered the people fleeing across the border benefits, job opportunities, help with relocating to Russian regions in need of working hands and other forms of support.



Children in a camp for Ukrainian refugees outside the Russian city of Donetsk, Rostov Region. (RIA Novosti / Alexei Danichev)
16

On September 5, representatives of Kiev and the rebels signed a Moscow and OSCE-brokered ceasefire in Minsk. The semi-official Minsk agreement gave hope of de-escalation of violence, disengagement of the warring parties and eventual reconciliation. Skeptics said it was rather a break in the hostilities, as both sides had plenty of those not satisfied with the deal. The violence continued, albeit on a smaller scale, claiming additional 1,000 lives by mid-November.



A meeting of the Contact Group on Ukrainian reconciliation in Minsk, Belarus. (RIA Novosti / Egor Eryomov)

17

The regions ravaged by the Ukrainian civil war are in dire need of even basic essentials like drinking water and food, medicines and materials to repair damaged buildings. Russia has been regularly sending humanitarian aid to rebel-held Donetsk and Lugansk. The dispatch of the first aid convoy on August 12 sparked heavy resistance from Kiev, which accused Russia of planning some sort of stealth invasion. After two weeks of tense negotiations and attempts to get official approval, Moscow ordered the delivery to proceed without Kiev’s consent.



Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk (R) smiles next to British Prime Minister David Cameron (C) and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (L) as they sign the political provisions of the Association Agreement with Ukraine. (AFP Photo / Pool / Olivier Hoslet)

18

On September 16, Ukraine and the EU signed the landmark Association Agreement on trade. The suspension of this deal by the Yanukovich government triggered the chain of events leading to the current state of affairs. The most controversial economic parts of the agreement, however, will not be implemented until 2016, and for the very reasons it was suspended in the first place. Once fully in force, Ukraine’s EU free trade deal will force Russia to repeal preferential treatment of Ukrainian goods in the Russian market, which would hit Ukraine’s lucrative export market.



Russian humanitarian aid convoy in Donetsk. (RIA Novosti / Alexey Kudenko)

19

Both rebels and Kiev accuse each other of committing atrocities during the civil war. Both discoveredmass graves in territories they took from each other during the hostilities. Apparently, there is a grain of truth in both sets of accusations. Amnesty International found evidence of summary executions committed by both sides, but declined from specifying the scope of atrocities committed by either side.



A Donetsk People's Republic militiaman is at the site of the graves of peaceful residents discovered near Mine 22 "Kommunar" outside Donetsk (stills from video courtesy of the Ruptly)
20

Early November marked what appears to be a new round of tension in eastern Ukraine. On November 2, the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics voted to elect their leaders and MPs. Kiev branded the move a breach of the Minsk agreement, revoked a law giving special status to the rebel-held areas, and declared that it will no longer protect most of basic human rights of the people living there. The UN estimates the death toll of the conflict to be at least 4,317, although the actual number may be much higher.



Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, foreground center, examines weapons while visiting a training field in the Zhytomyr Region. (RIA Novosti / Nikolay Lazarenko)

21

In early August former opposition leader-turned-Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitshchko ordered to remove the last remaining activists from the Maidan. The city itself is enduring hard times. There is a crime wave amid upheaval among police. The central heating was only turned on in November, while its price tripled. The economy is about to grind to a halt, while foreign credit offered by IMF would require the government to take painful reforms and cut social spending.



Kiev mayor Vitaly Klitschko takes part in clearing barricades on Independence Square (Maidan). (RIA Novosti / Alexandr Maksimenko)

maanantai 17. marraskuuta 2014

‘Supporting Russophobia in Ukraine will result in catastrophe’


Putin: ‘Supporting Russophobia in Ukraine will result in catastrophe’

Published time: November 16, 2014 23:19
Edited time: November 17, 2014 00:13
Get short URL




November 13, 2014. Russian President Vladimir Putin answers questions of ARD channel's representative Hubert Seipel during an interview to the channel (RIA Novosti / Michael Klimentyev)
2.7K8961



TagsCrimea, EU, Europe, Germany, Merkel,Politics, Putin, Russia, UN, Ukraine

The West should not wait for Russia to solve the Ukraine crisis, but should instead try to influence the extreme policies of its “clients” in Kiev, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Hubert Seipel of the German channel ARD ahead of the G20 summit.

Hubert Seipel: Good afternoon, Mr President. You are the only Russian President who has ever given a speech at the Bundestag. This happened in 2001. Your speech was a success. You spoke about relations between Russia and Germany, building Europe in cooperation with Russia, but you also gave a warning. You said that the Cold War ideas had to be eradicated. You also noted that we share the same values, yet we do not trust each other. Why were you being a little pessimistic back then?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I gave no warnings or admonitions and I was not being pessimistic. I was just trying to analyse the preceding period in the development of the situation in the world and in Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I also took the liberty of predicting the situation based on different development scenarios.

Naturally, it reflected the situation as we see it, through the prism, as diplomats would put it, from Russia’s point of view, but still, I think it was a rather objective analysis.

I reiterate: there was no pessimism whatsoever. None. On the contrary, I was trying to make my speech sound optimistic. I assumed that having acknowledged all the problems of the past, we must move towards a much more comfortable and mutually advantageous relationship-building process in the future.

Hubert Seipel: Last week marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, which would not have been possible without the Soviet Union’s consent. That was back then. In the meantime, NATO is conducting exercises in the Black Sea, near the Russian borders, while Russian bombers conduct exercises in Europe’s international airspace. The Defence Minister said, if I’m not mistaken, that they fly as far as the Gulf of Mexico. All of this points to a new Cold War. And, of course, partners exchange harsh statements. Some time ago, President Obama named Russia as a threat on a par with Ebola and the extremists, the Islamic extremists. You once called America a nouveau riche, who thinks of himself as a winner of the Cold war, and now America is trying to shape the world according to its own ideas about life. All of this is very reminiscent of a Cold War.

Vladimir Putin: See, you mentioned 2001 and I said that my perspective was rather optimistic.

We have witnessed two waves of NATO expansion since 2001. If I remember correctly, seven countries – Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and three Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – joined NATO in 2004. Two more countries joined in 2009. Those were significant geopolitical game changers.

Furthermore, the number of military bases is growing. Does Russia have military bases around the world? NATO and the United States have military bases scattered all over the globe, including in areas close to our borders, and their number is growing.

Moreover, just recently it was decided to deploy Special Operations Forces, again in close proximity to our borders.

You have mentioned various exercises, flights, ship movements, and so on. Is all of this going on? Yes, it is indeed.




Polish servicemen take part in military exercises outside the town of Yavoriv near Lviv, September 19, 2014 (Reuters / Roman Baluk)



However, first of all, you said – or perhaps it was an inaccurate translation – that they have been conducted in the international European airspace. Well, it is either international (neutral) or European airspace. So, please note that our exercises have been conducted exclusively in international waters and international airspace.

In 1992, we suspended the flights of our strategic aircraft and they remained at their air bases for many years. During this time, our US partners continued the flights of their nuclear aircraft to the same areas as before, including areas close to our borders. Therefore, several years ago, seeing no positive developments, no one is ready to meet us halfway, we resumed the flights of our strategic aviation to remote areas. That’s all.

Hubert Seipel: So, you believe that your security interests have not been accommodated.

Let me return to the current crisis and to its trigger. The current crisis was triggered by the agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The title of this agreement is relatively harmless. It is called the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The key point of this agreement is to open the Ukrainian market to the EU and vice versa. Why is it a threat for Russia? Why did you oppose this agreement?

Vladimir Putin: In reality the economy follows almost the same path as security. We preach the opposite of what we practice. We say that a single space should be built and build new dividing lines instead.

Let us look at what the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement stipulates. I have said this many times, but it appears I have to repeat it once again: it eliminates the import duties for the European goods entering Ukrainian territory, brings them down to zero. Yet as Ukraine is a member of a free trade zone within CIS, zero customs tariffs have been introduced between Russia and Ukraine. What does that mean? It means that all European goods will flow through Ukrainian territory directly to the customs territory of the Russian Federation.

There are many other things that may not be clear for people who are not informed regarding these matters, but they do exist. For example, there are technical regulations that are different in Russia and in the EU, we have different standards. Those are standards of technical control, phytosanitary standards and the principle of determining the origin of goods. By way of an example I would cite the component assembly of cars in Ukrainian territory. According to the Association Agreement, the goods manufactured in the territory of Ukraine are intended for our market within the framework of the Russian-Ukrainian free trade zone. Your companies that invested billions of euros in factories in Russia (Volkswagen, BMW, Peugeot, Citroen, the US Ford, and others) entered our market on completely different terms, on condition of deep localisation of production. How could we accept that? So we said from the outset, "We agree, but let us proceed step by step and take into consideration the real problems that can emerge between Russia and Ukraine." What were we told in response? "It is none of your business, so get your nose out of these affairs."

Hubert Seipel: I would like to turn to the past. When the EU‑Ukraine Association Agreement was discussed, the negotiations took quite a while. This caused rallies on Maidan in Kiev. I refer to the protests during which people demanded a better life within the European Union. But they were also protesting against the Ukrainian system. In the end all that resulted in a wave of violence. After the then president failed to sign the Agreement, it provoked an outbreak of violence, and people were killed on Maidan. Then the German Minister of Foreign Affairs arrived and tried to find a compromise between the protesters and the government, and managed to do that. An agreement was made providing for a government of national unity. It remained in force for about 24 hours and then it disappeared. You followed closely the developments of September 21 and you remember how you talked with Mr Obama and Ms Merkel.




People attend the so-called people's veche (assembly) in Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti) in central Kiev June 1, 2014 (Reuters / Valentyn Ogirenko)



Vladimir Putin: Yes. Indeed, on February 21, not only the German Minister of Foreign Affairs but also his counterparts from Poland and France arrived in Kiev to act as guarantors of the agreement achieved between the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. The agreement stipulated that the only path the process would take was the peaceful one. As guarantors, they signed that agreement between the official authorities and the opposition. And the former assumed that it would be observed. It is true that I spoke by telephone with the President of the United States that same day, and this was the context for our conversation. However, the following day, despite all the guarantees provided by our partners from the West, a coup happened and both the Presidential Administration and the Government headquarters were occupied.

I would like to say the following in this regard: either the Foreign Ministers of Germany, Poland and France should not have signed the agreement between the authorities and the opposition as its guarantors, or, since they did sign it after all, they should have insisted on its implementation instead of dissociating themselves from this agreement. What is more, they prefer now not to mention it at all, as though the agreement never existed. In my view, this is absolutely wrong and counterproductive.




Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovich (C) signs an EU-mediated peace deal with opposition leaders in Kiev February 21, 2014 (Reuters / Pool)

Hubert Seipel: You acted promptly. You, so to say, annexed Crimea and justified it at the time based on the fact that 60 percent of Crimea’s population were Russians, that Crimea has a long history of being part of Russia and, lastly, that its fleet is stationed there. The West saw that as a violation of international law.

Vladimir Putin: What is your question exactly?

Hubert Seipel: Did you underestimate the reaction of the West and the possible sanctions, which were later imposed on Russia?

Vladimir Putin: We believe that this sort of reaction was totally disproportionate to what had happened.

Whenever I hear complaints about Russia violating international law I am simply amazed. What is international law? It is first of all the United Nations Charter, international practice and its interpretation by relevant international institutions.

Moreover, we have a clear recent precedent – Kosovo.

Hubert Seipel: You mean the International Court of Justice ruling on Kosovo? The one in which it stated that Kosovo had the right to self‑determination and that the Kosovars could hold a vote to determine the future of their state?

Vladimir Putin: (In German.) Exactly. (Continues in Russian.) But not only that. Its main point was that when making a decision concerning their self-determination, the people living in a certain territory need not ask the opinion of the central authorities of the state where they presently live. They do not need the approval by the central authorities, by the government, to take the necessary measures for self-determination. That is the central point.

And what was done in Crimea was not in any way different from what had been done in Kosovo.

I am deeply convinced that Russia did not commit any violations of international law. Yes, I make no secret of it, it is a fact and we never concealed that our Armed Forces, let us be clear, blocked Ukrainian armed forces stationed in Crimea, not to force anybody to vote, which is impossible, but to avoid bloodshed, to give the people an opportunity to express their own opinion about how they want to shape their future and the future of their children.

Kosovo, which you mentioned, declared its independence by parliamentary decision alone. In Crimea, people did not just make a parliamentary decision, they held a referendum, and its results were simply stunning.

What is democracy? Both you and me know the answer well. What is demos? Demos is people, and democracy is people's right. In this particular case, it is the right to self-determination.




People take part in a rally supporting the referendum on the status of Crimea on the square in front of the Council of Ministers in Simferopol (RIA Novosti / Andrey Stenin)

Hubert Seipel: It shows immediately that you are a lawyer. But you know the arguments of the West as well. The West says that the elections were held under the control of Russian military. This is the reasoning of the West. Let me touch upon the next issue. Today, Ukraine is more or less divided. Four thousand people have died, hundreds of thousands have become refugees and fled, among other places, to Russia. In the east of the country, Russian-speaking separatists are demanding broad autonomy, some want to join Russia. In accordance with the Minsk agreement, ceasefire was declared, but people are dying every day. The country is bankrupt. Basically everybody lost in the conflict. Ukraine seems to have lost the most, but Europe and Russia did as well. How do you see Ukraine's future?

Vladimir Putin: Ukraine is a complex country, and not only due to its ethnic composition, but also from the point of view of its formation as it stands today.

Is there a future and what will it be like? I think there certainly is. It is a large country, a large nation with the population of 43–44 million people. It is a large European country with a European culture.

You know, there is only one thing that is missing. I believe, what is missing is the understanding that in order to be successful, stable and prosperous, the people who live on this territory, regardless of the language they speak (Hungarian, Russian, Ukrainian or Polish), must feel that this territory is their homeland. To achieve that they must feel that they can realise their potential here as well as in any other territories and possibly even better to some extent. That is why I do not understand the unwillingness of some political forces in Ukraine to even hear about the possibility of federalisation.

We’ve been hearing lately that the question at issue should be not federalisation but decentralisation. It is all really a play on words. It is important to understand what these notions mean: decentralisation, federalisation, regionalisation. You can coin a dozen other terms. The people living in these territories must realise that they have rights to something, that they can decide something for themselves in their lives.

Hubert Seipel: The central question in the West as follows: will Ukraine remain an independent state? It is the central question now on the agenda. The second question is whether Russia can do more? Maybe Russia has more opportunities to expedite this process in Ukraine, in particular with regard to the Minsk agreements?

Vladimir Putin: You know, when someone tells us that we have some special opportunities to solve this or that crisis it always troubles and alarms me. We have heard many times that Russia has a key to the solution of the Syrian problem, that we have some special opportunities to solve some other problem or the Ukrainian crisis. I always begin to suspect that there is an intention to pass on the responsibility to us and to make us pay for something. We do not want that. Ukraine is an independent, free and sovereign state. Frankly speaking, we are very concerned about any possible ethnic cleansings and Ukraine ending up as a neo-Nazi state. What are we supposed to think if people are bearing swastikas on their sleeves? Or what about the SS emblems that we see on the helmets of some military units now fighting in eastern Ukraine? If it is a civilised state, where are the authorities looking? At least they could get rid of this uniform, they could make the nationalists remove these emblems. That is why we have fears that it may all end up this way. If it happens it would be a catastrophe for Ukraine and Ukrainian people.

The Minsk agreements arose only because Russia became actively involved in this effort; we worked with the Donbass militias, that is the fighters from southeast Ukraine, and we convinced them that they should settle for certain agreements. If we had not done that, it would simply not have happened. There are some problems with the implementation of these agreements, it is true.




A rebels stand guard outside the building of perinatal centre damaged by, what locals say, was shelling by Ukrainian forces in the town of Pervomaisk, west of Lugansk, eastern Ukraine (Reuters / Maxim Zmeyev)

What are those problems? Indeed, self-defence fighters, for example, were supposed to leave some of the towns they had surrounded, are yet they haven’t left. Do you know why not? I will tell you plainly, this is no secret: because the people fighting against the Ukrainian army say, "These are our villages, we come from there. Our families and our loved ones live there. If we leave, nationalist battalions will come and kill everyone. We will not leave, you can kill us yourselves." You know, it is a difficult problem. Of course, we try to convince them, we talk, but when they say things like that, you know, there is not much that can be said in response.

And the Ukrainian army also has not left some of the towns it was supposed to leave. The militias – they are the people who are fighting for their rights, for their interests. But if the central Ukrainian authorities choose not just to determine the demarcation line, which is very important today in order to stop the shelling and killing, but if they want to preserve the territorial integrity of their country, each particular village or town are not significant; what is important is to immediately stop the bloodshed and shelling and to create conditions for starting a political dialogue. That is what is important. If it this is not done, there will be no political dialogue.

I apologise for such a long monologue, but you make me go back to the essence of the problem.

What is the essence? The coup took place in Kiev. A considerable part of the country supported it, and they were happy partly because they believed that after the signing of, say, the Association Agreement there will be open borders, job opportunities, the right to work in the European Union, including in Germany. They thought that it will be like that. In fact, they have nothing of the sort. The other part of the country, the southeast, did not support it and said, "We do not recognise you." 

And instead of starting a dialogue, instead of explaining to people that the central authorities in Kiev are not going to do anything bad, and on the contrary, they will propose various forms of coexistence and development of a common state, they are ready to grant them their rights, instead of that they begin making arrests at night. Once the night arrests began, people in the southeast took up arms. Once they took up arms, instead of stopping (the authorities should have the wisdom to do that) and starting this dialogue they sent the army, the air force, tanks and multiple rocket launchers. Is this a way to solve problems? And ultimately everything came to a deadlock. Is it possible to get out of it? I am sure that it is possible.




Azov battalion soldiers take an oath of allegiance to Ukraine in Kiev's Sophia Square before being sent to the Donbass region (RIA Novosti / Alexandr Maksimenko)

Hubert Seipel: The question or, more properly, the claim made by Kiev today is that Russia supplies weapons to the separatists and sends its servicemen there.

Vladimir Putin: Where did they get the armoured vehicles and the artillery systems? Nowadays people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. This is the first point.

But I would like to stress that this is not the issue. The issue itself is entirely different. The issue is that we can't have a one-sided view of the problem.

Today there is fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian central authorities have sent the armed forces there and they even use ballistic missiles. Does anybody speak about it? Not a single word. And what does it mean? What does it tell us? This points to the fact, that you want the Ukrainian central authorities to annihilate everyone there, all of their political foes and opponents. Is that what you want? We certainly don't. And we won't let it happen.

Hubert Seipel: Do you intend to propose ways to resolve the crisis in Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Madam Chancellor is very much aware of all the nuances of this conflict. As for the energy problem, she has done a great deal for its solution.

As for the security issues, I would say that in this area our viewpoints and approaches do not always coincide. What is clear is that Russia and the Federal Republic of Germany want the situation in this region to be settled. We are interested in this and we will work for the observation of the Minsk agreements. There is just one thing that I always pay attention to. We are told again and again: pro-Russian separatists must do this and this, you must influence them in this way, you must act in that way. I have always asked them: "What have you done to influence your clients in Kiev? What have you done? Or do you only support Russophobic sentiments?" This is very dangerous, by the way. A catastrophe will happen if somebody surreptitiously supports Russophobia in Ukraine. It will be a real catastrophe! Or shall we seek a joint solution? If so, let's bring the positions of the parties closer together. I am going to say something that some people in this country may not like. Let's try to achieve a single political space in those territories. We are ready to move in this direction, but only together.




Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel after their meeting in Rio de Janeiro (RIA Novosti / Aleksey Nikolskyi)

Hubert Seipel: It is very difficult to correct the mistakes made by others. Sometimes it is only possible to correct one's own mistakes. I would like to ask you: have you made mistakes?

Vladimir Putin: People always make mistakes. Every person makes mistakes in business, in private life. Does it really matter? The question is that we should give a rapid, timely and effective response to the consequences of such mistakes. We should analyse them and realise that they are mistakes. We should understand, correct them and move on towards the solution of problems rather than an impasse.

It seemed to me that this is the way we acted in our relations with Europe as a whole and the Federal Republic of Germany in particular over the past decade. Look at the friendship that has been established between Russia and Germany in the past 10–15 years. I don’t know if we had ever enjoyed such relations before. I don’t think so. I see it as a very good base, a good foundation for the development of relations not only between our two states, but also between Russia and Europe as a whole, for the harmonisation of relations in the world. It will be a pity if we let it go to waste.

Hubert Seipel: Mr President, thank you for the interview.

READ THE SECOND PART OF THE INTERVIEW HERE