Conversation ouverte. 1 message non lu.

Aller au contenu
Utiliser Gmail avec un lecteur d’écran

1 sur 163

Fort Russ
Boîte de réception
Fort Russ Se désabonner

23:20 (Il y a 13 minutes)

À brandenburg.ol.
Traduire le message
Désactiver pour : anglais
Fort Russ

Though Merkel makes nice, Germany knows what’s going on it Donetsk
Massive fire from MLRS through the night in Donetsk
Putin’s visit to Hungary: Will there be a common anti-Soros front?
Kiev between America and Russia: Part 2 – Trump’s « Ukraine Audit » bodes Poroshenko’s End
« Putin is not allowed to leave! » – Russia [Video]
Poroshenko’s Options Burning in The Fires of Donbass

Though Merkel makes nice, Germany knows what’s going on it Donetsk

Posted: 03 Feb 2017 09:59 AM PST
February 3, 2017 – Fort Russ News –

– Süddeutsche Zeitung, translated by Tom Winter (Note: many a Russian source writes about the second part of this article; Fort Russ finds the original) –

The tensions in the conflict with Russia are on the rise again. Berlin is watching with concern the action in the Donbass.

Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel and the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on Monday praised the closer economic relations between the two countries and at the same time were very concerned about the most recent reports from the eastern Ukraine.

Merkel observed that trade between Germany and Ukraine was growing; Most recently it has gone up almost 20 percent. Looking at the tension in Donbass in the east, she said that the situation on the so-called contact line between Ukrainian troops and militia of the pro-Russian separatists was « worrisome. » It is all the more important, then, to make progress on the basis of the Minsk Agreement, even if it is not easy, Merkel said.

Poroshenko expressed his gratitude for the German support and again blamed Moscow for a hybrid war against his country. The Ukrainian President said that Ukrainian soldiers had died on Sunday and Monday in conflict with the pro-Russian separatists. If, therefore, the efforts to resolve the conflict did not take precedence, sanctions against Russia should not only be extended but also tightened.

The basic view of the conflict has not changed either in Kiev or in Berlin. Kiev has long been demanding a harder line against Moscow. And Merkel is essentially in accord. Quite recently, former Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier once again emphasized the responsibility for the crisis in Moscow and the separatists.

At the same time, however, the Federal Government is aware very precisely and with growing concern that the situation on the so-called contact line has not only intensified again, but that the Ukrainian side is also increasingly responsible. The tensions are increasing; most recently four Ukrainian soldiers were killed in firefights during the weekend.

According to Berlin’s information, which is based, among other things, on reports from the OSCE mission in the Eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian military forces are currently trying to shift the frontline in their favor. Apparently, they also accept the fact that tensions are increasing, according to the Berlin government.

What is behind it? According to some in the German administration, it might also be a question of tightening the situation so that plans by US President Donald Trump to ease the sanctions could be stopped. According to Berlin’s interpretation, Poroshenko wants to do just about anything to prevent an end to the sanctions against Russia.

In the Federal Government, however, the concern is growing that Kiev’s calculus could be counterproductive. Thus, Trump could ease the sanctions independently of the situation at the contact line. And then Kiev would have double the damage: a situational improvement for Russia with simultaneous intensification of the conflict in the Eastern Ukraine. Whether it is possible to dissuade Kiev from its own provocations, no one in Berlin would dare to predict.

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!


Massive fire from MLRS through the night in Donetsk

Posted: 03 Feb 2017 08:02 AM PST
February 3, 2017 – Fort Russ News –

– Red Spring, translated by Tom Winter –

Last night the Kievskiy District of Donetsk Kiev suffered massive fire from the APU, the Red Spring correspondent reported from the scene February 3.

The APU used heavy artillery, MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) « Grad, » and « Uragan » in the shelling of the northern regions of Donetsk.
Two schools (№19 and №65), two kindergartens (№354 and №204), the Kievskiy District Administration building, as well as multi-storey houses on Artema, Mountain, Mironov and Kievskiy Prospect streets were damaged.

In total, according to the Operational Command of the People’s Militia of the DPR, in the past day the APU shelled DPR territory 3481 times. The enemy fired on settlements, launching 196 MLRS « Uragan » and « Grad » projectiles, 753 152-mm, and 122-mm shells, 1086 shots from mortars, 64 fired from tanks, 91 from BMPs , as well as the fire from grenade launchers and small arms.

In total 28 settlements were fired on, including the worst-affected region, Donetsk, Makiyivka, Yasinovataya, Zaytsevo village in the north of Horlivka and villages Lenin, Telmanovo, Saganka and Kominternovo, in the south of the Republic.

Recall that in the night of February 2-3, the Kievskiy District of Donetsk, was fired with the MLRS « Grad ». Also MLRS « Uragan » rockets exploded in the evening in the around gas stations in the vicinity of the « Motel » bus station in the Kalinin district of Donetsk. There are dead and wounded among the civilians.

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!


Putin’s visit to Hungary: Will there be a common anti-Soros front?

Posted: 03 Feb 2017 06:15 AM PST
February 3, 2017 – Fort Russ –
Ruslan Ostashko, Live Journal – translated by J. Arnoldski –

Vladimir Putin’s visit to Budapest is stirring European and Ukrainian media. First of all, everyone is offended by the fact that the Russian president peacefully landed in a country belonging to the EU and NATO and found understanding and full support there.

Second of all, it appears like Russia is able to offer EU countries very attractive terms of cooperation that could outweigh all talk of European solidarity against Russia. As always, it’s suddenly been rediscovered that the riches that come from working with Russia triumph over evil.

What’s more, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has stabbed “young Ukrainian democracy” in the back by stating that the transit of gas through Ukraine is unreliable, and that Hungary supports diversifying deliveries. Translated from Hungarian diplomatic language into simple English, this approximately sounds like this: “Ukraine and Naftogaz are out, we support Nord Stream 2 through which Putin has promised to supply us gas.” Now Ukraine has the bad luck of losing yet another European country to supporting Nord Stream 2. Against this background, the resolution introduced to the Verkhovna Rada that will severely undercut the rights of the Russian and Hungarian languages in Ukraine looks very timely. It will further enrage Budapest which traditionally, fiercely protects the rights of Hungarian minorities in other countries.

Here it is necessary to say a few words about the Hungarian PM, whose behavior has so upset European and Ukrainian media, not to mention Angela Merkel herself. Viktor Orban is a “Poroshenko in reverse.” For example, instead of serving the IMF, European Commission, Hillary Clinton, and George Soros, he has always entered into sharp conflict with them and always come out the winner.

The Hungarian prime minister is no Che Guevara, and he perfectly understands limits, but he has nevertheless simply kicked the IMF delegation out of Budapest and closed down Soros’ foundation branches despite the fact that Hungary has always been considered basically the property of this American billionaire. He’s also always been at loggerheads with Hillary Clinton over ideological differences, and he has not hesitated to ignore the European Commission when it pushes demands at Hungary while always shaking her off to the max when it comes to allocating European funds for the country.

Despite all of the rowdy behavior and several attempts at organizing color revolutions in Hungary, Orban has for many years remained in power, and Hungary remains in the EU. This is an example of correctly protecting national interests. Perhaps the Hungarians’ success is related to the fact that Hungary has nationally-oriented elite, not a kleptocratic oligarchy like Ukraine.

Unfortunately, Hungary hardly acts like a country that will veto the extension of EU sanctions against Russia. The price of this action would be too expensive, and Orban is first and foremost a pragmatist. The $6.5 billion that Hungary loses yearly due to the sanctions is still less than the money that Hungary would be deprived of by the European Union.

However, in the first convenient instance, Hungary could support some of the European heavyweights on this matter, such as if the new French or Italian governments oppose the renewal of sanctions.

But we need Hungary for a slightly different purpose.

By building an example of cooperation with Russia with this country, and by building an ultramodern nuclear power plant there, we are destroying the myths about Russia. First, it will be made clear that cooperating with Russia is beneficial. Secondly, that Russia is not a gas station with an economy « torn to shreds », but an exporter of high technology at an affordable price. Thirdly, that Russia can be cooperated with even in such a complex sphere as nuclear energy.

This is truly mutually beneficial PR, which of course has no effect on the stubborn Clintonites and Soros grant receivers from the Eurocommission, but works wonderfully on the European business elite and those politicians for whom their countries’ interests are more important than the ideological trademarks of Victoria Nuland.

And finally, with Donald Trump’s ascent to power, there has been a perking up of all those who want and need to urgently and radically reform the EU in order for it to finally start working for EU citizens, not the handful of supranational oligarchs mentioned by Vladimir Putin at Valdai. The European politicians grown in the laboratories of the CIA and State Department are now demanding that all of Europe show solidarity in front of the threat of “Putinism” and “Trumpism” which could destroy the EU.

The case of Hungary shows that there will be no such “solidarity.” Putin and Trump will undermine the European bureaucracy from without while such people as Orban, Beppe Grillo, Marine Le Pen, and Geert Wilders will hollow it out from within until it is completely destroyed. I’ve often said that any empire which includes Ukraine necessarily falls apart. This time, the EU could collapse even though Ukraine really wanted in but wasn’t allowed to enter. History has a good sense of humor.

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!


Kiev between America and Russia: Part 2 – Trump’s « Ukraine Audit » bodes Poroshenko’s End

Posted: 03 Feb 2017 03:51 AM PST
February 3, 2017 –
By Eduard Popov for Fort Russ – translated by J. Arnoldski –

Eduard Popov, born in 1973 in Konstantinovka, Donetsk region, is a Rostov State University graduate with a PhD in history and philosophy. In 2008, he founded the Center for Ukrainian Studies of the Southern Federal University of Russia in Rostov-on-Don. From 2009-2013, he was the founding head of the Black Sea-Caspian Center of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, an analytical institute of the Presidential Administration of Russia. In June 2014, Popov headed the establishment of the Representative Office of the Donetsk People’s Republic in Rostov-on-Don. He has actively participated in humanitarian aid efforts for his native Donbass and has been a guest contributor to various Donbass media, such as the Lugansk-based Cossack Media Group. Popov has actively contributed to Fort Russ since June, 2016.

Foreword from Dr. Eduard Popov: I am grateful to have the opportunity to be featured on the pages of the authoritative and brilliant Fort Russ and be able to offer readers my views on the prospects of the emerging rapprochement between the United States and Russia, as well as the place in this two-way process occupied (or to be occupied) by Ukraine. Below is the second installment in my new three-part series on this evermore pressing topic.

Continued from Part 1


As is well known, Ukraine did not occupy an important place in Donald Trump’s pre-election rhetoric. However, Ukraine paid especially heightened attention to candidate Trump’s opinion whenever it surfaced. Inexperienced Ukrainian diplomacy (Ukraine as a state emerged only in 1991 and a Ukrainian nation has still yet to form) hedged all of its bets on one player: Hillary Clinton. In addition, President Poroshenko’s regime [1] showed a complete lack of political culture and strategic thinking as Ukrainian media launched a real persecution campaign against Trump and the ex-head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, Boris Lozhkin, even passed along “incriminating” materials on the head of Donald Trump’s campaign headquarters, Paul Manafort.

Donald Trump seems to perceive the European continent as a zone of chaos – and rightly so. Ukraine is simultaneously the distant periphery of this continent and the epicenter of the chaos, a kind of black hole in which people and money disappear without a trace. In the beginning of the 21st century, Ukraine has become a new geopolitical Balkans of Europe.

The anticipated – by some with horror, some with hope – correction of the United States’ policy towards Ukraine following Donald Trump’s victory has not yet begun. But Kiev is nevertheless already on the verge of panic. As this article is being written, bombs and rockets fired by the Ukrainian army are raining down on the cities of Donbass. The density of shelling and the use of rocket artillery has not been seen in Donbass for a long time. Experts, including the author of these lines, believe that this is Poroshenko’s reaction to the “Trump factor.”

But let us set the situation in Donbass aside for a separate study. We propose to direct the reader’s attention towards Ukraine itself or, more precisely, the two Ukraines that have emerged: the official Ukraine personified by the Poroshenko regime, and the Ukraine of the oligarchs and regional barons. We could also add a third Ukraine: the Ukraine of the neo-Nazi parties and battalions, but we have already discussed this in depth in a separate article. Today, Poroshenko’s Ukraine and the oligarchs’ Ukraine are in a state nearing open war which could lead to a new Maidan or, in the very least, to the president’s impeachment. This war’s beginning was sparked by Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential elections.

On January 26th, the American publication RealClearDefense analyzed the main problems gripping Ukraine in an article under the telling title “Ukraine’s Problem is Ukraine.” According to the Ukrainian publication Vesti which cited this article, Donald Trump plans to arrange an “audit” of the Ukrainian authorities by checking where Kiev has really allocated the funds received from the US under Barack Obama.

In short, Ukraine’s main problems are named to be the following four:

1. the problematic organization of authorities caused by a large number of officials taking part in military strategy and procurement;

2. the absence of a unified strategic vision and budget accounting;

3. pro-Russian officials

4. overwhelming corruption

Let us note that the publication does not identify the biggest problem: the illegitimate status of the ruling Poroshenko regime and the former US administration’s accountability for the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych.

The third point on the list is also questionable. Already in the first days following the victory of the Euromaidan, Ukrainian government agencies were decisively purged of any so-called “pro-Russian officials.” In fact, this work was carried out long before. In the first half of 2010, the author of these lines more than once came into contact with Ukrainian deputies, politicians, and experts who constantly supplied reports on how the US and the West (including foundations from both the Democratic and Republican parties in the US, NATO humanitarian organizations, etc.) were consistently engaged in drawing the ruling Ukrainian elite into the channels of pro-Western policies. A system of work was organized with this aim. Trips were arranged for deputies, politicians, and experts (as well as budding young specialists) to visit the US and the opening of NATO centers at universities even in pro-Russian cities like Donetsk, etc. I’ll emphasize that all of this was being carried out even during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, whom the leaders of the Euromaidan called “pro-Russian.”

Thus, the purging of the Ukrainian political sphere of pro-Russian figures began long before the victory of the Euromaidan. Assistant to the US Secretary of State on European and Eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland, confirmed in an interview on CNN that the US had allocated as much as $5 billion “to support the Ukrainian people’s aspiration for a stronger, democratic government.” Part of this money was likely allocated for the outright bribery of Ukrainian politicians. There was also, of course, a hidden part of all this work including non-public negotiations and agreements with Ukrainian politicians on, among other things, personnel appointments. It is no coincidence that Yanukovych’s presidential reign was marked by the career advancements of collaborators and the disappearance and even arrest of genuinely pro-Russian politicians. The most famous among the latter examples is the leader of the Odessa-based Rodina Party, Igor Markov, who was arrested in October 2013 and spend several months in prison.

Thus, by the time of the coup, no more “purging” of the Ukrainian political field of pro-Russian forces was really needed. The ruling Party of Regions represented several groups competing against one another on domestic political and economic issues but overall in solidarity in matters of ideology (liberalism) and geopolitics (orientation towards the West, primarily on the EU). Put bluntly and crucially: it was a party of collaborators and conformists.

But why did this American publication dedicate an entire point on an extra short list of Ukraine’s problems to this?

A correct answer to this question would be possible if we possessed information on this publication. Does it speak for the representatives of the new US President’s entourage? Or do Ukrainian lobbyists in the US perhaps (but not necessarily) opposed to President Poroshenko stand behind it? I am inclined towards the second possibility, but perhaps American readers could correct me.

It is obvious that such lobbies are attempting to misdirect Donald Trump by pointing to the consequences (corruption) and not the reasons (illegitimacy and criminal government) for Ukraine’s problems.

Donald Trump would be wise to refrain from being immersed in European chaos, and instead busy himself with cleaning the Augean stables of America before he is dragged into being involved in the Ukrainian mess. This obviously betrays the interests of the Ukrainian lobbyists in the US. Undoubtedly, in the near future we will see very high media and political activity on the part of these lobbyists.

Also on January 26th, another piece of news came – this time straight from Ukrainian officialdom. Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alene Zerkal practically issued an ultimatum to Washington in an interview with Reuters. Implying the coming telephone talk between President Putin and President Trump, Ms. Zerkal stated that Ukraine should have a word in any agreement achieved between the US and Russia on settling the conflict in Donbass.

“Since we are talking about the future of our country, we do not want to be excluded from negotiations. We do not want to be a playing card. We want to be a player,” Zerkal told Reuters.

Zerkal also stated that she does not believe in a “gentleman’s agreement” and supports Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s call for the West to keep the sanctions on Russia. Yet the Ukrainian foreign minister does not propose to include Russia in negotiations with Western countries during which the question of prolonging the anti-Russian sanctions is discussed.

The Ukrainian foreign minister’s statement speaks to the confusion, if not panic, that is gripping Kiev since Donald Trump’s inauguration. My sources with connections in Ukraine have confirmed that this attitude is prevalent in the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The opinion of Ukrainian “volunteers” from the neo-Nazi battalions boils down to a simple formula: “Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin.” Poroshenko’s entourage, as far as we can judge, fears something else much more: a financial and political audit of the actions of the current Ukrainian leadership conducted by the US. This threat appears to be more real than the fears of Ukraine’s neo-Nazis. After all, changing out a failed leader for a more effective one is a well tested method of American policy in the former USSR, as in the case of Georgia, where the “Rose Revolution” overthrew pro-American President Eduard Shevardnadze and brought to power pro-American Mikhail Saakashvili.

The ruling Ukrainian establishment’s ill-concealed panic is paradoxically masked by categorical statements. Official Kiev’s opinion is expressed in the form of essentially an ultimatum. The foreign ministry’s statement is not an attempt to secure rights for Ukraine over the course of bilateral negotiations between the US and Russia, but an attempt to impose Ukraine’s monopoly over relations with Russia on Trump.

Ukraine’s sense of tact has once again failed it. Even the inept and foolish attempt to interfere in the American elections did not teach the Ukrainian establishment elementary rules of political etiquette.

Shortly thereafter, a hefty scandal erupted in Ukrainian media over this incident. The Ukrainian foreign ministry stated that Elena Zerkal’s words were misinterpreted by journalists from the American edition of Reuters and their meaning distorted. Apparently, the significance and consequences of her scandalous ultimatum even became obvious for Ukraine’s amateur diplomats.

Petro Poroshenko has now thrown in all forces in order to earn Donald Trump’s forgiveness. Before, the Ukrainian elite demonstrated contempt for the “outsider” candidate, Trump, but now they are striving to display extreme subservience. It has been openly said that Poroshenko has hired some lobbyist groups in the US and entrusted them with the hope of changing Trump’s attitude towards Poroshenko.

However, Poroshenko’s domestic opponents, who together with him defamed Donald Trump, have now rushed to take advantage of the Ukrainian president’s thunderous foreign policy failure. Preparations for a new coup are almost openly underway in Ukraine. Whether such will take place in the form of armed street protests (a Maidan) or impeachment are important details, but do not supersede the essence of the situation. We will discuss this in the following, concluding part of our analysis.

To be continued in Part 3…

[1] We consider the qualification of Petro Poroshenko as « president » to be wrong. Poroshenko came to be head of state as the result of a coup d’etat, and is therefore some kind of Ukrainian analogue of Pinochet. Unfortunately, the « Ukrainian presidential elections » of May 2014 held after the country’s legal president, Viktor Yanukovych, was forced into exile, and the results of these « elections » – held literally under the gun – were recognized by the international community, including Russia.

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!


« Putin is not allowed to leave! » – Russia [Video]

Posted: 03 Feb 2017 01:37 AM PST

February 3rd, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
Translated by Inessa Sinchougova

Every year, Vladimir Putin takes the time to personally acknowledge individuals who excel in various categories of society, such as the arts and sciences. The entire ceremony is over an hour long, with each laureate addressing the assembly hall. I have selected only a few speakers, which showcase the general public perception of Vladimir Putin as President – much to the detriment of Western mainstream media.

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!


Poroshenko’s Options Burning in The Fires of Donbass

Posted: 02 Feb 2017 08:08 PM PST
Photo: Colonel Cassad blog

February 2, 2017 – Fort Russ News

Oleg Tsarev (Former Ukrainian MP), Live Journal – Translated from Russian by Kristina Kharlova


I, like many of my comrades believe that a horrible end is better than horror without an end. Recent events in Donbass show that the process has entered the final stage when decisions will soon be made.

What is reassuring is that the armed forces of Novorossia are now allowed to respond to provocations, because until now it was very strict: they were practically banned from responding to attacks in order to avoid accusations that the Republics are provoking escalation. Because Ukrainian authorities distorted the situation. If there was a response, they said « We were shelled! » and so forth, involving the OSCE. But now the global landscape is changing, changing the methods. We can see this from reports of foreign media. The militia began to respond, and this response is very painful for the enemy.

The Ukrainian side very clearly feels the line, after which the answer will not just be painful, but fatal. And I believe they don’t want to cross this line. This is why they only resort to shelling, not a massive advance. Indeed there are many victims. Moreover, the common position of Donetsk, Lugansk and all of us – there is no joy in the high number of deaths. It is clear that the killed civilians and soldiers of NAF on our side are a tragedy, but losses on the other side don’t bring joy to anyone either. We understand that responsibility for all rests on Poroshenko. And we understand that as soon as the political situation in the country will change, those guys who stand on the other side of the front line – 90% and maybe even more – will change their perspective. But if they are dead, it’s irreversible… And that’s what’s tragic.

It is encouraging that Russian TV reporters now react to the events in Donbass more adequately than in previous months, and reports of the same Alexander Sladkov on channel « Russia 24 », in general, correctly describe the situation on the battlefield. I think the reason is as follows. For several years people died, and there was no end to this situation. And how should they present it on Russian TV? Russian people are dying and the Russian government does not take any serious action. So the subject of Donbass was pushed aside. But now everyone understands that in Ukraine, and in Russia, decision will be made. And soon enough. And the situation will evolve in a different direction. So Donbass is back in the media.

Against this background, we see an extraordinary activity of Poroshenko. First Poroshenko announces a referendum on Ukraine’s accession to NATO and says that if four years ago 16% of Ukrainians supported this move, now it is 54%. But the numbers of those wishing to join NATO in Ukraine are irrelevant (according to other sources they are quite different). What matters is that NATO itself is now categorically opposed to Ukraine joining the organization. Therefore, there is no point in holding the referendum. It’s just one of the ways of Poroshenko to remind about himself.

Imagine this situation. He was a minion of Western European and American leaders, politicians. He was showered with attention, the money sent to Ukraine, the aid. Suddenly and rapidly, literally in a month the situation has changed and no one wants to see him or talk to him. It took him much effort to meet with Merkel, and the results of the meeting were such that he had to urgently save his reputation. Blaming Donbass escalation, especially in Avdeevka, his hasty departure from Berlin actually saved a failed visit. Poroshenko clings to every opportunity to get back on the global political agenda. He will fail, but he will still try. I think it’s more of a psychological denial to come to terms with the role, with the situation in which he finds himself. His situation is about the same as Hitler, six months before the end of the war. Only then the war lasted longer, and now the time is compressed and everything happens quite quickly. He is trying to build some kind of relationships, to negotiate with one, the other, to find his place, to stay alive. And the most important thing for him is to save his money. He is approaching the point when it would be impossible.

It is worth noting today’s statement by the permanent representative of Ukraine to the United Nations Volodymyr Yelchenko that the American authorities promised him not to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. There are different points of view, but, most likely, Crimea will not be recognized by the West as part of the Russian Federation in the near future. It’s hard to imagine what needs to happen in order for the global elite to recognize Crimea’s accession to Russia. Another thing is that this issue can be pushed into a far corner and removed from the agenda. Even sanctions could be lifted, but recognition of Crimea is a long and laborious process. It is not about USA, or Europe, but Russia. If Russia becomes as strong as was the Soviet Union, then it doesn’t matter if it is recognized or not recognized by the United States and Europe. By the way, we should remember that the three Baltic republics were not recognized by the West as part of the USSR for half a century, but, nevertheless, this has not prevented them from remaining part of the country. And there are many such examples.

The Minsk agreement: the latest meeting in Minsk was, as always, empty talks; have you seen any real steps? Nobody expected any developments from Minsk. Yes, there are no changes – and it is expected. Obviously, all the developments are taking place elsewhere. I have already said that the ideal scenario is a situation when Ukraine’s problem will be resolved outside of the borders of Ukraine. Not through armed confrontation when one Russian is fighting with another Russian who is convinced he is not Russian – but in some other place. And these process is underway.

What are we seeing? Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump had a talk. The conversation lasted forty minutes. Taking into account the time for translators, it lasted twenty to thirty minutes. What say the leaders on such occasions? Look at Trump’s impressive entourage. The Western media highlighted that, when Trump talked with Merkel, he had a different smaller set of advisers. When leaders talk longer than ten minutes, it is significant. They discuss issues on the agenda, reason if there is a desire to solve them, and in a few words describe how they see the solution to these issues. If there are no contradictions, they appoint those responsible for each issue. Next to Donald Trump were the people who were immediately told: you are going to deal with this issue, you get Syria, you – Ukraine, you – another issue. Further those responsible must communicate with each other and develop the concept for the personal meeting of the leaders. And plans developed by Trump’s and Putin’s team will be implemented.

According to my sources, team Trump will arrive in Ukraine within two weeks (but certainly before the end of February). The representatives of the Republican party visited Ukraine before, but not the wing which will today address Ukrainian issues. We remember McCain’s visit, a meeting with Tymoshenko. Now it is the turn of Trump’s representatives to solve the issues. In my opinion, there is a working script, by which Ukraine will be dealt with. In principle, the leaders agreed that cooperation between Russia and USA will be focus on solving the problem of terrorism. In Syria it is ISIS, in Ukraine, terrorists in fact are at the head of the state. And these terrorists staged a civil war, staged a genocide of their own population. And this issue must be addressed.

How will it be solved? There are too many options to discuss here. I will focus only on the fact that in any case the path that is charted by the Minsk agreements is the only way that provides a political solution. It is obvious that with this composition of the Verkhovna Rada it is impossible to resolve political issues, which are recorded in the Minsk agreements. The deputies simply will not vote. In Ukraine, the « war party » is very strong. The « war party » is led by Yatsenyuk, Parubiy and Turchinov.

Poroshenko had the opportunity to remove Avakov after the events in Knyazhich. Did not go through, although thought about it long and hard. As you remember Avakov was in hiding for a week, held unofficial talks, and yet he remained in place. And today, Turchinov and Avakov actually organized the blockade of Donbass, to avoid an open confrontation with Poroshenko. The contradictions came to the brink, and Poroshenko understands that the global situation is now changing and he needs to be replaced. He cannot be replaced, because in this case he must purge the « war party », which will fracture the coalition. If the coalition dissipates – the parliament understands that it must be re-elected. And most likely impeach Poroshenko.

Yulia Tymoshenko tried to pull it off: using the son of UPA commander Yuri Shukhevych she wanted to question the Minsk agreement and declare impeachment of the president. Failed. But in today’s Ukraine it is not necessary to follow the full impeachment procedure. It is enough to vote for impeachment and say, Yes, we impeached him. It is enough to declare it, and then just throw Poroshenko out of the administration of the president and call new elections.

Ukrainian authorities wiped their feet on the Constitution of Ukraine so many times, that they can do it again – for political expediency. Therefore, the collapse of the coalition for Poroshenko is a critical point. He is grasping for options. There is a possibility that Yatsenyuk will be put in charge of National Bank. Many banks, including systemic « Privat », are bankrupt, there are many debts, and the head of National Bank is in charge of significant financial resources. All of these debts are sold at a lower price. There is a flow of black money. In charge of this flow is Poroshenko. Yatsenyuk offered himself for head of National Bank and guaranteed that the deputies of « Popular Front » will remain loyal to Poroshenko, or will remain in the coalition.

But Poroshenko has not yet made a decision. Why? Because about 50% of the deputies of the « Popular Front » side with Avakov, 7-8% – Pashinsky. And there are risks even if Yatsenyuk gets National Bank, the coalition will still fall apart. Therefore Poroshenko has a difficult choice, but he hopes to find the way out. He hopes to survive as a political figure and offer something to Trump, if Trump will hold. Because I must say that Soros is not missing a bit. US protests are funded by Soros and Soros (cannot accuse him of being stupid), apparently believes he has a chance against Trump. And now all Poroshenko’s statements, all the shelling of Donetsk is very nicely playing into the hands of team Democrats – Clinton, Obama, Soros… As he further pushes himself into a corner.

Auteur : erlande

68 ans;45 ans d'expérience dans la communication à haut niveau;licencié en lettres classiques;catholique;gaulliste de gauche à la Malraux;libéral-étatiste à la Jacques Rueff;maître:Saint Thomas d'Aquin:pro-vie sans concession.Centres 'intérêt avec connaissances:théologie,metaphysie,philosophies particulières,morale,affectivité,esthétique,politique,économie,démographie,histoire,sciences physique:physique,astrophysique;sciences de la vie:biologie;sciences humaines:psychologie cognitive,sociologie;statistiques;beaux-arts:littérature,poésie,théâtre,essais,pamphlets;musique classique.Expériences proffessionnelles:toujours chef et responsable:chômage,jeunesse,toxicomanies,énergies,enseignant,conseil en communication:para-pubis,industrie,services;livres;expérience parallèle:campagne électorale gaulliste.Documentation:5 000 livres,plusieurs centaines d'articles.Personnalité:indifférent à l'argent et aux biens matériels;généraliste et pas spécialiste:de minimis non curat praetor;pas de loisirs,plus de vacances;mémoire d'éléphant,pessimiste actif,pas homme de ressentiment;peur de rien sauf du jugement de Dieu.Santé physique:aveugle d'un oeil,l'autre très faible;gammapathie monoclonale stable;compressions de divers nerfs mal placés et plus opérable;névralgies violentes insoignables;trous dans les poumons non cancéreux pour le moment,insomniaque.Situation matérielle:fauché comme les blés.Combatif mais sans haine.Ma devise:servir.Bref,un apax qui exaspère tout le monde mais la réciproque est vraie!

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s