LOL

The cold war stopped a long time ago, David. During the 1990s, Russia and the Nato already signed several important agreements on cooperation. In 1994, there was the Partnership for Peace programme, for instance. Never heard of it?
There is a Russia–NATO council since 2002, for handling security issues and joint projects. The main sectors of cooperation between Russia and NATO at this very moment are: terrorism, military cooperation, cooperation on Afghanistan (for instance, transportation by Russia of non-military ISAF freight, and fighting the local drug production), industrial cooperation, non-proliferation,...and others.
The Russian envoy to NATO is Dmitry Rogozin.
It is now time for a real treaty, like the one Medvedev suggested, with here and there maybe a little adjustment.
Recent developments of the situation in the Ukraine call for going on with the new treaty more urgently.
The professor did not elaborate on Asia... only mentioned it.
The talks with the EU are about the treaty... not about the sanctions... according to the Professor. Russia seems not to care about the sanctions (They are mediagenic, though... but she didn't go as far as using that word).
She said that if we do not work more closely together on an economical level as well... Russia will treat every EU-member in a different way, wich will complicate the inner relations of the EU-members. The fact that the current temporary sanctions have a more serious impact on Greece then on Russia... proves her point.
The EU has already promised a serious amount of money* to the Ukraine... to help them improve the Russian-Ukrainian trade. The Ukraine can not otherwise meat the conditions to join the EU.
Ukraine seems to have other priorities, since they refused to stop the fights around the plane crash site... even after two visits of Timmermans and a lot of phone calls of Rutte, the Dutch Prime minister.
If the Ukraine does not want to cooperate, they will get themselves in trouble with everybody... except for the United States and the UK, maybe.
That is not a laughing matter.
The Ukraine is not a NATO member.
Slovenia and Croatia are now EU and NATO members but when you enter Kosovo, you can not go North to Serbia, because they do not accept the Kosovo entry stamp. We do not like unneeded traffic diversions or even stopping at the border.

* I do not have the exact amounts and the total amount at hand right now, and how they are spread over time in steps of ... I think... one year.

PS: The Obama introduced EU/US trade talks are proceeding very slow, as well. There is a problem with protection of personal data, and the US unilaterally sanctioning European partly state owned banks, with historically high fees.
There is also a problem with the sanctions on Russia's biggest bank, which is in joint venture with a 25% Belgian state owned bank, which will have an impact on personal tax bills.
The most recent news - on that same channel- was that the US is taking more then 7 years to grant an export licence to the attacked pears sector.
Before it was said 95% of the pears went to Russia. This number is adjusted to 65%, as more reports from the sector came in.

The same Belgian state tv is now focussing attention on the NATO spokesmen, Oana Lungescu, who said that Russia has 20 000 troops at the Ukrainian border, and that he can not look into the heads of the Russians, but that Russia could use the excuse of an "peace operation" or "humanitarian intervention" to cross the border.
Russia was accused by the far west not to do enough, but crossing the border is not what Obama had in mind. It remains unclear what he exactly wants.
The emissions are in Flemish.
Here is an image of a Flemish Jay, for those who do not speak the language:

The most important news, according to deredactie.be, is that Russia is supporting a request of the rebels to ask the Red Cross and the UN to send humanitarian aid to the Ukraine.
The Ukrainian army is surrounding Donetsk , causing growing trouble to the rebbels. In Loegansk the plight of the population is precarious.
During the night and today, Donetsk sufferd again from Ukrainian artillery.
The city has a shortage of water, food and medicans. Tens of houses, a hospital and a shop are seriously damaged. At least 300.000 out of 1 million inhabitants of the city have fled the violence. The rebels are asking a ceasefire to give humanitarian aid. They want a escape corridor for civilians.
The Ukraine government do not agree with a ceasefire. They say there is no humanitarian disaster and demand a surrender. President Porosjenko had said yesterday he would accept humanitarian help within strict conditions. He would not allow a humanitarian convoy with armed forces and the international mission would have to be under Ukrainian surveillance.
The West suspects Russia to merely look for a pretext to intervene with armed forces. There are 20 000 Russian troops at the border.

(Reuters) - The Red Cross has made a confidential legal assessment that Ukraine is officially in a war, Western diplomats and officials say, opening the door to possible war crimes prosecutions, including over the downing of Malaysia Airlines MH-17.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions setting down the rules of war, and as such is considered a reference in the United Nations deciding when violence has evolved into an armed conflict.
"Within the U.N. system, it's the ICRC that makes that determination. They are the gate keepers of international humanitarian law," said one U.N. source.
The ICRC has not made any public statement - seeking not to offend either Ukraine or Russia by calling it a civil war or a case of foreign aggression - but it has done so privately and informed the parties to the conflict, sources told Reuters.
"The qualification has been shared bilaterally and confidentially," ICRC spokeswoman Anastasia Isyuk told Reuters. "We do not discuss it publicly."

(Reuters) - European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso delivered a blunt message in a telephone call with Putin on Monday. "President Barroso warned against any unilateral military actions in Ukraine, under any pretext, including humanitarian," the Commission said in a statement.
The Kremlin, in its own account of the conversation, made clear that Moscow would indeed send help to largely Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine. "It was noted that the Russian side, in collaboration with representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, is sending an aid convoy to Ukraine," the Kremlin statement said, without saying when the convoy was going.
U.N. agencies say more than 1,100 people have been killed including government forces, rebels and civilians in the four months since rebels seized territory in the east and Kiev launched its crackdown.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he supported an aid mission but made clear it had to be an international effort under the aegis of the Red Cross, involving the European Union as well as Russia. Poroshenko said U.S. President Barack Obama had also backed the international plan when they spoke on the telephone on Monday.
The International Committee of the Red Cross made no immediate comment, although last weekend it issued a statement acknowledging receipt of an offer from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about organizing aid convoys.
Kiev said it was in the "final stages" of recapturing the eastern city of Donetsk - the main base of the separatist rebels - in a battle that could mark a turning point in a conflict that has caused the biggest confrontation between Russia and the West since the Cold War.
An industrial metropolis with a pre-war population of nearly 1 million, Donetsk rocked to the crash of shells and gunfire over the weekend, and heavy guns boomed through the night into Monday from the outskirts of the city.

HUMANITARIAN PRETEXT
NATO believes any Russian humanitarian mission would be used as a pretext to save the rebels, who are fighting for control of two provinces under the banner of "New Russia", a term Putin has used for southern and eastern Ukraine, where mostly Russian is spoken.
Ukraine appears to be pressing ahead with its offensive, undeterred by the presence of what NATO says are about 20,000 Russian troops massed on the nearby border for a potential ground invasion.
Kiev put the size of the Russian forces much higher. "As of 11 o'clock today, about 45,000 troops of the armed forces and internal forces of the Russian Federation are concentrated in border areas," Ukrainian military spokesman Andriy Lysenko told a briefing.

CITIES "CUT OFF"
Lysenko said Ukrainian government forces had finally succeeded in cutting off the road between Donetsk and Luhansk, the other main rebel-held city, which is closer to the Russian border. Kiev and its Western allies say the route has been the principal means of supplying the rebels in Donetsk with weapons.
"The forces of the anti-terrorist operation are preparing for the final stage of liberating Donetsk," Lysenko told Reuters. "Our forces have completely cut Donetsk off from Luhansk. We are working to liberate both cities, but it's better to liberate Donetsk first - it is more important."
The leader of the rebels in Donetsk, Alexander Zakharchenko, a local man who took over the leadership from a Russian citizen last week, said the fighters were considering mounting a counter attack against government forces in the next two or three days.
And a volunteer government fighter suggested claims that government forces were about to take Donetsk were inflated. "Taking the town is an extremely complicated business and painful ... It will take, at the very least, several weeks," said Andriy Beletsky, commander of the so-called Azov battalion told journalists.
Lysenko said clashes took place in several parts of eastern Ukraine over the past 24 hours, with six Ukrainian service members killed and big losses to the rebel side. Rebel losses could not be independently confirmed.
Municipal authorities in Donetsk said artillery shelling knocked out power stations in the city and hit a high-security prison, killing one inmate and allowing more than 100 criminals to escape.
U.N. agencies say more than 1,100 people have been killed including government forces, rebels and civilians in the four months since rebels seized territory in the east and the government launched its crackdown. Kiev says 568 of its troops have been killed in combat.
Fighting in recent weeks has focused on the route linking the cities, near where Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed in July, killing all 298 people on board. Washington says the plane was almost certainly shot down accidentally by rebels using an advanced Russian missile. Moscow denies this.
Fighting near the site forced the Netherlands to put off a mission to recover human remains and investigate the crash.
The rebels in eastern Ukraine have been led mostly by Russian citizens and they have heavy weaponry that Kiev and its allies say can only have come from Russia. Moscow denies aiding them.
Donetsk is facing an increasing shortage of food, water and fuel. Few people are on the streets, apart from groups of armed separatist fighters. There is relatively little traffic, with petrol in short supply. Those who have not left for the countryside are staying indoors. Banks are closed and pensions and social allowances are not being paid.
Shelling on Monday from the direction of the international airport and the suburb of Yasynuvata to the north knocked out a string of power stations, the municipal authority said.
(Additional reporting by Richard Balmforth, Pavel Polityuk and Natalia Zinets in Kiev, Alexei Anishchuk and Lina Kushch in Donetsk, Katya Golubkova in Moscow and Barbara Lewis in Brussels; Writing by Richard Balmfort, Peter Graff and David Stamp; Editing by Peter Millership and Will Waterman - Sensored by Posa Proza)

(deredactie) The trucks with food, medicine, sleeping bags en generators left this morning after Russia and the Ukraine had come to an agreement. The West had feared that the convoy was a pretext for military intervention.
The convoy will be stopped at the border. A spokesmen said it was not certified by the Red Cross. The Ukraine wants to load the goods on their own trucks.

The Ukrainian Parliament is looking today at a list of sanctions.
Prime minister Arsenij Jatsenjoek wants to punish Russian companies and private individuals for what he calls "financing terrorists".
De Ukrainian sanctions might have undesired implications for Europe, because Gazprom might be in the list. (abridged and translated by me)

Another raison to fundamentally reorientate Nato

(Reuters) - German energy giant E.ON, for instance, has invested 6 billion euros ($8 billion) since 2007 in Russia, while chemicals firm BASF has a joint venture with Gazprom.
"For a long time, the market has been ignoring the geopolitical risks," said Gregor Eder, an economist with Allianz, one of the globe's largest fund investors.
"The escalation in Ukraine and a spiral of sanctions could be a turning point for that. Exports to Russia were already falling even before Ukraine and could fall further. The Iraq crisis increases nervousness further."
(Additional reporting by Kevin Yao in Beijing, Martin Santa in Brussels, William Schomberg in London and Jason Lange in Washington; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

Europe’s gas consumption reached 541Bcm in 2013, of which 161.5 Bcm, or 30%, were supplied by Gazprom
The Belgian energy sector is taking an aditional blow: The sabotage of the nuclear powerplant Doel 4 has caused the Belgian total nuclear capacity to drop below 1/3 of normal.
In an eventual cold winter this will lead to temporary powercuts in rural areas.

Sure, their initiations in Georgia and the Ukraine have been sparkling successes in terms of military bases implanted. Same story in Syria, only there with a death-toll of hundreds of thousands to scare the Russian 'grey masses' - as Putin's KGB buddies call the people.

So because Putin can cut off the gas, he is right.
Might Is Right.
I knew we'd get through the BS sometime.

Since the Medvedev proposal dates from 2008, this subject might indeed be raised. About 150 000 people fled to the Crimea.
That was the last sentence of the post you quote.
There is not much help coming from the West.

There is no advantage to nobody. Yes, unlike the US growth, the EU economical growth has come to a standstill, partly dew to the sanctions.
But in today's Sint-Petersburg Economic Forum Putin said that his money is finished as well.
He suggested that the military at the Ukraine border is too expensive,
Ukraine had said there are 45 000 troops... but NATO contradicts that. They estimate only 20 000
Putin is now prepared to recognise the Kiev government, if the killings stop. He explained that to the forum... witch is a sort of Davos World Economic Forum, but lately only the big companies had come, and few new ones. Russia needs an additional amount of smaller foreign companies, of max 50 employees, who interact with the Russian people on basis of equality.
He elaborated in his speech that Russia needs to build more confidence among investors. War does not attract the desired investors.Putin was not planning to invest much in US weapons, anyway. His own weapons are in whole sale at the grocery market - he did not admit that. Buying more weapons is counter-productive. Me personally, I do not understand the US sanction in that regard. He doesn't want them pieces.,
Putins request to postpone the referendum about Independence of Donetsk and Loegansk is already 3 months old, but they still haven't understood that Putin was not going to help them much. That would be at least 3 times more expensive then the Crimea... not to mention that the West wouldn't like that. Note that he had to deal with a million of fugitives up to now. He said that he was not going to solve the problems the EU and the US had caused by supporting the Ukraine coup d'état.
He did not say: "Because I can cut off the gas, I'm right". Where did you read that? What are your sources?
He sold a 400 billion usd gas bubble to China, yes... and he thinks Russia has more to gain from more infrastructure then from a freer market, hereby contradicting what Gref and Koedrin said yesterday. Those are not opposites, though: the infrastructure would slowly grow.

Since when Putin is a member of the Ukraine Parliament, Amamjazz?

By the way, although gaining trust was the most important, Putin also mentioned today that he has to renew almost everything in the Crimea. The regio is very poor.
May I remind critics that Bagdad still does not have electricity.

Breaking news: Our hero Medvedev's hacked twitter account says he is going to resign.

The Kiev parliament is still considering the stop of the Russian products transit to the EU: the pipeline that crosses their country, transports almost half of all Russian gas to the EU.

This is not Eurasian trade, David. The gas was already there.

Medvedev, my friend... do you like the UK?

(Prof. Dr. Johannes Varwick, Professor for European Integration and International Organizations, Institute of Political Science, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, Germany): Especially France tried and still tries to achieve the set-up of autonomous planning capabilities for the EU. Thereby, the joint declaration of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg on ESDP in Tervuren at the end of April 2003 was of particular importance as it expressed the intention of the four states to create European structures for joint operational planning. In addition, the final communiqué proposes, among other things, the concept of a European Security and Defence Union (ESDU), whereby those states should be brought together that are ready to go faster and further in strengthening their defence co-operation. In total, seven initiatives are announced that shall be open to all interested EU member states. Apart from the development of a European rapid reaction capability, the creation of a European command for strategic air transport, the development of a joint European NBC protection unit, the creation of a European system for emergency humanitarian aid and of European training centres, it is also announced to establish a European operational planning cell that shall be installed in the Brussels suburb of Tervuren by summer 2004. In fact, this would firstly amount to the creation of an “EU General Staff” that would be independent of NATO facilities, secondly to the duplication of NATO capabilities, and finally it would undermine the declaration between NATO and the EU, as agreed under great political efforts in December 2002.

Consequently, Tervuren not only threatened to cause a transatlantic split, but - due to the lack of consent to such an initiative among the EU member states themselves - also within Europe itself. In August 2003 the United Kingdom launched a distinct initiative proposing the establishment of a permanent EU cell within NATO´s Allied Command Operations (ACO, formerly SHAPE), thus avoiding any separate and rival structures to NATO. Therefore, provisional result of this dispute is that the UK accepted the necessity of an autonomous EU operational planning capability. That is, the EU shall have the capacity to conduct military operations without recourse to NATO assets and capabilities. In the end, the compromise, as agreed with the US, amounts to the solution that military missions across the spectrum of the Petersberg tasks (humanitarian aid, peace-keeping and tasks of combat forces) will be conducted with recourse to EU planning capabilities, while major and more sophisticated military operations will rest on NATO structures and assets. In those cases in which the EU is having recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, the “Berlin-Plus” agreement remains valid. Additionally, while co-operation between NATO and the EU shall be enhanced by the establishment of a small EU cell at NATO´s ACO, a further newly established “civilian/military cell” comprising some 30 officers within EUMS shall be activated in those cases in which the EU decides to conduct an autonomous operation. Indeed, the latter is subject to very restrictive conditions, for the primary option remains the recourse to national headquarters. This means that the “civilian/military cell” within EUMS will only be activated upon the advice of the EU Military Committee, if a civilian/military operation is planned and where no national headquarter is available.

In essence, some kind of division of labour between NATO and the EU appears in outlines: The Alliance would be responsible for the conduct of more robust combat missions where US participation is necessary, while the EU would mainly undertake peace-keeping operations. Yet, a division of labour based on the idea of the US being responsible for initiating regime changes through military interventions and the subsequent promotion of democracy on the one hand, and the Europeans criticizing this US policy initially, but finally taking part in stabilization operations in the framework of NATO or the EU on the other hand, cannot represent a model that is conducive to the definition of a joint transatlantic strategy. On the contrary, what is required is a precise co-ordination of NATO´s and the EU´s activities in each phase of a military operation.

Prospects for NATO-EU relations: scenarios and consequences

Obviously, several ideas exist among the major actors in transatlantic relations concerning the future direction of the relationship between NATO and the EU. While the United Kingdom – for which NATO appears to be the only acceptable pillar in a two-pillar alliance – traditionally prefers a close alignment with the US and tries to exert influence by pursuing a bandwagoning strategy, traditional French policy aims to create an equipoise to US power in accordance with a balancing approach. Thereof, Poland tends unequivocally and unmistakably to the British position. Finally, the German preference traditionally was to adopt the role of a mediator between the extreme positions of France and the UK.

Scenarios about the future of transatlantic security relations

In view of the tension between the formation and further development of ESDP on the one hand and the continuing existence of NATO on the other hand, two scenarios about the future evolution of transatlantic security relations are principally conceivable: firstly, a two-pillar alliance of equal partners, and secondly a rivalry between the EU and the US, leading to NATO`s dissolution rather sooner than later.

According to the first scenario, a two-pillar alliance – as already thought of in the 1960s and since then repeatedly demanded in numerous documents and strategy papers by the way – with the US and Europe as asymmetric (because of the different power capabilities), but still equal partners will arise in the future. The European pillar would be responsible to solve problems in its own regional security environment; yet, US forces would be available to support Europe if necessary. That is, by arrangement between the two transatlantic partners, peace-keeping missions like the ones in Kosovo or in Bosnia and Herzegovina could be undertaken by the European pillar without US participation. In the event of global security problems, decisions would be made as the cases arise, based on the existence or non-existence of a consensus about a joint action. The question of which of the two organizations – NATO or the EU – assumes primacy would not be decided in principle, but rather pragmatically in the spirit of partnership and solidarity. Nevertheless, a range of points of conflict would also remain in this scenario: How should the Alliance’s military structure be designed; what degree of military co-operation should exist; how should the division of labour between NATO and the EU precisely look like; how to guarantee interoperability; how to preserve cohesion within the Alliance; and is a UN mandate required for joint action (as already provided for in the North Atlantic Treaty of April 1949)?

In fact, two requirements would need to be met to implement this scenario. On the one hand, it is a prerequisite that the EU is successful with its project on ESDP and undertakes more efforts on its own (also in financial respects) to guarantee its own security. Thereby, a duplication of military capabilities and decision-making structures is unavoidable, but would take place in consultation with the US. However, the question remains open whether Washington would have a codecision power. Or, to put it differently: Will there be situations in which NATO does not want to act and nonetheless the EU acts against the will of the US? On the other hand, a further prerequisite is that the US maintains the ability and willingness to establish and maintain partnerships, and furthermore acknowledges that it needs allies to confront today’s security challenges.

While the latest US strategic documents like the March 2006 National Security Strategy and the February 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report emphasize the importance of international partnerships, such a background condition cannot be taken for granted, though. Therefore, it seems reasonable to agree to a recent study on the new strategic direction of US defence policy. Therein, it is argued that although the US will not turn away from NATO entirely, at least in future combat missions, however, it will likely make a demonstrated political willingness and demonstrable existing military capabilities a condition for its willingness to co-operate. As it does not expect both of them from all of its European allies, future transatlantic co-operation will continue to be limited to coalitions of the willing and capable, instead of being characterized by NATO.

The second scenario foresees a rupture in transatlantic relations in the medium and long term and NATO gradually eroding or even critically collapsing. That is, in the medium term, the basic security assumptions and threat perceptions would further diverge and in the long term the EU and the US would become strategic rivals. Accordingly, the relative stability of a world order under the auspices of American dominance would be replaced by a conflictual competition for supremacy between the world poles. It is true that Europe is not in the position to perform such a role as a political rival for the moment, but assuming that the EU will be able to translate its economic weight into political and military power some day, this scenario could become reality sooner than it is feared by transatlantic Europeans (or European transatlanticists, respectively) or hoped by European autonomists.

Consequences for NATO-EU relations

What follows from this analysis? The degree of European autonomy within NATO or of Europeans on the whole, respectively, is one of the most difficult structural questions of security and alliance policy. In essence, it is about to what extent the EU is able and willing to take over tasks and functions so far being performed by NATO. Thereby, the central question is whether the EU will become a “branch office” of NATO for particular tasks or whether the bulk of those security policy tasks which lie ahead of an EU enriched by ESDP can still be performed much better, much faster and more effective by NATO. However, as matters stand today, this question must be regarded as unanswerable, for on the one hand, today, it is more uncertain than ever whether the EU can manage to become a single political actor and on the other hand, at present, it remains unsettled whether the US wants to remain a “European power” and whether it is still interested in formal alliances with its European partners.

Overall, three essential consequences for transatlantic security relations arise from this analysis of the complex relations between NATO and the EU:

Firstly, EU-Europe will be more responsible for its own security than ever before and therefore, European policy must enhance the EU´s capacity to effectively perform this role. However, in all probability, the EU´s ability to shape its political evolution in the 21st century will turn out very modest under given conditions of European policy. For neither the possibility of a creeping erosion of the EU can be ruled out entirely, nor the evolution of a completely new form of integration beyond existing treaties. Although the sphere of foreign and security policy almost suggests itself for seeking common solutions like hardly any other policy field, it should not be expected that with 25 or even 30 member states that could be accomplished, what could not be achieved with just 15 members: that is, to develop and raise a common European voice in international affairs. Thereby, the Europeans – who are, by the way, much more perceived and requested as a common actor from the outside world than this is discernible inside the EU itself – are no more allowed to confine themselves to internal self-reflection and quarrelling for quite some time now. The difficult debates about the future of integration as well as about European foreign and security policy still lie ahead of the EU.

If this analysis is true, then the EU and its member states will secondly be well advised to working to the best of its ability to ensure that the US remains a “European power” and in developing a security policy role to behave in such a manner which does not further disassociate the US from Europe. Apart from numerous other questions, this will be one of the central challenges facing alliance policy in the future. As NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer put it in fine terms: “Now I am the first to grant that NATO-EU relations could be better than they are at present. But what is not yet can surely come about. [...] Today nobody can dispute the need for the EU to have a security-political role. An effective EU must be considered a normal part of the transatlantic relationship, and not a disruptive factor. And even if the rhetoric of the EU sometimes seems a bit too robust, NATO can take this in its stride. For NATO remains unique – it alone has the United States on board. And there can't be a stable world order without the USA”.

Thirdly, despite of all already existing statements and formal arrangements, a debate about a transatlantic division of labour is imperative. For sensible reasons, the EU should strengthen its focal point in those areas where priority is given to an approach that goes beyond sheer military capabilities. That does not mean to say, however, that the military dimension at EU level should be abandoned. Yet, for the foreseeable future, the EU will be, at best, a “civilian power with teeth” and should leave those military operations to NATO in which escalation dominance and high intensity capabilities are required. It should be self-evident that European capabilities (or more specifically: contributions of single European states) will have to be placed at the disposal of the Alliance for this purpose.

In essence, also in the future, the relations between NATO and the EU will not be easy and neither will they be conflict-free. However, in view of the broad congruence of membership in both organizations and the fact of a “single set of forces” as well as the demanding international security policy agenda, it would be absolutely inadequate, if both were busy with themselves in some kind of beauty contest instead of giving effective impetus to the stabilization of the international system and actively contributing to the solution of current and future security policy problems.(Prof. Dr. Varwick--- the original text went on and on and on)

In 2010, the Ukraine had received a reduction of the gas price to compensate for the Russian fleet in the Crimea (treaty of Charkov) until 2017. Nevertheless, after the coup d'etat in Kiev the Ukraine debt to Gazprom had raised to 11.4 billion dollar . After they had paid 786 million dollar, the debt was reduced to 3,7 billion euro, but the gas was cut off. Gazprom lost 38% of its profits this year due to the unpaid bills. Gazprom promised to invest in new ways to get the gas to the EU.

The EU worrying about Ukraine media freedom and their sanctions against Gazprom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The names of the companies targeted by the Ukrain sanctions will not be published until Poroshenko has signed the law into force. Actual sanctions would still need approval from Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council.
Naftohaz, Ukraine's state-run energy firm, said on August 13 that future sanctions against Russia would not necessarily target Gazprom. "The adoption of the sanctions law will not lead automatically to sanctions against any entity, including Gazprom. The law simply establishes the legal right to implement them," they said.

A version of the bill passed on first reading on August 12 had included provisions allowing the censoring of media deemed a national security threat. Those provisions were removed from the final version of the bill.
Rights groups had said the law would give the council "draconian" powers to restrict media and could return a nation once celebrated for media freedoms to Soviet-era levels of censorship.
The representative on media freedom for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), D. Mijatovic, welcomed the move to drop the media provisions as a "step in the right direction. The provisions could potentially endanger free media and pluralism in Ukraine," she said, "and by dropping them the legislators have taken a decision to protect and ensure free media and freedom of expression, rather than restricting free speech."

Also on August 14, Ukraine's parliament approved a bill to allow gas-transit facilities to be leased on a joint-venture basis with participation from EU and U.S. firms.
The measure says Ukraine will hold 51 percent and foreign partners will be offered 49 percent in the venture. It covers both transit pipelines and underground gas-storage facilities.
Kyiv says the measure will bring in investment and remove the need for the South Stream pipeline, which Russia is building to take gas to south-eastern Europe across the Black Sea, bypassing Ukraine. (Radio Free Europe, with reporting by Reuters, Interfax, and ITAR-TASS, abridged by Poza Proza)

Sorry, no ref found on those grey masses. This is my best shot:
--> www.dailymotion.com/video/xnkbea_grey-alien-filmed-by-kgb...

Russia–Syria relations:
--> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations

Electric generators
In Belgium, the state tv is feeding the hype for electric generators. The different types are explained, and a warning was issued that you can not just hire them: they need to be properly connected to the electric circuit.
Recent news regarding Ukrainian sanctions against Gazprom and the sabotage of nuclear powerplant Doel 4, leaves the people worried about their energy supply.

Most online Belgian newspapers are now publishing an interactive map with areas that will most likely suffer from power cuts. It looks like even some cities in the metropoll Brussels-Leuven-Mechelen are in red alert.

Yes, but since March 6 we know:
----
Markets already see a Putin win
By Anatole Kaletsky
Oscar Wilde described marriage as the triumph of hope over experience. In finance and geopolitics, by contrast, experience must always prevail over hope, and realism over wishful thinking.
A grim case in point is the confrontation between Russia and the West in Ukraine. What makes this conflict so dangerous is that U.S. and EU policy seems to be motivated entirely by hope and wishful thinking. Hope that Russian President Vladimir Putin will “see sense” — or at least be deterred by the threat of sanctions to Russia’s economic interests and the personal wealth of his oligarch friends. Wishful thinking about “democracy and freedom” inevitably overcoming dictatorship and military bullying.
Investors and businesses cannot afford to be so sentimental. Though we should never forget Nathan Rothschild’s advice at the battle of Waterloo — “buy on the sound of gunfire” — the market response to this week’s events in Ukraine makes sense only if we believe that Russia has won.
The alternative to acquiescence in the Russian annexation of Crimea would be for the Ukrainian government to try to fight back, either by military means or by pressuring the Russian minority in the rest of the country. That, in turn, would almost inevitably imply a descent into Yugoslav-style civil war — with the strong possibility of sucking in Poland, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United States.
The West has no intermediate option between accepting the Russian invasion and full-scale war because it seems inconceivable that Putin would voluntarily withdraw from Crimea. Having grabbed Crimea by force, to give it up now would almost certainly mean the end of Putin’s presidency. The Russian public, not to mention the military and security apparatus, believes almost unanimously that Crimea is “naturally” part of Russia, having been transferred to Ukraine, almost by accident, in 1954. In fact, many Russians think, rightly or wrongly, that the entire Ukraine “belongs” to them. (The word “u-krainy” in Russian means “at the frontier,” and definitely not “beyond the frontier.”)
Under these circumstances, the idea that Putin would respond to Western economic sanctions, no matter how stringent, by giving up his newly gained territory is pure wishful thinking. Throughout its history, Russia has accepted economic hardships unimaginable to Western observers in pursuit of geopolitical goals. Thus the idea, which circulated in financial markets on Tuesday, that Putin was suspending military action because of a 10 percent fall in the Moscow stock market that day was, putting it mildly, naive.
The reality is that Putin backed himself into a corner by invading Crimea. This seemingly clumsy manoeuvre, however, far from being the foolish tactical blunder derided in Western media, is actually a textbook example of strategic real politik.
Putin has created a situation in which the West’s only alternative to accepting the occupation of Crimea as a fait accompli is war. Since a NATO military attack against Russia is as inconceivable as Russia’s withdrawal from Crimea, Putin’s redrawing of the Ukraine’s borders seems bound to prevail.
The only question now is whether the Ukrainian government will calmly accept the loss of Crimea, or try to retaliate against Russians within its new borders; thereby offering Putin a pretext for invading the rest of the country and precipitating all-out civil war.
This is the question investors must consider in deciding whether the Ukraine crisis is a Rothschild-style buying opportunity or a last chance to bail out of equities and other risky assets before it is too late. The balance of probabilities in such situations is usually tilted towards a peaceful solution — in this case, Western acquiescence in the Russian annexation of Crimea and the creation of a new national unity government in Kiev that is acceptable to Putin.
To resolve the confrontation, such a government would probably have to guarantee the official status of the Russian language and preserve Russia’s effective veto over Ukrainian relations with NATO and the European Union. This is indeed the most likely scenario, and the one most investors and businesses are effectively assuming will happen by the end of the week.
The trouble is that the alternative, a civil war in Ukraine, while far less likely, would have far greater impact on European and global economies, on energy prices and on stock-market prices around the world that are setting record highs.
Looking back through financial history at comparable episodes of severe geopolitical confrontation, stock-market investors have usually done well to wait for clear evidence of a decisive outcome before plunging in.
In the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars, for example, investors did well to “buy on the sound of gunfire,” but only after the outcome of the engagement was clear. In 2002, the Standard & Poors 500 index fell by 25 percent during the run-up to war. It only turned decisively in March, when the U.S. attack on Iraq began, gaining 35 percent by the end of the year.
Similarly in 1990 and 1991, it was only six months after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, when victory for the U.S.-led forces in Iraq had become inevitable, that equities advanced strongly. They gained 25 percent over the next four months.
A better analogy for the current confrontation may be the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. After a summer of nervous speculation in which stock markets around the world fell by 20 percent, President John F. Kennedy confronted Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev with a nuclear ultimatum to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba. Within a week, Wall Street started rising and ultimately gained almost 30 percent in six months.
But the 1962 rebound only started once it became clear that Khrushchev was backing down and Kennedy had won the war of nerves. A logical explanation for this week’s stock market movements is that investors now see a similar outcome in Ukraine.
But this time with Russia as the winner . ( blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/03/06/markets-alr... )

Putin has said in the recent World Economic Forum he was prepared to recognise the Kiev government, if the killings stop.

Kiev has granted the Russian cargo the humanitarian aid status. The Red Cross had sent a petition to Kiev to allow the Russian humanitarian aid to enter eastern Ukraine. The Russian cargo was held at the Ukrainian border since August 14.


Prof. David Kriekemans is allaborating on this in the financial magazine De Tijd. Even if Donetsk and Loegansk fall into the hands of the Ukrainian army, there still will be 8 million Russian speakers in this region. For them a political solution is needed.
This is an opportunity to give Putin an honourable alternative. Now he has no way to go. Prof. David Kriekemans repeats that the EU should advice the Ukraine to take it easy.
Egon Bahr was also talking about taking smaller steps in stead of forcing things. Egon Bahr is the former Ostpolitik advisor of Willy Brandt. He told the Deutschen Presse-Agentur, that he is confident that the escalations in the Ukraine will not lead to a war. Both antagonists, the USA and Russia, he added, need each other to counter the many centres of conflict in the world: "Deshalb nicht, weil die beiden Hauptkontrahenten, also Amerika und Russland, genau wissen, wie nötig ihre Zusammenarbeit in einer ganzen Reihe von Weltproblemen ist: Syrien, Naher Osten, Israel, Palästina, Abzug aus Afghanistan, der Weltraum."
He went on saying that Putin had made interesting cooperation proposals in the Bundestag, some years ago, that remained unanswered, and that if the NATO policy of growth would not change, this would mean losing Putins confidence.
--> www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/941763.egon-bahr-faden-n...

Come back later and read about Dirk Rochtus (KULeuven, campus Antwerp) referring to Bahr and professor Michael Stürmer in this article in Knack Magazine:
www.knack.be/nieuws/wereld/de-dialoog-met-rusland-herstel...

Read one of his books first:
Putin and the Rise of Russia, By Michael Stuermer
A great merit of his book is his acceptance of Putin for what he is, someone both shaped by his Russian experience and a conscious shaper of Russia's future – not just, as in too many Western interpretations, a diehard KGB man true only to Soviet-era roots. Instead of trying to read ulterior motives and Kremlinological messages into Putin's utterances, Stuermer takes the trouble to listen.
www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/pu...

Sergei Ivanov met with Chief of Staff of Ukrainian Presidential Executive Office Boris Lozhkin
August 15, 2014, 20:45 Sochi
The discussion covered a broad range of bilateral relations issues.
The parties also agreed to hold a meeting in the Normandy format at the level of foreign ministers of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France.
--> eng.state.kremlin.ru/face/22829

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said this meeting will be today in Berlin.

At the talks in Berlin, which lasted for five hours, German officials sought to keep discussions among foreign ministers focused on the larger issues and to avoid getting bogged down in discussions surrounding the aid convoy. Speaking to reporters after the departure of the other three foreign ministers, the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said the diplomats were to return to their respective capitals to consult on how discussions could be continued.
Mr. Steinmeier said a decision could be reached by Tuesday but did not elaborate.
(Melissa Eddy in The New York Times)

A small step...
Reporters Without Borders - 11.08.2014
Russian news agency photographer missing for past week
en.rsf.org/ukraine-summary-of-attacks-on-media-06-08-2014...

Reporters Without Borders is very concerned about Andrei Stenin, an experienced war photographer working for the past few months in eastern Ukraine for Rossiya Segodnya, a Russian news agency formed in 2013 from the merger of several state-owned news outlets. Stenin has been missing since 5 August, when Rossiya Segodnya reported his disappearance. Reporters Without Borders urges anyone holding him to make it known, and to release him at once.
A RIA Novosti source said on 8 August that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) was holding him near the southwestern city of Zaporozhye but a local SBU spokesman denied this and the Ukrainian government has yet to respond to requests by Rossiya Segodnya and local NGOs such as IMI for information. Representatives of the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk said Stenin may have gone to Shakhtarsk, in the Donetsk region, where all communications are cut.
Russian presidential spokesman Dmitri Peskov has said the Russian authorities are pursuing the matter, while Rossiya Segodnya has launched an online campaign in support of Stenin, especially on Twitter.

Ukraine's Foreign Minister Klimkin confirmed the Aug. 23 visit of Merkel to Kiev.

Merkel sets limits to Nato solidarity with Baltic states

Merkel has said Nato will defend Baltic states if need be, but will not build permanent military bases in the region. She noted, this would violate a 1997 Russia-Nato accord on troop deployments in Europe.
"We will boost our participation in other ways ... we will do what it takes to guarantee that, should Latvia come into difficulties, Nato will be able to help straight away".
With the EU on Monday pledging an extra €125 million for producers hit by the Russian food embargo, the German central bank noted the EU-Russia chill is holding back Europe’s economic recovery.
“Geopolitical tensions in eastern Europe owing to the Ukraine conflict as well as in other parts of the world are now appearing to weigh more heavily on corporate sentiment”, it said in a regular report. (Andrew Rettman, Today @ 09:21,
euobserver.com/foreign/125291 , abbreviated.by me)

A “Belgian Solution” for Ukraine?

Graham Allison, Director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs , March 15, 2014.: "Given the reality that is Ukraine today, an internationally-recognized neutral state within its current borders would be a victory for all."

President Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recently proposed "Finlandization" of Ukraine. Ukraine would be allowed "wide ranging economic relations with Russia and the EU but no participation in any military alliance viewed by Moscow as directed against itself."

Henry Kissinger has warned that “for the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.” Reality, he argues, should lead us to accept an outcome that excludes Ukraine from NATO

An appropriate way to do this would be a “Belgian solution:”
internationally-guaranteed neutrality for Ukraine. From the 16th century
until the early 19th, armies repeatedly marched through the territory that
is now Belgium. When Belgium declared independence from the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1830, its future was uncertain. France proposed a partition of Belgium in which it would annex the strategic city of Brussels. But others had a better idea. In the Treaty of London, the UK, France, Prussia, Russia, Austria and Holland agreed to respect Belgium's territorial integrity and permanent neutrality. As a result, Belgium enjoyed nearly a century of peace that ended only with the outbreak of World War I.

Internationally-recognized neutrality has proved a viable solution for a
number of other states including Switzerland (which declared neutrality
after the Peace of Westphalia) and Austria (in a post-World War II Treaty signed by the US, UK, France, and USSR).

Why, it will be asked, should Ukraine not be free to enter into any economic or military relationship it chooses—including the EU and NATO? In a word, the answer is: history. However inconvenient, Ukraine's survival and wellbeing will remain highly dependent on the forbearance and even largesse of its neighbors—none more importantly than Russia. Russia provided half the raw materials Ukraine imports and supplies more than half the gas it consumes at a discount one-third below market prices. Ukraine’s metallurgical and chemical industries that account for a large part of its GDP are also the largest consumers of discounted Russian gas. Moreover, the territory of Ukraine is sharply divided between East and West, and if a fair vote were taken, a substantial majority of Crimeans would vote to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.

Empires never collapse without leaving in their wake divided populations, disputed borders, and decades of simmering grievances. When compared with the dissolution of other recent former empires, the most remarkable thing about the Russian story is how peaceful it has been—so far. Civil war in Tajikistan, a struggle between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, and a short, limited Georgian-Russian war in 2008 aside, the captive nations of Eastern and Central Europe, as well as the territories acquired by Peter, Catherine, and other czars over five centuries, have emerged with strikingly little violence.

Yet of these post-Soviet states, Ukraine is a special case. Home of the
original Kievan Rus a thousand years ago, in the minds of most Russians, Ukraine is almost as much a part of Russia as Moscow. When the grand dukes of Muscovy took control of what is today western Russia in the 15th century, they proclaimed themselves as the successors of Kiev. Eastern Ukraine has been an integral part of Moscow’s Empire for more than three centuries.

Ukraine’s current borders are both artificial and accidental. Sevastopol was built by Catherine the Great as a major base for the Russian Navy. Had Nikita Khrushchev not made a symbolic gesture in transferring Crimea’s administrative status to an administrative subunit of the USSR, Crimea would have fallen on the Russian rather than the Ukrainian side of the line when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Economically, Ukraine is a basket case, likely to default on debts due in the year ahead. Politically, Ukraine ranks at the bottom of the charts in corruption and dysfunctionality.

Successful statecraft requires recognizing brute realities and imagining
feasible possibilities. Given the reality that is Ukraine today, an
internationally-recognized neutral state within its current borders would be a victory for all. By treaty, it could not be a member of NATO or the EU, or Russia’s pale imitations of both; it would give Russia a 100-year lease on the base for its Black Sea Fleet; it should internationalize ownership of the pipelines that take Russian gas to European consumers; it would guarantee minority rights in accord with European standards. Under these conditions, its citizens will have a better opportunity to focus on nation building at home than they will otherwise. - Graham Allison, March 15, nationalinterest.org/commentary/%E2%80%9Cbelgian-solution...

Richard Branson has called for a dialogue between business leaders and politicians in Russia and the Ukraine. Lara Rense, anchorwoman of the Netherlands Broadcasting Foundation NOS Radio 1, spoke with him.
Branson said the first step was to make sure that next weeks talks between Putin and Porosjenko would take place. He seems to doubt their diplomatic skills in the current situation: according to him "some politicians hate each other".
Unilever had just signed his urg for a peaceful resolution to Russia-Ukraine conflict.-- nos.nl/artikel/689699-richard-branson-praat-met-poetin.html
-- more signatures --
We all have a responsibility to work towards peace in Ukraine, so that people can thrive without putting their basic human rights at risk. Join us in this call for peace. We will do our best to ensure that your voice is heard by political leaders. We will also bring the right groups of business leaders together to work towards a better, more peaceful future.
Richard Branson – Founder, Virgin Group; Mo Ibrahim – Founder, Mo Ibrahim Foundation; Paul Polman – CEO, Unilever; Jeff Skoll – Founding President, eBay; Ratan Tata – Chairman Emeritus, Tata Sons Ltd; Muhammed Yunus – Nobel Laureate
Maxim Ivanov – Founder, Foodline Group (Russia); Dennis Ludkovsky – CEO, Svyaznoy Group (Russia); Arkady Novikov – Founder, Novikov Group; Sergey Petrov – Founder, ROLF Group (Russia); Igor Yurgens – President, All-Russian Insurance Association (Russia)
Jan Koum – Co-Founder and CEO, WhatsApp (Ukraine); Max Levchin – Co-Founder, Paypal (Ukraine); Igor Mazepa – CEO, Concorde Capital (Ukraine); Victor Pinchuk – Founder, EastOne Group (Ukraine); Evgeni Utkin – Chairman and President, KMCORE (Ukraine) -- www.virgin.com/richard-branson/urging-a-peaceful-resoluti...
--
Sir Richard Branson is a Business for Peace Honouree. -- businessforpeace.no/award/previous-hounorees/2014-honoure...

Ukraine territorial integrity can be saved only by federalization - German Vice-Chancellor
(Itar-Tass) BERLIN, August 23- It is possible to save Ukraine's territorial integrity only by federalization, German Economy Minister and Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said in an interview to Sunday's Welt am Sonntag, published on Saturday.
Ukraine’s territorial integrity can be saved only if the offer is made to the regions where most of the population are Russians. A well-considered conception of federalization is viewed as the only way, he said.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko repeatedly stated he opposed federalization. In his words, "it has no grounds in Ukraine".
---
(Reuters) Merkel said, looking ahead to the meeting on Tuesday involving Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Petro Poroshenko.
"The plans are on the table, about how you can achieve peace and good cooperation between the countries. Now actions must follow,” she told a news briefing.
She said the main obstacle was the lack of controls along the nearly 2,000 km (1,300 mile) border. She proposed a deal between Kiev and Moscow on monitoring of the frontier by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
"Now we need a two-sided ceasefire linked to a clear controlling of the Russian-Ukrainian border, otherwise peace won’t be achieved," Merkel said.
Diplomats say Merkel came to Kiev with two objectives: primarily to show support for Kiev but also to urge Poroshenko to be open to peace proposals when he meets Putin next week in the Belarus capital, Minsk.
Hours before Merkel's plane landed in Kiev, there was heavy artillery bombardment in Donetsk, the main separatist stronghold on the east of Ukraine, near the border with Russia. Reuters reporters saw apartments destroyed and puddles of blood, where, according to residents, two civilians were killed.
Reuters photographer saw three dead bodies of civilians in the eastern part of Donetsk 7 km (about 4 miles) from the centre after shelling in the afternoon.
--
Why Have Mainstream Media & Obama Administration Gone SILENT on MH17?
www.flickr.com/groups/global_photojournalism_news_protest...

Commissioner De Gucht, responsible for the external trade policy of the world's largest market, and thus seen by many as more powerful then Merkel, will be in Minsk tomorrow, to continue discussions with Ukraine and Russia on implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area.

Poroshenko dismisses the parliament, his Twitter account says.
In an interview he had said that he can not work with the parliament because half of the MP's do not recognize the self-declared Republic of Donetsk as a terrorist organisation.
“The majority of the MPs voted for dictator-style laws, which cost the lives of Maidan activists” , RIA Novosti news agency reports citing Poroshenko's spokesman.
A new parliament will be elected on October 26, the spokesman Svyatoslav Tsegolko wrote on his Facebook page.
Poroshenko has called on “democratic forces” to enter the elections as a united “pro-Ukrainian, pro-European team” Tsegolko’s Facebook post states adding that the Rada was dismissed “because it is the only right and responsible decision.The Fifth Column in the parliament consists of dozens of so-called people’s deputies. But they don’t represent the interests of the people, who elected them, but the interests of some other people”.
The term “Fifth Column” originates from the Spanish Civil War where Franco’s fascists literally sent a “fifth column” of spies and provocateurs to try to capture Madrid from inside the city.

Ten percent of all German exporters trade with Russia. For three-quarters of these firms, selling goods to Russia made up around a quarter of their total exports in 2013.

NATO-Russia Council (NRC)

Statement by NATO Foreign Ministers
April, 01 2014
... We have decided to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia. Our political dialogue in the NATO-Russia Council can continue, as necessary, at the Ambassadorial level and above, to allow us to exchange views, first and foremost on this crisis. We will review NATO’s relations with Russia at our next meeting in June....

The NATO-Russia Council (NRC), was established at the NATO-Russia Summit in Rome on 28 May 2002. It replaced the Permanent Joint Council (PJC), a forum for consultation and cooperation created by the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, which remains the formal basis for NATO-Russia relations. The (NRC) is a mechanism for consultation, consensus-building, cooperation, joint decision and joint action, in which the individual NATO member states and Russia work as equal partners on a wide spectrum of security issues of common interest.
Over the past twenty years, NATO has consistently worked for closer cooperation and trust with Russia. -- www.nato-russia-council.info/en/articles/20140327-announc...

Stop the War Coalition
National Protests at Nato Summit
60 world leaders meet in the UK for the NATO Summit on 4-5 September to plan their war on the world. See the timetable of action
www.flickr.com/groups/global_photojournalism_news_protest...

NATO’ Beens Looking for Arguments to Go East Since 1991 - Experts

© RIA Novosti - en.ria.ru/burning_point/20140827/192399583/NATO-Looking-f...
20:00 27/08/2014

NATO is going to deploy its forces in Eastern Europe in order to "protect its members against Russian aggression". Is it really making Europe a safer place? Radio VR is discussing the issue with Professor Julian Lindley-French, the Director of the Institute of Statecraft and Director of Europa Analytica, based in the Netherlands, and Reiner Braun, the Executive Director of IALANA (International Association Of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms), Co-President of International Peace Bureau.
"You will in the future see a more visible NATO presence in the east", NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told The Guardian.
He also outlined moves to boost Ukraine's security, "modernize" its armed forces and help the country counter the threat from Russia, the newspaper says.
The decision was taken after Poland and three Baltic states had voiced their fear of what they described as Russia’s aggression. Two non-NATO states – Sweden and Finland – have also indicated their readiness to deploy NATO troops in their territory.
Professor Julian Lindley-French: Given the events in Ukraine, most people in Europe regard this as being an aspect of Russian aggression. Because of that there is a widespread view that all the NATO members – these are the free sovereign states who’ve chosen their allegiances and their alliances – when faced with what appears to be aggression, they will seek to have a strategic reassurance, to ensure that they are comfortable, that their own borders are indeed secure.
Now, the purpose of the Atlantic Alliance – an alliance of democracies, of free states – is that when together as an alliance, it decides that it must base forces for whatever reason on the territory of its members, then it has the right to do so. I think it is very important that people in Russia, friends in Russia – a country for which I look with respect and regard, given the Russia’s history and Russia’s role in Europe and the wider world – they must understand that the defense of NATO and its countries is not seen as an act of alliance aggression, but a response to a perceived act of Russian aggression in Ukraine.
And that’s why it is absolutely vital that we maintain the lines of communication open, that we seek to find a peaceful solution in Ukraine and that we ensure that in the 21st century Europe such mutual lack of comprehension of each other’s choices and actions is avoided. So, one has to look at the NATO planning very much in that line, and not as an act of aggression, it isn’t right, but a response to the perception by NATO members across the alliance that Russia at this moment is behaving in an aggressive and inappropriate manner.
However, as you could well imagine, since Russia does not see its role in Ukraine as aggressive, it might read the intentions stated by the current NATO Secretary General, as a manifestation of aggressive plans towards Russia.
Professor Julian Lindley-French: First, there is a very clear sense and a lot of clear evidence to us that Russia is indeed orchestrating the unrest in the east of Ukraine, and that indeed the occupation of Crimea, which was clearly a dispute over the territory, is illegal under the international law.
Now, when a neighbour, a partner starts behaving like that, then one has the right to take steps to ensure that it doesn’t spread any further. The bottom-line is – we in the rest of Europe are fundamentally unsure and uncertain about the intentions of Moscow. And that’s why I say it is critical to maintain lines of communication to end this uncertainty.
The moment the uncertainties end, the moment there is a sense of a negotiated political settlement that is acceptable to all the people of Ukraine and indeed its neighbours, then we can get back to a situation when nobody is moving military forces anywhere, where snap exercises aren’t taking place every couple of months, where the rhetoric of conflict is not the essential nature of our relationship.
We need each other. We are trading partners. Russia is an essential part of European security. But right now, frankly, many of us in the West, much to our deep regret, see Russia not as a solution to European security, but behaving in a way, which is making it a problem for the European security. And until Russia and the Russian people understand this, I fear that this mutual lack of comprehension that we face at the moment could create the space in which danger develops. And we must avoid that at all costs.
London has profound concerns about what is going on, the US does too and several other European countries. So, it is important for Russia to understand how we, concerned friends and partners, see Russian actions at present.
Since you’ve mentioned the US, what the US has been doing in Ukraine is stirring up the conflict. They were in no way peace doves.
Professor Julian Lindley-French: Sorry, I’d disagree. I don’t see the evidence of the US’s troops on the Ukrainian soil. I don’t see evidence of attempts by the US to destabilize Ukraine. The essential concern form Moscow, as I understand it, is that it is the encroachment of the EU that is of concern to Moscow, not the US. So, you’d have to give me the evidence that you suggest, because, from my point of view, I simply do not see the US acting in the aggressive way that you suggest.
But how about Mr. McCain and Mrs. Nuland openly siding with the opposition in Kiev?
Professor Julian Lindley-French: The US is going to make its position clear on how it regards the political development of Ukraine, as is Moscow. And Moscow has as much right as Washington to make clear its views about the future orientation of Ukraine and the nature of the choices Ukraine makes. But the US is not seeking to influence part of a sovereign nation through the use of proxy forces or indeed military force. And that has no place in the 21st century Europe.
The essential issue here is how we negotiate the future. And that involves the Ukrainians, involves Russia, involves all the Europeans and it also involves the US, which in many ways is a European power for historical reasons. So, if we can achieve a new consensus, I'm absolutely convinced that we can reestablish trust on both sides, because that’s the essential missing ingredient right now”.
Reiner Braun: Since 1991 NATO was looking for the arguments for going to the east. And always the argument was Russia. So, this is not a new argument. The only new point is that Rasmussen is doing this with a very aggressive voice. And the good point is that his career in the NATO is coming to the end and we will see how his follower would work.
From my understanding, quite all the NATO countries are in favour of enlarging NATO to the east. All of them are talking about more troops and more bases in the East European countries. The question is only a technical one. Some of them say they don’t want to have a permanent stationing of the troops, but from time to time. And then, they are talking about permanent bases, but only for training.

All these things are stupid. The point is that NATO has not learnt any lesson from its politics in the last 20 years, which, for me, are the background of the crisis in Ukraine. They want to continue going to the east, want to surround Russia. And I think for the peace movement this is not acceptable. Our position is that with the end of the Warsaw Pact, it is time to end NATO and I think we should continue doing this. And with our actions in Wales at the NATO summit, we will underline our position on that.
But from my previous conversations with Western experts, I got an impression that the most widespread opinion across Western Europe is that Russia does present a threat.
Reiner Braun: You know, this was the story since 1945. And when you believe that it is a threat, what can you do? You can try to enlarge the contacts, you can try to enlarge the economic relations, you can try to enlarge the political, social and societal relations with the countries which you believe are a threat.

The policy of the common security, which was the policy of Willy Brandt and Mikhail Gorbachev, said – you have to look for the interests of the other side and for your own interests, and there you have to find common points. And that’s what I think we have to do now or what we have to come back to. It is never possible that only one side says that they dictate the politics of acceptance. Then, it works like it is now – we have the confrontation between the East and the West. And we have to overcome this.

I can understand why Russia is saying that there is a threat from the Western countries. They are coming nearer and nearer to the Russian borders. And I can also understand from the historical point the belief in the threat of the Baltic countries and, maybe, from Poland. But when you do have these feelings, the people and the governments have to sit together and have to negotiate what their common points and their common interests are, but never enlarge with military purposes. This will not help.

People also say US never planned to influence neither party. Is it really the most widespread opinion in Europe?

Reiner Braun: When the responsible lady in the Foreign Ministry of the US said these words “f**k the EU!” and said – let us reduce the influence of the EU, enlarge the influence of the US in Ukraine – then, you can see the reality. The reality, from my understanding, is that all the Western countries have a huge element of confrontation politics in their politics. But the real head of the confrontation politics is the US.

They try to encircle Russia. They were always trying to enlarge into Russia and China, one from Europe and the other from East Asia. And Ukraine is a very important point to come as near as possible to the Russian border. I can’t believe that anyone in Europe believes that the US is not trying to use all their political influence, including the $5 billion that they’ve spent on the so-called civil society in Ukraine for getting the support from them.
So, the US is a big part of the problem. But we can reduce the influence of the US in Ukraine by enlarging the influence of the OSCE, this could be a step forward. But I will never believe that the US is not trying to do everything to enlarge their influence in the eastern part of Europe.
Do I get it right that to be adopted, this strategy needs to be approved by all the NATO members? And how real is the prospect of it being adopted at the Wales summit? And given the current state of discourse, do you think that there are chances that dialogue would be resumed?
Reiner Braun: To answer to the first point, you know, I cannot say in which words that general line will be adopted. But I'm quite sure that the main sentences will be that Russia is responsible for the crisis. Second, we have to enlarge our influence in East Europe by enlarging our troops, maneuvers and bases. Third, we need a higher amount of financial resources for NATO. These will be the results and this will be supported by all the NATO countries.
Maybe it will be a little bit more in general, but these will be the real consequences and decisions of the NATO summit. I'm quite sure of it. It is correct that every country has one vote, but in the reality the vote of Luxemburg is not so strong, like the vote of the US. So, it will be dominated by the main NATO countries and all of them are more or less in favour of this. Maybe, they will say some nice words, like – we want to talk. But the reality is that they will adopt a resolution which will enlarge the military positions, the military influence in the NATO politics.
Secondly, there is no alternative for a dialogue. The problem is how long it will take that everyone will accept that, and how many people will be killed till that time, and how many people will have to suffer till the dialogue will come back into the agenda. From my understanding, the Ukrainian crisis can only be solved, first, by the ceasefire, and then by a dialogue. But the dialogue includes all the parties involved in the conflict. You cannot have a dialogue without all the different players in this field present.
I think we will come back to that, but I'm not so sure and not so positive that it will be happening quickly. But this is the same like the politics of the 1970’es. To come to the politics of common security in the end of the 1980’es, it also took 20 or 25 years to have a breakthrough in such a politics. And I hope that it will not take so long, as it took that time. But it will definitely take some time.
And what we need for that, from my understanding, is the pressure of the peaceful people in the world, in different countries. And in Germany 70 percent want to have good relations with Russia, they want to enlarge these contacts. So, there is a positive feeling in the population. And maybe, what we also need is something what I call the dialogue from the bottom, so that the civil society, the peace movements and other organizations are starting and developing it in the society, and it can bring us to a better dialogue on the official political level.

(smith.josh@stripes.com) Afghanistan’s election stalemate casts shadow on NATO summit
Published: September 1, 2014

Afghan candidates will not attend NATO summit.
After nearly 13 years of war in Afghanistan, NATO leaders had hoped at this week’s summit in Wales to hail the first democratic transition of power in the country and to reaffirm a commitment of military and monetary support beyond the departure of international combat troops at the end of the year.
But the leadership crisis that has ensued from a disputed presidential election and significant fighting between insurgents and Western-trained Afghan forces in many areas of Afghanistan threaten to undermine NATO’s message of progress and its future commitment to the country’s stability.
The most recent evidence of that uncertainty is the fact that the two presidential candidates — Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani — decided Sunday not to attend the meeting so they could continue talks toward forming a new joint government. -- www.stripes.com/news/afghanistan-s-election-stalemate-cas...

(Deutche Welle) Russia warns NATO against military presence in Eastern Europe

Two days ahead of NATO's summit in Wales, Moscow has warned the Western military alliance against establishing a permanent presence near Russia's borders, saying that it would view such a move as a threat.

"The fact that the military infrastructure of NATO member states is getting closer to our borders, including via enlargement, will preserve its place as one of the external threats for the Russian Federation," Mikhail Popov, deputy director of Russia's national security council, told the RIA Novosti news agency in an interview on Tuesday.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced plans on Monday to create a rapid reaction force of up to 5,000 troops and to pre-position military equipment and supplies in Eastern Europe.

In 1997, NATO and Russia signed an agreement in which the Western alliance agreed to not permanently station a substantial number of combat troops in Eastern Europe.

Concern in Baltic countries
The plan for a beefed up NATO presence is an attempt to allay growing insecurity among the Baltic states in particular, which have looked wearily at Russia's intervention in eastern Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed the right to intervene on behalf of Russian speakers if Moscow believes their rights are under threat. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - all former Soviet republics that are now NATO members - have significant Russian minorities.

Before heading to the NATO summit, US President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit Estonia on Wednesday, where he is expected to emphasize Washington's commitment to the security of the Baltic states.

NATO summit in Wales
The alliance's 28 member states are set to hold their summit in Newport, Wales on Thursday and Friday. They are expected to adopt a more robust defence strategy as a direct response to Moscow's intervention in eastern Ukraine. The alliance has released satellite photos which purport to show Russian troops conducting military operations on Ukrainian territory.

Meanwhile, peace talks in the Belarusian capital Minsk between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian government concluded on Monday without any concrete progress. Talks are scheduled to continue on Friday.

Separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts have demanded a special status guaranteeing broad autonomy within Ukraine. On Sunday, Russian President Putin called for the Minsk talks to focus on the "statehood" of Ukraine's eastern regions. The Kremlin subsequently denied advocating independence for the separatist areas.

Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, President Petro Poroshenko is set to attend the summit in Wales. Kyiv's Western-backed government has publicly expressed its intention to join the alliance.
slk/jr (AFP, dpa, Reuters) -- www.dw.de/russia-warns-nato-against-military-presence-in-...

Will Ukraine Bid To Join NATO Unleash 21st Century Cold War?
--> www.flickr.com/groups/global_photojournalism_news_protest...

Nato leaders cautiously welcome Ukraine ceasefire agreement
Both Ukrainian military and pro-Russia rebels have agreed to a ceasefire under terms proposed by Vladimir Putin

Ewen MacAskill in Newport and Shaun Walker in Mariupol
The Guardian, Thursday 4 September 2014 21.09 BST

Nato leaders cautiously welcomed an apparent breakthrough in the five-month Ukrainian conflict after the country's president, Petro Poroshenko, and one of the leading pro-Russia separatist leaders agreed to order a ceasefire on Friday.
But Poroshenko, who expressed cautious optimism about the truce, caught Nato officials off-guard with the disclosure that, while Nato was not arming Ukraine, at least one country, which he did not name, was providing Kiev with high-precision weapons.
The ceasefire, part of a seven-point peace plan proposed by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on Wednesday, would freeze forces in their positions at around midday on Friday.
Poroshenko made the ceasefire announcement at the Nato summit in Newport where he met David Cameron with US president Barack Obama, German chancellor Angela Merkel, French president François Hollande and Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi.
Poroshenko said that provided a peace meeting in Minsk planned for Friday between Russia, Ukraine and the European security organisation the OSCE goes ahead as planned, he would call a halt to Ukrainian military attempts to regain territory held by the separatists. "I will call on the general staff to set up a bilateral ceasefire," he said.
Alexander Zakharchenko, the separatist leader, said he would order a ceasefire an hour later. The rebels are proposing the creation of "security zones" that would be policed by representatives of the OSCE (1) and the establishment of a corridor for refugees.
Nato has ruled out intervening in Ukraine with troops or equipment and pressure from the West has come mainly through sanctions.
Poroshenko caught Nato officials off-guard with the disclosure. He did not name the country involved but only a relatively small number of countries, such as the US, Poland or even Britain, have both the necessary equipment and the sympathy for the Ukrainian cause.
Nato, at the end of the two-day summit, is to issue a strongly-worded document condemning Russian actions in the Ukraine, declaring Moscow to be in breach of international agreements. There have been disagreements over the wording with the US, Britain and Poland seeking tough language and Germany seeking to water it down.
The US and Britain pushed for the sanctions to go ahead in spite of the ceasefire but other countries were more hesitant. A German spokesman said that the contacts between Kiev and Moscow appeared more solid now than at any time over the last five months.-- www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/04/ukraine-nato-ceasef...

(1) A key OSCE ( www.osce.org/ukraine ) project in the country is to help Ukraine remove from its territory its stocks of mélange, a highly toxic and volatile rocket fuel component. The Co-ordinator also assists with the rehabilitation of areas contaminated with explosives, organizes training for demining units, and helps produce materials for awareness-raising campaigns for schools on the risks presented by unexploded ordnance and ammunition.
To promote human rights in Ukraine, the Co-ordinator is involved in projects to reform legal education in the country, which includes the development of the legislative framework, drafting of handbooks, and the introduction of new syllabuses for law courses in line with international practice. Other activities include human rights and environmental education for teachers and students.
To strengthen Ukraine’s electoral processes, the Co-ordinator works closely with the country’s Central Election Commission. This includes the development and introduction of an online training system for election commissioners administering the voting process on the ground. The Co-ordinator also runs awareness-raising projects to inform voters on their rights and the electoral procedures.
The Project Co-ordinator runs pilot initiatives in several regions of Ukraine to introduce e-governance solutions that deliver administrative services more efficiently to citizens and improve accountability. To strengthen co-operation between authorities and civil society, the Co-ordinator also holds training seminars on administrative practices, such as the registration of non-governmental organizations.
The Co-ordinator helps Ukraine’s parliamentarians draft laws that safeguard individual freedoms; trains judges on how to produce decisions that are consistent with national and international best practices and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights; and works with the Ombudsman and civil society in monitoring and preventing torture and ill treatment in prisons and detention centres. It is also involved in anti-trafficking activities and provides human rights education for schools and universities.
Daily reports issued by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine can be found at www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/daily-updates .

Reminder that, as Zelenskiy just insisted that everyone (including the genocidal lovers of Greater Israel, but not to any leader from Brussels, the EU capital located at a highway to Kiev) needs to recognize that Ukraine will never recognize territories currently occupied by Russia as Russian land:
Ukraine never accepted Donbas as a part of Ukraine either.

The here above 11-year-old remarks started when 730 000 people had already fled to Russia (and 150 000 to the Crimea)... and continues here: www.flickr.com/groups/apdl/discuss/72157694454948495/

Most recent update

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs at the EU parliament: 'Many shellings by the Ukrainians in the Donbas' (overthrowing one hundred governments being the 'only' foreign US policy).
'Trump is an arms salesman: he is selling American arms.'
'NATO is a US-led military alliance'... 'I would have ended NATO all together in 1991.'
'NATO is not Europe, Europe is not NATO': 'NATO should stop discussing war'.
youtu.be/bbTNxXtr5tw