The Russian Investigative Committee said Friday it launched a criminal case into civilians deaths from Ukrainian government shelling in Donetsk on February 1-3.
Russia Initiates Criminal Case Into Ukraine Gov't Shelling in Donetsk (Video)
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201702031050305703-russia-ukraine-shelling-probe/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFRYkAso0ns (0:50 min.)
The investigation believes Ukrainian artillery shelled several regions in Donetsk, as well as settlements in Yasynuvata and Makiivka from Wednesday to Friday. The shelling, conducted on orders of Ukrainian commanders and defense ministry officials, led to the deaths of three local residents and 15 hospitalizations, investigators said.
The Russian Investigative Committee's central investigation department's office investigating crimes involving the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare initiated another criminal case on the grounds of an offense," the committee said.
The situation near the industrial town of Avdiivka and neighboring Yasynuvata has been tense for several days, with civilians being deprived of running water, central heating and electricity. The Ukrainian forces and Donbass militia have accused each other of being responsible for the escalation of fighting.
At least two people were killed and three others injured as a result of night shelling of the town of Avdiivka in Donbass, the head of Ukraine's Regional State Administration said Friday.
Avdiivka Overnight Shelling Leaves Two Dead, Three Injured - Ukraine's RSA Head
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201702031050305016-ukraine-donbass-avdiivka-shelling/
At least two people were killed and three others injured as a result of night shelling of the town of Avdiivka in Donbass, which is under control of Ukrainian military, Pavlo Zhebrivskyi, the head of Ukraine's Regional State Administration (RSA), said Friday.
As of 08:00 a.m. [06:00 GMT], there were two people killed — a local resident, a serviceman of the SESU (State Emergency Service of Ukraine). The three injured are a SESU officer, a foreign correspondent and a local resident, who was lightly injured after a shell had hit a five-storey building and refused admission to hospital," Zhebrivskyi said on his Facebook.
Ukrainian military shelling civilians in Donetsk on February, 3 was a 'barbarous raid', Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said during her weekly press briefing on Friday.
Ukrainian Military Shelling of Civilians in Donetsk a 'Barbarous Raid'
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201702031050303808-donetsk-ukraine-shelling/
This barbarous raid can not be justified. Kiev's actions violate not only the 1949 Geneva Convention on the protection of civil population during wartime but all moral norms as well," Zakharova said. "Only vandals can bomb a city while it's sleeping, destroying entirely blameless people. We have no other definition for the people who conducted this night sortie."
Zakharova said that in the early hours of February, 3 Donetsk was subjected to massed fire from Ukrainian Armed Forces. Residential areas suffered dozens of strikes from large-caliber armaments, including "Uragan" and "Grad" systems.
Zakharova stressed that this military campaign not only breaks all 'moral norms' but is also a violation of Kiev's international obligations.
US President Donald Trump should send Javelin FGM-148 handheld anti-tank missiles to Kiev to support Ukraine government forces, Senator John McCain told Sputnik.
Senator McCain Says US Should Send Javelin Anti-Tank Missiles to Ukraine
https://sputniknews.com/us/201702031050299158-mccain-javelin-anti-tank-missiles-ukraine/
When asked on Thursday what kind of weapons the United States should send to arm Ukrainian government forces, McCain named Javelin anti-tank missiles and counter-battery armor.
"Javelin, among other things, and counter-battery armor," McCain told Sputnik
In a letter released earlier in the day, McCain called on the Trump Administration to provide defensive lethal assistance to Ukraine in light of alleged intervention by Russia, but did not specify what types of weapons.
The Javelin antitank missile is the world’s first mass-produced infrared-homing "fire and forget" missile system capable of destroying tanks by hitting them head-on or by swooping down on them from above.
The downside of this system is its impressive price tag with the export version costing $125,000 and a single missile selling for $40,000. The Javelin uses an automatic, infrared guidance system that allows the user to seek cover immediately after launch, as opposed to older, wire-guided systems.
Russian officials have repeatedly warned that Washington providing Ukraine with weapons will only escalate violence and lead to more bloodshed.
US guided missile destroyer USS Porter, which has recently entered the Black Sea, is heading toward Romania'a port Constanta to take part in a conference in the framework of NATO-Ukraine joint drills, a military-diplomatic source told Sputnik Friday.
US Destroyer Heading to Romanian Black Sea Port Amid NATO-Ukraine Drills
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201702031050310828-us-destroyer-porter-nato/
Spanish and Canadian frigates Almirante Juan de Borbon and St. John's arrived in Constanta earlier in the week.
"The USS Porter destroyer… is heading to Constanta, where participants of NATO-Ukraine Sea Shield-2017 drills gather for a planned conference on the eve of the joint maneuvers," the source said.
On Thursday, another source told Sputnik that after the conference the warships would head to the Black Sea’s eastern part to participate in NATO's standard procedures of countering aerial, maritime and submarine threats.
On Wednesday, the Sea Shield 2017 maritime drills formally kicked off in the Black Sea. The drills take place on the territory of 80,000 square kilometers (49,700 square miles). Approximately 2,800 personnel from Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, the United States, Canada, Spain and Ukraine, 16 warships and 10 warplanes will participate in the 10-day exercises.
Eduard Popov, born in 1973 in Konstantinovka, Donetsk region, is a Rostov State University graduate with a PhD in history and philosophy. In 2008, he founded the Center for Ukrainian Studies of the Southern Federal University of Russia in Rostov-on-Don. From 2009-2013, he was the founding head of the Black Sea-Caspian Center of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, an analytical institute of the Presidential Administration of Russia. In June 2014, Popov headed the establishment of the Representative Office of the Donetsk People's Republic in Rostov-on-Don. He has actively participated in humanitarian aid efforts for his native Donbass and has been a guest contributor to various Donbass media, such as the Lugansk-based Cossack Media Group. Popov has actively contributed to Fort Russ since June, 2016.
Kiev between America and Russia: Part 1 - Trump through Russian Eyes
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/02/kiev-between-america-and-russia-part-1.html
Foreword from Dr. Eduard Popov: I am grateful to have the opportunity to be featured on the pages of the authoritative and brilliant Fort Russ and be able to offer readers my views on the prospects of the emerging rapprochement between the United States and Russia, as well as the place in this two-way process occupied (or to be occupied) by Ukraine. Below is the first installment in a three-part series on this evermore pressing topic.
****
The outcome of negotiations between Moscow and Washington are far more important for the US than Russia.
On Saturday evening, January 28th, a telephone conversation was held between Vladimir Putin and the new US President, Donald Trump. This was the first telephone conversation between the two leaders since Trump assumed office. Both sides hurried to release statements on the results of the talks. Perhaps the main agreement reached by the presidents over their 40 minute conversation is the mutually recognized necessity of improving bilateral relations.
As follows from the press-service releases from the White House and the Kremlin, the presidents discussed a wide range of international issues, the main of which was the Middle East. Judging by his statements,
Donald Trump seriously intends to eliminate ISIS, something which is impossible without Russia’s participation.
Both sides also evaluated the outcome of the talks with optimism. According to a representative of the US Administration, a green light was given during the talks to improving relations between the two countries. Yet an altogether different assessment of the negotiations is to be found in the American liberal media opposed to Trump. By such publications as Politico, The Hill, and others, Trump is harshly criticized by left-liberals on all fronts - from his ban on the entry of citizens from several Muslim countries to his desire to improve relations with Russia. In regards to the latter, Senator John McCain and several other American politicians have been particularly active, even promising to prevent this by all means through Congress. Side by side are leveled very rigid and adamant allegations of a connection between supposed interference by Russian hackers in the American elections and Trump’s policy towards Russia. Not even concrete initiatives, but Trump’s intent to improve relations alone is seen through the prism that Russia allegedly helped Trump win the elections, thereby now obliging him to "make it up" to Putin.
Trump’s critics’ plan is very simple: they strive to drive a wedge in front of any step aimed at improving bilateral relations with Russia, which in itself will be characterized as a serious blow to the legitimacy of the new US President, thereby tying his hands.
However, as far as we can judge based on an analysis of the left-liberal American press, the restriction of immigration from Muslim countries has for now eclipsed the “popularity” of the Russian topic.
Russia is openly interested in and even to a certain extent hopes for an improvement of relations between the two countries. Even though Trump himself has repeatedly said that he will be a "tough" partner for Putin, Russia generally looks at the future of Russian-American relations with cautious optimism.
In Russia, Trump’s electoral victory was perceived as a victory of American egoism and common sense over the false thinking of the new American supranational elites. For Russians, Trump is not a US President that is beneficial for Russia, but a President of the United States who will look after America’s real national interests.
Of course, Russia could greatly win or lose with the line which the new American leader will take. Yet Russia’s successes is only dependent on American policy to a very limited extent. China, in my opinion, is dependent on relations with the US to a much larger extent, just as the US is heavily dependent on China. Russia has no intent of harboring illusions over future partnership with the US in the face of Donald Trump. However, Trump’s famous words that he will be a “tough” partner for Vladimir Putin have a hidden meaning: the US is now compelled to reckon with Russia.
America is ceasing to be the only superpower in the modern world and is becoming the “first among equals.”
To call things by their names, let us recall how in the 1990’s and even early 2000’s, Russia was indeed dependent on the US. But starting with approximately the August War of 2008, the principles underlying the two countries’ relations cardinally changed. Under current conditions, we are no longer dealing with a Moscow dependent on Washington. Today’s
Russia will not agree to anything less than equal relations with the US. In the words of the penetrating distinction of the famous Russian international affairs expert, Mikhail Demurin: “It’s better for there to be cooperation [between Russia and the US], albeit difficult, but the most important is for this to be fair and equal.”
Donald Trump is seen from Russia as a symbiosis of an American patriot and an American imperialist, perhaps with a clear predominance of the first aspect. His opponents from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s camp are not patriots at all, but imperialists (interventionists). Today’s Russia - and I say this with sincere joy - has rid itself of the imperial legacy which ultimately proved unsustainable for the country. America has also overextended itself and is obviously already crumbling under the wight of its imperial burdens. If this had been extended by another four, or even eight year term of Democratic rule, then perhaps it would have been too late to save America.
In this introduction, we've described the view on Trump predominant in Russian patriotic circles and added to this some of our own considerations. Now let us turn attention towards the country which has with great worry and anxiety anticipated the outcome of negotiations between the presidents of Russia and the US. This country is none other than Ukraine. As we will see in the next installment,
Ukraine is no longer a monolith, and we can already begin to speak of two "Ukraines".
To be continued in Part 2...
Kiev between America and Russia: Part 2 - Trump's "Ukraine Audit" bodes Poroshenko's End
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/02/kiev-between-america-and-russia-part-2.html
As is well known, Ukraine did not occupy an important place in Donald Trump’s pre-election rhetoric. However, Ukraine paid especially heightened attention to candidate Trump’s opinion whenever it surfaced.
Inexperienced Ukrainian diplomacy (Ukraine as a state emerged only in 1991 and a Ukrainian nation has still yet to form) hedged all of its bets on one player: Hillary Clinton. In addition, President Poroshenko’s regime [1] showed a complete lack of political culture and strategic thinking as Ukrainian media launched a real persecution campaign against Trump and the ex-head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, Boris Lozhkin, even passed along “incriminating” materials on the head of Donald Trump’s campaign headquarters, Paul Manafort.
Donald Trump seems to perceive the European continent as a zone of chaos - and rightly so.
Ukraine is simultaneously the distant periphery of this continent and the epicenter of the chaos, a kind of black hole in which people and money disappear without a trace. In the beginning of the 21st century, Ukraine has become a new geopolitical Balkans of Europe.
The anticipated - by some with horror, some with hope - correction of the United States’ policy towards Ukraine following Donald Trump’s victory has not yet begun. But Kiev is nevertheless already on the verge of panic. As this article is being written, bombs and rockets fired by the Ukrainian army are raining down on the cities of Donbass. The density of shelling and the use of rocket artillery has not been seen in Donbass for a long time. Experts, including the author of these lines, believe that this is Poroshenko’s reaction to the “Trump factor.”
But let us set the situation in Donbass aside for a separate study. We propose to direct the reader’s attention towards Ukraine itself or, more precisely,
the two Ukraines that have emerged: the official Ukraine personified by the Poroshenko regime, and the Ukraine of the oligarchs and regional barons. We could also add a third Ukraine: the Ukraine of the neo-Nazi parties and battalions, but we have already discussed this in depth in a separate article. http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/11/the-death-of-ukrainian-nationalism-and.html
Today, Poroshenko’s Ukraine and the oligarchs’ Ukraine are in a state nearing open war which could lead to a new Maidan or, in the very least, to the president's impeachment. This war's beginning was sparked by Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential elections.
On January 26th, the American publication RealClearDefense analyzed the main problems gripping Ukraine in an article under the telling title “Ukraine’s Problem is Ukraine.”
According to the Ukrainian publication Vesti which cited this article, Donald Trump plans to arrange an “audit” of the Ukrainian authorities by checking where Kiev has really allocated the funds received from the US under Barack Obama.
In short, Ukraine’s main problems are named to be the following four:
1. the problematic organization of authorities caused by a large number of officials taking part in military strategy and procurement;
2. the absence of a unified strategic vision and budget accounting;
3. pro-Russian officials
4. overwhelming corruption
Let us note that
the publication does not identify the biggest problem: the illegitimate status of the ruling Poroshenko regime and the former US administration’s accountability for the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych.
The third point on the list is also questionable. Already in the first days following the victory of the Euromaidan,
Ukrainian government agencies were decisively purged of any so-called “pro-Russian officials.” In fact, this work was carried out long before. In the first half of 2010, the author of these lines more than once came into contact with Ukrainian deputies, politicians, and experts who constantly supplied reports on how the US and the West (including foundations from both the Democratic and Republican parties in the US, NATO humanitarian organizations, etc.) were consistently engaged in drawing the ruling Ukrainian elite into the channels of pro-Western policies. A system of work was organized with this aim. Trips were arranged for deputies, politicians, and experts (as well as budding young specialists) to visit the US and the opening of NATO centers at universities even in pro-Russian cities like Donetsk, etc. I’ll emphasize that all of this was being carried out even during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, whom the leaders of the Euromaidan called “pro-Russian.”
Thus, the purging of the Ukrainian political sphere of pro-Russian figures began long before the victory of the Euromaidan. Assistant to the US Secretary of State on European and Eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland, confirmed in an interview on CNN that the US had allocated as much as $5 billion “to support the Ukrainian people’s aspiration for a stronger, democratic government.”
Part of this money was likely allocated for the outright bribery of Ukrainian politicians. There was also, of course, a hidden part of all this work including non-public negotiations and agreements with Ukrainian politicians on, among other things, personnel appointments. It is no coincidence that Yanukovych’s presidential reign was marked by the career advancements of collaborators and the disappearance and even arrest of genuinely pro-Russian politicians. The most famous among the latter examples is the leader of the Odessa-based Rodina Party, Igor Markov, who was arrested in October 2013 and spend several months in prison.
Thus, by the time of the coup, no more “purging” of the Ukrainian political field of pro-Russian forces was really needed. The ruling Party of Regions represented several groups competing against one another on domestic political and economic issues but overall in solidarity in matters of ideology (liberalism) and geopolitics (orientation towards the West, primarily on the EU). Put bluntly and crucially: it was a party of collaborators and conformists.
But why did this American publication dedicate an entire point on an extra short list of Ukraine’s problems to this?
A correct answer to this question would be possible if we possessed information on this publication. Does it speak for the representatives of the new US President’s entourage? Or do Ukrainian lobbyists in the US perhaps (but not necessarily) opposed to President Poroshenko stand behind it? I am inclined towards the second possibility, but perhaps American readers could correct me.
It is obvious that such lobbies are attempting to misdirect Donald Trump by pointing to the consequences (corruption) and not the reasons (illegitimacy and criminal government) for Ukraine’s problems.
Donald Trump would be wise to refrain from being immersed in European chaos, and instead busy himself with cleaning the Augean stables of America before he is dragged into being involved in the Ukrainian mess. This obviously betrays the interests of the Ukrainian lobbyists in the US. Undoubtedly, in the near future we will see very high media and political activity on the part of these lobbyists.
Also on January 26th, another piece of news came - this time straight from Ukrainian officialdom. Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alene Zerkal practically issued an ultimatum to Washington in an interview with Reuters. Implying the coming telephone talk between President Putin and President Trump, Ms. Zerkal stated that Ukraine should have a word in any agreement achieved between the US and Russia on settling the conflict in Donbass.
“Since we are talking about the future of our country, we do not want to be excluded from negotiations. We do not want to be a playing card. We want to be a player,” Zerkal told Reuters.
Zerkal also stated that she does not believe in a “gentleman’s agreement” and supports Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s call for the West to keep the sanctions on Russia. Yet the Ukrainian foreign minister does not propose to include Russia in negotiations with Western countries during which the question of prolonging the anti-Russian sanctions is discussed.
The Ukrainian foreign minister’s statement speaks to the confusion, if not
panic, that is gripping Kiev since Donald Trump’s inauguration. My sources with connections in Ukraine have confirmed that this attitude is prevalent in the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
The opinion of Ukrainian “volunteers” from the neo-Nazi battalions boils down to a simple formula: “Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin.” Poroshenko’s entourage, as far as we can judge, fears something else much more: a financial and political audit of the actions of the current Ukrainian leadership conducted by the US. This threat appears to be more real than the fears of Ukraine’s neo-Nazis. After all, changing out a failed leader for a more effective one is a well tested method of American policy in the former USSR, as in the case of Georgia, where the “Rose Revolution” overthrew pro-American President Eduard Shevardnadze and brought to power pro-American Mikhail Saakashvili.
The ruling Ukrainian establishment’s ill-concealed panic is paradoxically masked by categorical statements. Official Kiev’s opinion is expressed in the form of essentially an ultimatum. The foreign ministry’s statement is not an attempt to secure rights for Ukraine over the course of bilateral negotiations between the US and Russia,
but an attempt to impose Ukraine’s monopoly over relations with Russia on Trump.
Ukraine’s sense of tact has once again failed it. Even the inept and foolish attempt to interfere in the American elections did not teach the Ukrainian establishment elementary rules of political etiquette.
Shortly thereafter, a hefty scandal erupted in Ukrainian media over this incident. The Ukrainian foreign ministry stated that Elena Zerkal’s words were misinterpreted by journalists from the American edition of Reuters and their meaning distorted. Apparently, the significance and consequences of her scandalous ultimatum even became obvious for Ukraine’s amateur diplomats.
Petro Poroshenko has now thrown in all forces in order to earn Donald Trump’s forgiveness. Before, the Ukrainian elite demonstrated contempt for the “outsider” candidate, Trump, but now they are striving to display extreme subservience. It has been openly said that Poroshenko has hired some lobbyist groups in the US and entrusted them with the hope of changing Trump’s attitude towards Poroshenko.
However, Poroshenko’s domestic opponents, who together with him defamed Donald Trump, have now rushed to take advantage of the Ukrainian president’s thunderous foreign policy failure. Preparations for a new coup are almost openly underway in Ukraine. Whether such will take place in the form of armed street protests (a Maidan) or impeachment are important details, but do not supersede the essence of the situation. We will discuss this in the following, concluding part of our analysis.
To be continued in Part 3…