Putin Recognizes Donbass Republics, Sends Russian Military to 'Denazify' Ukraine


The forces defending Krasny Lyman withdrew to Rubizhnoye. The attempt to encircle the Russians failed. A new front line to prevent an attempt to break further into the depths of the LPR.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation approved documents on the admission of the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions to Russia.
Tomorrow, the decision to accept new regions as part of Russia is to be approved at a meeting of the State Duma.

Will the army deploy after that? Let's see.
 
For those of you who are emotionally driven in this situation, and understandably so, I am reposting a part of keit's post that you should all take to heart:
Please refrain from sharing emotionally loaded opinions and statements. Until recently this thread was an important source of information. But gradually it became a thread that some may actually avoid, primarily due to the high level of disputes and arguments. Perhaps something like this is acceptable on many other forums, but not here. Here we aim to THINK before we post.
You can always start another thread if you like to discuss these things.
 
FROM THE MIND OF MARIA

"Foxes are fighting for chickens’ rights," the diplomat wrote"

MOSCOW, October 1. /TASS/. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the UK’s offer to assist Denmark in the investigation into sabotage at the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines resembled "foxes fighting for chickens’ rights."

 
As for Turkey, it is quite obvious that no one recognizes these referendums and their accession to Russia. Even Belarus - an ally of Russia - is simply beyond the real world law.

When it comes to the issue of recognition of these referendum or not it is worthwhile remembering this is a misnomer and something of a red herring. By their incorporation into Russia they effectively and instantly cease to become states in need of international recognition as they are now as Russian as Moscow. Thus no one has to recognize them to legitimatize them as they legally no longer exist as separate entities. So when you hear countries like Turkey saying such and such in public this is pure gamesmanship - playing along with the western narrative on the one hand so as to maintain the air of disapproval whilst with the other and on the very same day Erdoğan calls to have a friendly chat with Putin. The Russians need no recognition of their own soil - its theirs and Russia itself cannot exactly be unrecognized by anyone! Game over.
 
When it comes to the issue of recognition of these referendum or not it is worthwhile remembering this is a misnomer and something of a red herring. By their incorporation into Russia they effectively and instantly cease to become states in need of international recognition as they are now as Russian as Moscow. Thus no one has to recognize them to legitimatize them as they legally no longer exist as separate entities. So when you hear countries like Turkey saying such and such in public this is pure gamesmanship - playing along with the western narrative on the one hand so as to maintain the air of disapproval whilst with the other and on the very same day Erdoğan calls to have a friendly chat with Putin. The Russians need no recognition of their own soil - its theirs and Russia itself cannot exactly be unrecognized by anyone! Game over.
All this is true - we in Russia absolutely do not care about the opinion of Western governments, and tantrums cause smiles.
However, there are a number of problems with these recognitions - the economic relations of these republics and regions with other states. Due to sanctions and lack of recognition, you cannot deal directly with them and they will have to deal with these problems in a roundabout way. I hope that all this will be resolved. In any case, now, first of all, we need to take care of the survival of these regions.
 
the economic relations of these republics and regions with other states.
This is my very point flesk - they no longer have 'economic relations' with other states that are different from those of the Russian Federation, they are no longer independent republics but republics within the Russian Federation' and as such no longer have or need any relations with other states other than those directed and followed by the national government in the Kremlin. Of course the Federation respects and acts towards its members with appropriate measures relating to their specific locality, needs and culture, but hence forward no one will for example be dealing with the Donbas separately on these matters to how they deal with Moscow... being on the ground in Russia perhaps you see things differently, but that's my reading going forward.
 
This is my very point flesk - they no longer have 'economic relations' with other states that are different from those of the Russian Federation, they are no longer independent republics but republics within the Russian Federation' and as such no longer have or need any relations with other states other than those directed and followed by the national government in the Kremlin. Of course the Federation respects and acts towards its members with appropriate measures relating to their specific locality, needs and culture, but hence forward no one will for example be dealing with the Donbas separately on these matters to how they deal with Moscow... being on the ground in Russia perhaps you see things differently, but that's my reading going forward.
Now imagine that you produced products that you sold to Europe as a Ukrainian organization and you had no problems, but now your legal status is changing, so what?

Crimea and Sevastopol under sanctions for another year - EU.

According to the document, the current restrictive measures are aimed at importing goods into the EU from Crimea or Sevastopol, as well as infrastructure or financial investments and tourism services in Crimea or Sevastopol. The export of certain goods and technologies to Crimean companies or for use in Crimea in the transport, telecommunications and energy sectors for the exploration and production of oil, gas and mineral resources is also subject to EU restrictions.
 

Novak says Nord Stream can be repaired

According to the Deputy Prime Minister, first of all, Russia intends to find out who is to blame for the sabotage of pipelines, the United States, Ukraine and Poland are preliminary interested in this.

"There have never been such accidents. Of course, there are technical possibilities to restore the infrastructure, it takes time and appropriate funds. I am sure that appropriate opportunities will be found," he said.
 
More on the US-UA bioweapon research efforts
From Telegram there was a post on September 19 about the character of the bio-research that has been conducted in Ukraine. The text and slides from the presentation are included below. In addition. there were documents.. On the one hand, it may look like more of the same, as previous posts on July 7, 2022 and September 3, 2022. but considering that this issue is still a none-issue for US and NATO compliant countries, more obviously needs to be said and more documentation presented.
On September 19, 2022 Mod Russia made another briefing about bioweapon:

Briefing by the Chief of nuclear, biologic and chemical protection troops of Russian Armed Forces Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov on recent consultative meeting of BTWC member States

September 19, 2022
Member States of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) attended Russian-led conference in Geneva due to the violation of the articles I and IV of the abovementioned Convention by the U.S. and Ukraine.

The Ministry of Defence of Russia has analysed the data of U.S. and Ukrainian representatives' speeches, the working documents of the member States, joint statements and the outcome document of the conference.

The Russian Federation has raised over 20 questions related to the illegal activity of Kiev and Washington within the BTWC. Here are some of these questions.

What was the reason for choosing the pathogenic microorganisms examined in Ukraine within the Biological Threat Reduction Programme and why was the range of the studied pathogens not related to current healthcare problems as, for example, Tap-6 project dedicated to examining agents of glanders that had never been recorded at the territory of Ukraine?

How shout the accumulation of most dangerous infections' strains and sending them to other countries contribute to improving the situation related to the contagious morbidity?

Why was the main emphasis made on examining the natural focal and most dangerous infections that, according to the lists of the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, are considered possible agents of biological weapons?

What researches that supposed using agents of contagious diseases and toxic substances were Ukrainian servicemen and mental patients involved in, being one of the most vulnerable categories of citizens?

And, finally, why do the U.S. and Ukraine obscure the military-biological cooperation in international reports under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), while the U.S. has been blocking the development of its verification mechanism since 2001?

The participants of the conference received the copies of genuine documents previously mentioned by Russian Defence Ministry, as well as the physical evidence that proved the implementation of works within military-biological programmes' in Ukraine.

There was no delegation that doubted the authenticity of the presented documents, including those related to the accumulation of pathogenic materials in Ukrainian laboratories counting the Mechnikov Anti-Plague Institute.


1664729026022.png
Ukraine has recognised the fact of inspecting the Institute by a commission from Healthcare Ministry, emphasising that '...80% of infringements have been eliminated...'. At the same time, Ukrainian party has totally ignored the questions related to unreasonable volume of storaging dangerous biological agents at the establishment and the detected gross infringements of their storage conditions: accumulating biological materials at staircases, absence of proper control system that provides access to pathogenic microorganisms.

No explanations on the range of the accumulated strains of dangerous pathogens have been received, though there had been implemented 19 researches related to examining possible agents of biological weapons (Congo-Crimean fever, hantaviruses, anthrax and tularemia) within UP and Tap projects since 2008 in Ukraine, as well as economically important infections (African and classical swine fever, Newcastle disease).

Neither Ukraine, nor the United States have presented convincing evidence to prove that the cooperation contributed to improving the sanitary-epidemiological situation after recent 15 years of its steady deterioration.

The outcome of the activity carried out by the U.S. Defence Department's DTRA in Ukraine presented at the meeting was limited by showing several pictures of repaired laboratory premises. There have probably been no results achieved, apart from the abovementioned pseudo-'achievements'.

1664729104432.png
The US and Ukrainian explanations regarding the export of strains and biological materials of Ukrainian citizens, as well as the observance of ethical standards while conducting research on military personnel, low-income citizens and one of the most vulnerable categories of the population, patients of psychiatric hospitals, looked extremely unconvincing.
While discussing this issue, the U.S. delegation recognised these facts emphasising that the pathogenic biological materials were '...seldom...' sent to the United States.

Apart from this statement that does not allow to evaluate the volume and the frequency of sending biological assays, the participants of the meeting have received no other explanations.

The questions related to the reasons of emergency elimination of documentary evidence of the military-biological activity have also remained with no comment. At the same time, Ukrainian delegation stated that '...it is not a trial and we are not at a cross-interrogation...'.

1664729165851.png
Russia presented the documents that proved Ukraine's interest in receiving technical equipment for delivering biological weapons.

This refers to a request by the Ukrainian company Motor Sich to the Turkish manufacturer of unmanned aerial vehicles Bayraktar Akinci, dated from 15 December, 2021, to equip the UAV with aerosol spraying systems and mechanisms with a capacity of over 20 litres, to which the Turkish party responded negatively.

Having no other points, Ukraine expressed doubts about the authenticity of this document, with the far-fetched argument that Ukrainian state institutions do not use Russian language in their correspondence. I would remind that Motor Sich is not a Ukrainian state-run company and it uses Russian and English languages to communicate with the Turkish party, that were the languages of the document we have presented. However, Motor Sich itself refrained from commenting.

I would like to particularly focus on the U.S. response to patents on technical equipment for delivering and using biological weapons, including an unmanned aerial vehicle to spread infected insects in the air.

The U.S. delegation stated that '...the development and production of biological weapons is prohibited in the U.S., and any violation is punishable by penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. However, the decision to grant the patent does not violate U.S. obligations under the BTWC and does not mean that the U.S. government condones the inventors' claims ...'.
This statement is fundamentally contrary to the U.S. patent code that clearly states that a patent in the U.S. cannot be granted in the absence of a full description of the '...the device actually existing...' and its expertise.

Attempting to evade the raised questions, Kevin Garrett, Deputy Director of the Biological Threat Reduction Programme, spoke exclusively about the historical aspects of the programme.

However, Garrett haven't pointed out that the real goals of the programme, which were aimed at reducing the weapons of mass destruction potential of the former Soviet Union, and which had been achieved as early as 2008. Within the congressional hearings, it was reported that the goals of the programme had been achieved, after which it was extended to other regions of the world. Within the congressional hearings, it was reported that the goals of the programme had been achieved, after which it was extended to other regions of the world.

1664729206442.png
We would like to emphasise the documents that prove Ukraine's attempts to end its cooperation with DTRA. Thus, in April 2013, an interdepartmental commission composed of representatives of the Security Service of Ukraine, Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food and the State Veterinary Service of Ukraine jointly decided that it was unreasonable to continue DTRA projects in Ukraine, but the U.S. administration continued to impose them on Kiev.

A confirmation of the U.S. administration's pressure is the address on the slide from U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft, dated 8 February 2013, in which he demands the Head of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food to influence his subordinates to extend the DTRA project for another four years.

Even though the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food tried to refuse to participate in the Biological Threat Reduction Program in its response of 13 March 2013, the project continued.

We have said that in the run-up to the event, the U.S. persistently demanded from the participating states on a joint statement on the supposedly 'peaceful nature' of the Biological Threat Reduction Program, and some countries signed the statement. Fearing the U.S. reaction and the threat of sanctions, many countries abstained from attending the meeting, as a result of which only 89 countries out of 184 BTWC member states participating.

Only 43 delegations took the floor during the event, of which more than half (22 States) either supported the Russian position or took a neutral position. 21 States, including Ukraine, the U.S. and most of their NATO allies opposed, but even among them there was no unanimity.

Thus, the Russian speeches have caused many States to pay attention to the risks of cooperation with the Pentagon in the military-biological sphere, as well as to take a fresh look at the necessity and feasibility of such relations.

The emotional pro-American speeches were directed by the head of the U.S. delegation, Kenneth Ward, who is currently the U.S. special representative to the BTWC.

I would like to recall that he was the U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons from 2015 to 2019. Before his arrival, the work of the organisation was constructive and focused on specific issues. One of the results of Ward's work has been to transform the professional, highly technical organisation into a politicised structure, with roles for the foreign policy goals of Washington and its NATO allies.

Within his time at the OPCW, Ward worked closely with the so-called White Helmets, who staged the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces in Khan Sheikhoun in 2017. Using this provocation as a pretext, and without waiting for an investigation to be launched, the Americans launched a missile attack on the Shayrat airbase, thereby grossly violating international law. In the coming year, following another White Helmets provocation in Duma, a missile strike was launched against a Syrian scientific research centre, already a well-established scenario.

It is clear that Ward's destructive activities on the BTWC platform are aimed at achieving similar goals and will help 'tweak' the Convention mechanisms to suit Washington's goals.

1664729250049.png
1664729415534.png


We have repeatedly spoken about the true nature of the Pentagon's military-biological programmes outside national territory.
While the stated goals are to monitor infectious diseases and assist developing countries, in reality we see a capacity-building of U.S. military and biological capabilities to circumvent BTWC commitments.

This manifests itself in the construction of military laboratories along the borders of geopolitical adversaries; the collection of strains of particularly dangerous micro-organisms specific to certain territories; and the testing of toxic drugs on humans.

In the case of Ukraine, we see that the declared nature of interaction was only superficially in line with Article X of the BTWC (international cooperation and information exchange for peaceful purposes). As a result of the DTRA projects, there has been no improvement in the disease situation and the situation in the countries bordering Ukraine has deteriorated in a lot of aspects. Other signs of 'peaceful cooperation' were also absent.

1664729445048.png

As the event resulted in a 'zero', non-binding report, we proposed initiatives to strengthen the BTWC.

The first is the resumption of negotiations on a legally binding protocol to the Convention that includes lists of microorganisms, toxins, equipment (similar to the CWC control lists), is comprehensive and has an effective verification mechanism. I would like to recall that the draft protocol was prepared by an international expert group, VEREX, back in 2001.

The second is the establishment of a scientific advisory committee with broad geographical representation and equal rights of participants, while respecting the so-called 'principle of ten', according to which a decision must be taken taking into account the alternative viewpoint, even if it is expressed by only one state.

The third is the expansion of confidence-building measures with mandatory declaration by states of their activities in the biological field outside national territory.

As questions remain about the U.S. and Ukrainian military-biological programmes, the Russian Defence Ministry will continue to take further steps to clarify the situation.
1664729590141.png
 

Novak says Nord Stream can be repaired

According to the Deputy Prime Minister, first of all, Russia intends to find out who is to blame for the sabotage of pipelines, the United States, Ukraine and Poland are preliminary interested in this.

"There have never been such accidents. Of course, there are technical possibilities to restore the infrastructure, it takes time and appropriate funds. I am sure that appropriate opportunities will be found," he said.
By trying, if the line is blown up again, which may happen, who will the West wish to blame? Furthermore, by repairing, Russia is guaranteed a lot of press. Some people may even begin to think.
 
The borders of the territory of the Donetsk people's republic (DPR) are determined by the borders of the republic on the day of its formation and the day of its admission to the Russian Federation. This follows from the treaty on the DPR's accession to Russia, which Russian President Vladimir Putin submitted to the State Duma for ratification.

"The boundaries of the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic shall be determined by the boundaries of the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic existing on the day of its formation and on the day of the admission of the Donetsk People's Republic into the Russian Federation and the formation of a new constituent entity within the Russian Federation."

According to the document, the borders of the Luhansk people's republic (LPR) will be determined by the borders of the territory that existed on the day of its formation and admission to the Russian Federation. It is specified that the border of the LPR with the territory of a foreign country will be the state border of the Russian Federation.

"The borders of the territory of the Donetsk and LPR are determined by the borders established by the constitutions of the republics, it follows from draft federal constitutional laws on the republics' admission to the Russian Federation. "The borders of the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic shall be determined by the borders of the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic established by the constitution of the Donetsk People's Republic on the day of its formation and on the day of the admission of the Donetsk People's Republic into the Russian Federation and the formation of a new entity within the Russian Federation".

The boundaries of Zaporizhzhya and Kherson oblasts are determined by their borders as of the day of their formation and the day of their admission to the Russian Federation. "The borders of Zaporizhzhya region are determined by the borders of Zaporizhzhya region that existed on the day of its formation and the day of the incorporation of Zaporizhzhya region into the Russian Federation and the formation of a new entity within the Russian Federation," the document states. It is also stated that the border of Zaporizhzhya region adjacent to the territory of a foreign state is the state border of the Russian Federation. A similar document was published on the border of the Kherson region.



It is not quite clear that for Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts the wording is too vague. Some interpret it as only those territories that were under Russian control at the time of the referendums, others interpret it as the legal administrative boundaries of the USSR/Ukrainian oblasts
 
Back
Top Bottom