WEST
IS KICKED THE BOARD IS TIME FOR CHECKMATE
BRIEF INTRODUCTION
by
Hugo Adan
West
is kicking the board
They are misrepresting facts
They
are looking for stalemate
It
is time for the check mate.
The
last move should be decisive and precise.
------------
UKRAINE
CRISIS: DIPLOMACY GATHERS PACE AHEAD OF TALKS
BBC 5 March 2014 Last updated at 07:22 ET
------------
Diplomatic efforts to ease tensions in Ukraine are
gathering pace as US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov prepare to hold crucial talks in Paris.
The US wants independent observers in the flashpoint region of Crimea and
direct talks between Kiev and Moscow.Russia is likely to call for greater representation for Ukraine's Russian-speaking areas in the Kiev government.
Meanwhile, the EU has announced an 11bn euro ($15bn) aid package to Ukraine.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the package of loans and grants over the next couple of years is "designed to assist a committed, inclusive and reforms-oriented government" in Kiev.
Ukraine's finance ministry has predicted it needs $35bn (£21bn) to rescue its economy.
'Bad example'
Mr Lavrov is expected to meet Mr
Kerry and EU leaders on the sidelines of a long-planned conference on Lebanon
in Paris.
Nato and Russia are also due to hold parallel talks in Brussels.
The Paris gathering is being seen above all as a chance to test the waters for a dialogue about Ukraine, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall.
But UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the Russians had already failed to appear at one meeting with the Ukrainians in Paris so he was "not optimistic" of making progress later.
"If we cannot make progress on that course there will be costs and consequences," he added, in reference to a threat of sanctions by the US and EU.
"It will be a test this afternoon of whether Russia is prepared to sit down with Ukraine."
Earlier, Mr Lavrov underlined Moscow's differences with Western nations, accusing them of setting a bad example by supporting protesters - some of whom now make up the government - in their "armed coup d'etat".
But he did stress that Russia would "not allow bloodshed", adding: "We will not allow attempts against the lives and wellbeing of those who live in Ukraine and Russian citizens who live in Ukraine."
Mr Lavrov, speaking in Madrid after talks with Spain's foreign minister, also said it was up to the people of Ukraine and Crimea to decide if they wanted international monitors.
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) later confirmed that it has sent 35 unarmed military monitors - from 18 European countries - to Ukraine in response to a request from Kiev. It was not clear if they would be deployed to Crimea.
Mr Lavrov also insisted Moscow had no power to remove what it calls "self-defence forces" currently guarding key sites in Crimea, explaining that they were not Russian troops.
Personnel from the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet - which is based at the Crimean port city of Sevastopol - were in their normal positions, he added, while admitting Moscow had taken "additional special steps to raise awareness and tighten security" at its base.
While visiting Kiev on Tuesday, Mr Kerry condemned what he called Russia's "act of aggression" and praised the "restraint" of Ukraine's interim government.
He has said he wants to see the crisis managed through international institutions such as the OSCE.
Moscow has been calling for a return to an agreement reached on 21 February with the then President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition.
This agreement included constitutional reform that would fully take into account the interests of all regions of Ukraine - giving the Russian-speaking areas in the east more influence and greater legal protection.
This, says the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow, would give Russia more leverage over the future direction of Ukraine.
Moscow has strongly condemned the recent change of government in Ukraine, which came after months of street protests, more than 90 deaths and the flight of President Yanukovych, a Russian ally.
Since his fall, Moscow has retained de facto control of Ukraine's southern autonomous region of Crimea.
Pro-Russian troops in unmarked uniforms began taking control of strategic points on Saturday.
Troops are surrounding Ukrainian military bases and other installations, while two Ukrainian warships are reported to be blocked by a Russian ship in Sevastopol's harbour.
The tense stand-off continued overnight, with reports that Russian forces have seized part of a Ukrainian missile defence unit.
And in the east Ukrainian city of Donetsk, the regional government building has been evacuated and the area cordoned off amid unconfirmed reports of a bomb scare.
========
Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508
What is Russia's claim to Crimea?
Its historical links with the peninsula go back to Catherine the Great in the 18th Century, when Russia conquered southern Ukraine and Crimea, taking them from the Ottoman Empire. In 1954, Crimea was handed to Ukraine as a gift by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who was himself half-Ukrainian. Only 10 years earlier, Joseph Stalin had deported Crimea's entire Tatar population, some 300,000 people, allegedly for co-operating with Hitler's Germany.
When Ukraine became independent in
1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed that Crimea could remain in
Ukraine, with Russia's Black Sea fleet remaining at Sevastopol under lease.
That lease was in recent years extended to 2042.
Is
there a legal basis for Russia's actions?
Under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum,
the US, Russia, Ukraine and the UK agreed not to threaten or use force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. They also pledged
never to use economic coercion to subordinate Ukraine to their own interest.
Russia says it is [their]decision to send troops into Ukraine is necessary to protect
Russian citizens.[??]There is an ethnic Russian majority in Ukraine's autonomous republic of Crimea. Russia's Black Sea fleet is based at Sevastopol, where much of the population have Russian passports. But the US insists there is no legal basis for the Russian move, accusing Moscow of acting unilaterally in violation of its commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty. The G7 group of leading economies agrees.
CRIMEA
REPUBLIC
• Ethnic Russians - 58.5%• Ethnic Ukrainians - 24.4%
• Crimean Tatars - 12.1%
Ukraine census 2001
Under the terms of its agreement with
Ukraine, Russia is entitled to have 25,000 troops on the peninsula and
currently has an estimated 16,000 deployed there. But these troops have to
remain on base. Pro-Russian troops have been deployed across Crimea. Moscow
insists they are local self-defence forces, but there are widespread reports
that they are from Russia.
So what is Russia's response?
Initially, Russia denied breaching
the Budapest Memo. But Moscow now says the situation is continuing to worsen in
Ukraine after the seizure of power by "radical extremists",
threatening the lives and safety of residents in Crimea and other south-eastern
regions. It also points to the new government's "trampling" on the 21
February agreement signed by ousted President Viktor Yanukovych.
What happened to
the 21 February agreement? [here there is info missing & other distorted]
The deal was signed by the ousted
president (2nd R) and opposition leaders
When the president fled Kiev [??], the
opposition moved in to fill the power vacuum. But earlier that week, in a bid
to calm the crisis, both sides had agreed a deal to restore the 2004 constitution and reduce the president's
powers. That deal was signed by Mr Yanukovych and opposition leaders
as well as by three EU foreign ministers - but fast-moving events soon rendered
it out of date. It was not signed by the Russian official present.
What about the role of 'radical
extremists'?
Moscow has regularly complained that
the protests in Kiev's Independence Square were hijacked by the far right, who
have since gone on to take power in a new government that includes
"undisguised Nazis". Two groups, Right Sector and Svoboda (Freedom),
are frequently mentioned and there are regular references to wartime
nationalist Stepan Bandera, seen as a hero to some but accused by others of
being a Nazi collaborator linked to massacres of Jews and Poles.
Nationalists see Stepan Bandera as a
pro-independence hero but Russians see him as a fascist
The far right was a minority element
in the protests that attracted a wide cross-section of support from Kiev and
other cities. They were, however, often involved in the most violent
confrontations and nationalist symbols were frequently visible in the square.
The nationalist Svoboda (Freedom)
party has four [or 6??] posts in the government. Oleksandr Sych is deputy prime minister
and Oleh Makhnitsky becomes acting chief prosecutor. It also runs the
agriculture and ecology portfolios but its leader, who has been accused of
anti-Semitism, is not in the government.
Svoboda's leader is not part of the
government but has four members in the government [or 6??]
Protest leader Andriy Parubiy has
become chairman of the National Security Council (NSC). A co-founder of Svoboda
and labelled an extremist by the ousted president, one of Mr Parubiy's deputies
at the NSC is Dmytro Yarosh, the head of far-right paramilitary group Right
Sector.
Is the government anti-Russian?
Part of the problem is that the
government sworn in last week had little connection to Ukraine's more
Russophile east. One of its first actions was to repeal a 2012 law recognising
Russian as an official regional language. The decision was widely criticised
across Ukraine.
Were Russian
citizens in danger in Crimea?
Last week, there were disturbances in
the Crimean capital, Simferopol, when pro-Moscow protesters and supporters of
Ukraine's new leaders confronted each other outside the parliament building.
After reports had emerged of Russian troops taking up positions across Crimea,
Moscow accused Kiev of sending armed men to destabilise the peninsula. It was
already in Russian hands.
Does Crimea create a precedent for
other Ukrainian cities?
The circumstances in the eastern
Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Kharkiv are comparable to the situation in
Crimea. There have been pro-Russian protests in both predominantly
Russian-speaking cities. In Donetsk, some 100 demonstrators stormed the
regional administration building on Monday and a businessman, Pavel Gubarev,
declared himself people's governor.
Correspondents described how the
protesters in Donetsk chanted, "Putin, come". Russian troops have
taken part in exercises over the border and President Vladimir Putin has spoken
of sending the military onto "the territory of Ukraine" without
specifying where. However, he has since said Russia will use force in Ukraine
only as as last resort.
The wider picture could hardly be more serious.
On Saturday President Vladimir Putin
moved to get parliamentary permission to use Russian troops not just in Crimea,
but in Ukraine as a whole. This takes this crisis to a disturbing new level.
Russian diplomats say he may not use
those powers "immediately" - but that does seem to imply they may be
used before long.
President Putin has said he will do
what is necessary to "protect Russian citizens and compatriots".
Already there are disturbances in towns in eastern Ukraine.
And Russian troops are on combat
alert on the border, as part of the massive training exercise being carried out
this week.
'Neo-fascist coup'
Both Russia and the West say they
want a peaceful resolution, but they are at polar opposites on the fundamental
question of who is the legitimate authority in Ukraine.
Western powers say it is the new interim government in Kiev, authorised by
the Ukrainian parliament. Russia says Kiev is in the hands of an illegitimate government of "far-right extremists" with "xenophobic, anti-Semitic and neo-fascist" views, installed as the result of a "coup d'etat", which deposed President Victor Yanukovych illegally.
Mr Putin wants the West and Kiev to go back to the defunct agreement signed with Victor Yanukovych on 21 February to hold discussions about constitutional reform to satisfy the demands of all parties and regions - presumably shorthand for reforms to turn Ukraine into a federation, with more self-rule for Russian-speaking regions and Crimea.
But that would effectively mean recognising that Mr Yanukovych is still president and that the new Ukrainian government is therefore illegitimate.
The West is not going to agree to that.
The conflict is on a knife edge. The
deployment of Russian troops in Crimea has not yet led to bloodshed.
But if that widens into a Russian
military intervention into other parts of Ukraine, it is hard to see how
violent clashes could be avoided.
Appeal for help
Eastern Ukraine is not a separate
geographical entity like Crimea. There is no easy way to define where
Russian-speaking regions end and Ukrainian-speaking parts of the country begin.
The Kiev authorities have so far
shown maximum restraint - but for how much longer?
As for Russia's intentions,
President Putin showed in Georgia in 2008 that he is fully prepared to go to
war. And Ukraine matters to him much more.
Kiev has appealed for outside help.
But the fact is that the West's options look limited. Nato is convening
emergency meetings. EU foreign ministers meet in emergency session on Monday.
The US has already accused Russia of
invading Ukraine and violating the UN charter.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has warned that unless Russia took
immediate and concrete steps to withdraw, the effect on US-Russia relations and
on Russia's international standing would be profound.But how might the West respond? There must surely be little appetite for Nato to react militarily.
Possibly, it might take steps to secure the Polish-Ukrainian border. More likely the West would look to take diplomatic and economic measures to isolate Russia and suspend co-operation with it.
But even if the West did impose sanctions or other measures, President Putin may gauge that - as with Georgia - it would not last.
In a year or two, Western governments would change and new leaders would repair relations with Moscow, recognising that Russia is too powerful and dangerous, and too crucial to international stability to have as an enemy for long.
Think no further than the impact a
new East-West hostility would have on the Iran nuclear talks, the war in Syria,
or the precarious uncertainty over North Korea.
High stakes
In any case would, say, Iran-style
sanctions even be an option? Possibly Russia is too intertwined economically
with Western partners, especially in Europe.
After all, Russia could always in
theory retaliate with the Gazprom card - Europe's reliance on Russian gas makes
it vulnerable.
What is so dangerous about this
confrontation is that unlike Georgia in 2008, the stakes are so much higher on
both sides.
For Western powers, this is not just
about standing up for a small country in the far-off Caucasus. It is a military
crisis taking place on Europe and Nato's border.
For President Putin, this is not
just a geopolitical battle for influence over a country in Russia's backyard.
It is to protect land which for him is, historically and culturally, an
essential part of the idea of Russia.
Kievan Rus was where, over 1,000
years ago, the Russian state and the Russian Orthodox faith began. That is why
he will do his utmost not to let it go, whatever the cost.
In Georgia, the Tbilisi government
lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia when they were occupied by Russian troops -
supporting pro-Russian separatists - and de facto annexed by Moscow.
Though unrecognised as separate new
countries by most of the rest of the world, the two territories have
effectively moved from Georgia to Russia's control. UN talks to try to resolve
the dispute have got nowhere.
So in Ukraine is that what Russia
intends to do too? Take Crimea and Russian speaking regions under its control,
effectively dividing Ukraine in half?
=======
So what does Russia want?
In Crimea, Moscow appears keen to
strengthen its grip, with a package of financial aid to the peninsula in the
form of pensions and salaries. It has also promised that a $3bn (£1.8bn) bridge will be built, linking the
Russian mainland to Crimea over the Kerch Strait, a distance of some 4.5km (2.8
miles).
Across Ukraine, Moscow is calling for
the 21 February agreement to be implemented. Vladimir Putin accepts there is no
return for the ousted president but Moscow is stressing the need for a
government of national unity. Russia sees the current government as anti-constitutional
and not representative of the native Russian-speaking population. It also wants
"extremist gangs" to disband.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario