Swiss top diplomat Heidi Tagliavini – a huge help for Kremlins war criminals

Heidi Tagliavini Swiss top diplomat – GOLD-FISH named in Ukraine – you know why?


Swiss top Diplomat with Russian Terrorists

Swiss top Diplomat with Russian War Criminals

Swiss diplomacy has lost its credibility as an unbiased and independent one. The reasons for this are obvious to all. In this respect, the history and deeds of Heidi Tagliavini are very revealing.

Author: @Prizrak_opery 

In the Russian segment of the publication, Heidi Tagliavini’s article was published: „The end of history never came“ Which draws to us the frankly laudatory image of Heidi Tagliavini against the backdrop of her discourse on global historical events. Among all this pathos of Heidi Tagliavini answering the question „Did you feel any threat to yourself?“ says literally the following: „In Moscow itself, no, but during my official trips to the Soviet republics, I clearly felt the tension.“ The mood (of my interlocutors) became more aggressive, militant, and increasingly anti-Moscow in the course of official meetings and talks. in such a situation, the task arises to find the right tone and not begin to warm up the already tense atmosphere even more. „It was very difficult to find a solution to this problem.“

Screenshot of SWI

Screenshot of SWI

What Heidi Tagliavini said to us:

  1. That she considers the concepts of „aggression“, „militancy“ and manifestation of „anti-Moscow“ sentiments to be identical in any form.
  2. The mood of her „NOT Moscow“ interlocutors in relation to her, she describes as a „feeling of arose tension.“ In simple terms, her „non-Moscow“ partners in the negotiations had no respect for her.
  3. Judging by the definition in her words „in the Soviet republics“, she considers Ukraine and Georgia – „Soviet republics“. Those. not by independent countries. Namely, „Soviet republics“ – territories that are controlled by the Kremlin.

To understand what caused such an attitude towards her, let’s try to look at what she did specifically in the course of her international diplomatic activity.

When studying her biography, a fact attracts attention, which for some reason does not mention anywhere in her official biography. In the article „The Tagliavini Phenomenon“ we read: „In the third year of the university, Heidi Tagliavini had the opportunity to go for a year to Moscow State University named after MV Lomonosov, where she wrote a work on the Russian classic Sergei Aksakov In Moscow she improved her knowledge of the Russian language and first encountered what subsequently became common in her diplomatic work – the transition from the „old“, customary world into a new one.For a person who grew up in an artistic family and formed during the period when the existential alists were the masters of doom, and European youth questioned many of the so-called bourgeois values, fell into a society subordinated to a single ideology, was a sharp change of paradigms. Heidi Tagliavini calls this a mental leap and revelation. intellectuals who fought for the emancipation of the spirit and personality … „

I suppose that the root causes of the openly pro-Russian position of Heidi Tagliavini must be sought precisely at the time in which she, while in Moscow, was „confronted“ for the first time. What did she face? „I fell into a society subordinated to a single ideology,“ while „European youth questioned many of the so-called bourgeois values.“ What led to the „sharp change of paradigms“ in her mind.

What exactly led to the „sharp change of paradigms“ in the consciousness of Heidi Tagliavini, we can only guess. But the consequences of this coup in the mind we see are seen in the following facts:

On November 21, 2008, Heidi Tagliavini was the appointed head of the commission to investigate the causes of the armed conflict in South Ossetia. She was allocated with a budget of 1.6 million euros. The commission’s report was due on July 31, 2009, but it was postponed until September 30. The final report, published on September 30, concluded that Georgia started the war, but both sides are responsible for escalating the conflict.

She stated here, that the Russian-Georgian war had allegedly been started by Georgia. It is noteworthy that in the main provisions of the EU report on the war between Russia and Georgia, drawn up under its direct leadership, the Russian occupation army is called (quote literally) „Russian peacekeepers on Georgian territory (in South Ossetia).“ Now this lie has become obvious to the whole world.

The article „The KGB Pig“ describes the KGB’s trip of pro-Kremlin Abkhaz separatists to Italy. (It is noteworthy that the author of this article also talks about the various organizations of „friendship and cooperation with Russia“ organized by the KGB-FSB around the world). A journalist from Abkhazia, Nadezhda Venediktova, in her article „Roman Holidays“ described her meeting with the former head of the UN Mission in Georgia and the head of the CE commission for the establishment of facts of the Georgian-Russian war in August 2008 Heidi Tagliavini:

„Here (in Florence – note.) On May 26 2008, at Villa Corsini, Heidi Tagliavini, who worked in the hot spots in the Caucasus for many years, celebrated her retirement from the post of Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland. In the presence of numerous guests from all over Europe, including Russia, I gave her warm words and a gift from the Abkhaz government – seven silver medals depicting thousand-year-old Abkhaz temples, as well as a new edition of the book „Winged days in Sukhum-kala“ Stanislav Lakoba from a gift inscription in which he calls Tagliavini „the goldfish of the international community“.

In fact, the pro-Russian separatists in Abkhazia present Heidi Tagliavini with a gift, and compliment her, calling her „the goldfish of the international community.“ Transparently hinting that it solves (on the international arena) complex issues in the interests of pro-Russian separatists. This is how the „Zototaya Rybka“ linguistic picture first appeared in relation to Heidi Tagliavini. Ukrainians have of this linguistic picture a different meaning, transparently hinting that the interests of Russia Heidi Tagliavini lobbies for is not because of altruistic motives.

But for what kind of wishes did the Swiss diplomat receive this epithet (linguistic picture) from one of the main and principled ideologists of Abkhaz separatism? A shameful report on the August war, in which Tagliavini left a vast expanse for the speculation of Russian propaganda, otherwise it is difficult to name the fulfillment of the desires of the Russian leadership.

From 2014 to 2015, Heidi Tagliavini represented the OSCE mission to the Contact Group for Ukraine. The Minsk talks are an element of the hybrid war, which Moscow intended to replace the inconvenient Budapest-hosted format in only the interest of the aggressor country. The task of the Minsk talks was to implement the „soft surrender“ of Ukraine under the pretext of a cease-fire. And to ensure conditions (in particular, to make the necessary changes to the Constitution of Ukraine), Ukraine’s return to Russia’s control. Many politicians speak about Minsk negotiations. And they refer to this process as a lever of pressure on Russia. But very few people have delved into the essence of these „arrangements“. Details on the essence of the Minsk negotiations can be found here:

Swiss top Diplomat with Russian Terrorists

Swiss top Diplomat with Russian Terrorists

„Help“ Heidi Tagliavini in Minsk was highly appreciated by the Russian special services. In the article „The Tagliavini Phenomenon“ read:

„In February 2015, Bloomberg reported that the OSCE representative, the Swiss diplomat Tagliavini, saved the negotiations in Minsk from failure when she managed to convince representatives of terrorist organizations of the so-called DNR and so-called“ LNR „not to revise the points of the agreement before signing it. „Tagliavini was able to influence the delegations of the“ DNR „and“ LNR „, because he enjoys Putin’s trust,“ Bloomberg told diplomats present at the talks in Minsk. „The leaders of the unrecognized republics refused to sign an armistice agreement with Ukr Inskoy army on the morning of Thursday, February 12, after negotiations that lasted all night. Tagliavini had to hold additional consultations with their members in order to prevent the failure of the agreement. „“

„We appreciate her work very much,“ said Alexei Makeev, the director of the department for politics and communications of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, „We not only trust her, but – very importantly – she is trusted by the Russians.“ And they trust her because she is very professional and experienced. “ 

In fact, we get the following:

1. Heidi Tagliavini enjoys Putin’s trust (why am I not surprised?).

2. Heidi Tagliavini is trusted by Russians (curator Heidi Tagliavini in the FSB enjoys authority).

3. Leaders of terrorist organizations so called. „DNR“ and so-called. „LNR“, which are completely controlled from the Kremlin, received an order to sign an agreement on a truce with the Ukrainian army. And these actions were coordinated with Tagliavini.


Swiss top diplomat Heidi Tagliavini – a huge help for Kremlins war criminals

Swiss top diplomat Heidi Tagliavini – a huge help for Kremlins war criminals

Let me remind you that at that time the terrorists were extremely interested in the so-called „truce“ for obtaining additional batches of manpower and military equipment from Russia. No one knows what the fate of the so-called „DNR“ and so-called „LNR“ would be if in Minsk, the so-called „ceasefire“ had not been concluded, which clearly saved these two entities of the Russian occupation and its terrorist leaders.

„The irreplaceable role of Tagliavini in maintaining contacts between the parties in order to reach agreement was emphasized by Bloomberg Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic in an e-mail message sent after the Minsk accords were reached … Her merits were noted not only by Germany, the Lugansk People’s Republic awarded Tagliavini with the diploma for understanding, emphasizing Tagliavini’s ability to take into account the interests of all parties simultaneously. „

And here again:

Russian terrorists (pro-Russian separatists, the so-called „militia“, armed formations, call it whatever you want) awarded Tagliavini with the diploma „for understanding.“

For „understanding“ of what? Killing tens of thousands of people? „Understanding“ Putin’s interests? „Understanding“ the true tasks for which the Russians organized the Minsk process? That’s really, really, a „goldfish“ for terrorists.

I hope, now you begin to understand why the memorial „Goldfish of Heidi Tagliavini“ is perceived by citizens of Ukraine with bitter irony. And for what reason, in the words of Heidi Tagliavini, the attitude of her interlocutors to her (verbatim) „during official meetings and conversations became more aggressive, militant, and increasingly anti-Moscow.“ After all that she did in the interests of Russian terrorists, such an attitude of decent people to her is natural.

Thus, the Swiss „independent“ diplomacy becomes an aquarium with „goldfish“ through tricks and sweet double-tongued compliments.

Original article was published here

Further evidence you finde in:

1. „The August war 08.08.08: Who started first?“ Report by John B. Dunlophttps

2. „A German member of the Tagliavini commission received from Gazprom a substantial sum of“

3. Latynina: „If it were not for Tagliavini’s commission, perhaps there would be no war in the Donbass“

Author: @Prizrak_opery 

“How the democratic West should stop Putin” Prague Declaration on seven urgent steps proposed by Western security experts


Prague Declaration on seven urgent steps proposed by Western security experts

“How the democratic West should stop Putin”

organized by the European Values Think-Tank

Picture by following Source: President of Russia

About The Prague Declaration

This Prague Declaration lays out seven urgent steps the democratic West must to now to stop the Russian aggression.  Response of Western democracies  to this threat has been “weak”, because “large part of the Western political establishment still does not recognize the kind of threat we are facing”.

More than 100 European and American security experts and parliamentarians from 21 countries have signed this public call which urges Western leaders such as EU High Representative Federica Mogherini to “stop trying to avoid naming Russia as the main source of hostile disinformation” or to make pratical steps such as to “triple the capacity of EEAS East STRATCOM Team.

The signatories of this Declaration represent all major sectors of Western political and security establishment – from a Vice-President of the European Parliament, architect of Magnitsky laws Bill Browder, through main architect of Finnish response to Russian disinformation who served as Director of Government Communications at Prime Ministers Office of Finland, or former President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The signatories are also leaders of major U. S think-tanks such as the Brookings Institution or the American Enterprise Institute, UK’ Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, The Polish Institute of International Affairs, Estonia’ International Centre for Defense and Security, French Center for Study and Research on Political Decision, Slovak GLOBSEC Policy Institute, Hungarian Political Capital Instituce, Czech European Values Think-Tank, or Latvian National Defence Academy.

The Declaration

The aggressive actions of the Russian Federation, are unprecedented in post-Cold war history: more than 10,000 Ukrainians killed while defending their country against invasion, the first annexation of territory by force in Europe since World War II, constant violations of other countries’ borders and airspace, kidnapping foreign citizens, unprecedented use of disinformation, bribing of politicians, direct financial and logistical support to extremist and paramilitary groups, hostile interference in democratic elections, and constant cyber-attacks.

Yet, despite all these hostile actions by Moscow, the response of Western democracies has largely been limited and weak.  Many excuses are being made in favor of appeasement, such as the alleged need to cooperate with Russia to combat terrorism, despite all the evidence contradicting the notion that any kind of effective cooperation can realistically be achieved. We also see efforts to put business as usual before the thousands of killed and the safety of our democracies.

Vladimir Putin has decided to intimidate and harass democracies and a large part of the Western political establishment has not realized it yet. Vladimir Putin has decided to play divide and rule in the Euro-Atlantic area. Some countries get intimidated by threats, others are given promises such as seemingly sweetheart energy deals if they adopt a more anti-Western, anti-democratic and anti-liberal posture. Regardless, almost all countries are attacked with a mixture of espionage, corruption, organized crime, and unceasing multi-level and multi-channel disinformation campaigns.

Whereas the United States is investigating a clearly hostile penetration of its utmost democratic sanctuary — meddling with the election process — no such investigation has been initiated anywhere in Europe. This remains a fact even though there were clear cases of blatant Russian meddling in the Dutch referendum, the British referendum, the Italian referendum, the French elections and, most recently, the German elections and the Catalan referendum. In all these cases, the meddling aimed at weakening the West, weakening the democratic system, creating more chaos and further divisions in our societies. While the EU and NATO are the primary targets, their defensive responses remain rather limited. This clearly shows that a large part of the Western political establishment still does not recognize the kind of threat we are facing.

The signatories below, all Western security experts, agree that the following seven steps should be taken:


Putin’s Russia poses a major threat to Western democracies. Its use of subversive tools to project hostile foreign influence in the internal affairs of democratic countries is unacceptable and should be countered with resolute defensive actions to deter further hostile conduct. Such self-defense counter-pressure is largely not happening. If Moscow does not stop, additional sanctions targeted against family and close-circle members of the Russian leaders should be imposed to put pressure on them to discontinue such actions. The Kremlin currently perceives the lack of punishment as an invitation to continue or step up its aggressive actions.


Russian short-term campaigns aim to influence specific national elections and referendums. To provide in-depth accounts of Russia’s subversive efforts in individual countries, national parliaments should form investigative panels to collect and discuss evidence of Moscow’s influence and disinformation operations. Since transparency is the best tool the democratic West has at its disposal, this is the only effective and perfectly legitimate way to present the public with the full scope of this malign threat.


When looking at how these long-term hostile efforts shape public opinion, EU member states should together conduct targeted research (for example with the use of detailed polling) to obtain clear data on which segments of their society believe the most common Kremlin disinformation narratives. Only such comparable and in-depth exercises can expose how far Moscow’s efforts to sway public opinion have already reached.


While national institutions are tasked with analyzing and defending their domestic environments, EU institutions too need to defend themselves from this threat. As EU leaders decided to make EEAS counter Russian disinformation campaigns two years ago, the specific team (East STRATCOM Task Force) is still gravely understaffed with only three national experts focusing on this particular and crucial task. EEAS should triple the capacity of this team so it can finally start fulfilling its mandate in earnest. Three experts working alone on this task who, moreover, are not even paid by the EEAS but by their home member states simply cannot perform their tasks assigned by the European Council. Hiring at least seven additional experts paid from THE EEAS budget clearly cannot be an issue, given the size of EEAS staff and budget. At least three years after Russia launched its massive disinformation campaigns, there are many gaps in empirical knowledge as to how successful their narratives and messages have been. EEAS East STRATCOM Task Force has proved itself to be the pillar expert body in Europe with specialized knowledge and is widely respected within intelligence and security establishments; therefore, this unit should be transformed from a temporary assignment into a permanent EEAS structure and provided with at least one million Euros for targeted research. As there already are allied structures to coordinate messaging on ISIS, a similar structure should be put in place to counter pro-Kremlin disinformation.


Despite the seriousness of this threat, few Western political leaders are calling out the aggressor. For example, the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Federica Mogherini has spent the last two years trying to avoid naming Russia as the main source of hostile disinformation. If Europe wants to defeat this threat, its leaders need to call it out by name. Russian leaders need to hear from European representatives that these hostile subversive efforts against our democracies must stop. 


Despite the fact that at least twelve EU states take this threat seriously, these are mainly small-to-medium sized countries that have not been able to work effectively as a like-minded coalition. While this complex threat can be defeated only by collective action, countries concerned with Russian aggression need to set up mechanisms such as a working groups to start taking real joint action, like message coordination.


There is comparatively limited understanding of Russian subversive methods in Western European countries; therefore, Central and Eastern European governments and civil society groups need to actively engage in delivering lessons learnt from countering Moscow’s hostile influence operations. So far, the sharing of information and experience has been rather limited. While the Western community of experts on Russian influence and disinformation operations is emerging, there is an urgent need to deliver basic knowledge concerning threat assessment, understanding the modus operandi and reasonable policy options to people outside the specialist community. Extensive training and briefings for non-specialists within Western governments and political establishments are sorely needed. Central and Eastern European governments and civil society groups need to actively engage in delivering lessons learnt from countering Moscow’s hostile influence operations to their allies in Western Europe & USA.

List of signatories:

  • Adomeit Hannes, Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University (ISPK)
  • Andrikienė Laima Liucija, Member of the European Parliament, Lithuania
  • Aro Jessikka, Investigative journalist, Finland
  • Bahovski Erkki, The ICDS, the editor of Diplomaatia
  • Baublys Artūras, Art2B, Public Establishment, Director
  • Berzins Janis, Director at the Center for Security and Strategic Research, National Defence Academy, Latvia
  • Berzins Valdis, Latvijas Avize daily, foreign news editor
  • Blank Senior Stephen, Fellow, American Foreign Policy Council, USA
  • Boháček Petr, Director, European Security Journal, Czech Republic
  • Browder Bill,  Chief Executive Officer & Co-founder of the investment fund Hermitage Capital, UK
  • Bryan MacDonald, Former RT Correspondent. Now a footsoldier in the fight against Putin
  • Bumfrey  McDoogle, School of Hard Knox
  • Buziashvili Eto, Programs Director, Georgian Strategic Analysis Center, Georgia
  • Conroy Erin, Attorney
  • Coynash Halya, Kharkiv Human Rights Group, Ukraine
  • Čelutka Simas, Director of European Security Programme, Vilnius Institute for Policy Analysis, Lithuania
  • Čižik Tomáš, Director, Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs, Slovakia
  • Dal Re Maurizio , Cyber Security Expert, Italy
  • Dalia Bankauskaite, Media Program Director, Vilnius Institute of Policy Analysis
  • Dalia Bankauskaite, Media Program Director, Vilnius Institute of Policy Analysis
  • Dębski Sławomir, Director, The Polish Institute of International Affairs, Poland
  • Engelen Kurt, Euro Atlantic Association of Belgium, Vice president
  • Evgenidze Nino, Economic Policy Research Center – Executive Director
  • Eyal Jonathan, Associate Director, Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, UK
  • Fedchenko Yevhen, Co-founder,, Ukraine
  • Fota Iulian, former national security adviser to the President of Romania,  signing in personal capacity, Romania
  • Freudenstein Roland, Policy Director, Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, Belgium
  • Gaprindashvili Paata, Director, Georgia´s Reforms Associates, Georgia
  • Garmash Anna, President, Ukraine Action, Ukraine
  • Gedmin Jeffrey, Senior Fellow, Georgetown University, former President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, USA
  • Gerber Simon, President of, Switzerland
  • Gressel Gustav C., PhD, Senior Policy Fellow, Wider Europe Programme, European Council on Foreign Relations
  • Grigoryan Stepan, Chairman of the Board, Analytical Centre on Globalization and Regional Cooperation, Armenia
  • Gvineria Shota, Deputy Secretary, National Security Council, Georgia
  • Gyori Lorant, analyst, Political Capital Institute, Hungary
  • Jakóbik Wojciech, Energy analyst
  • Jakóbik Wojciech, Energy analyst
  • Juodka Robert, Primus Attorneys at law, Managing Partner
  • Kaiser Klaus, Citizen
  • Kamiński Krzysztof, President, Warsaw Institute, Poland
  • Kasciunas, Laurynas, Member of Parliament, Lithuania
  • Keršanskas Vytautas, Deputy director, Eastern Europe Studies Centre
  • Kestutis Eidukonis J., World Lithuanian Community/Lithuanian Parliament Commission member, Lithuania
  • Khylko Maksym, Co-founder, Chairman of the Board, East European Security Research Initiative Foundation, Ukraine
  • Kintsurashvili Tamar, Media Development Foundation, Georgia
  • Kirchick  James, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, USA
  • Kobosko Michal, Director, Poland Office, Atlantic Council, Poland
  • Kolář Petr, former Deputy Foreign Minister and four-time Ambassador, Czech Republic
  • Kolga Marcus, Senior Fellow, MacDonald-Laurier Institute Centre for Advancing Canada’s Interests Abroad
  • Kreko Peter, Director, Political Capital Institute, Hungary
  • Kross Eerik-Niiles, Former Intelligence Chief, current Member of Parliament, Estonia
  • Kudors Andis, Executive Director, Centre for East European Policy Studies, Latvia
  • Kwasiborski Matthew, European Institutes Director
  • Lavreniuk Andrii, UKRINFORM’s Staff Correspondent in Belgium, Ukraine
  • Lello João Carlos, Student
  • Loskutovs, Aleksejs, Member of Parliament, Latvia
  • Magdin  Radu, international analyst, former prime ministerial advisor in Romania, Romania
  • Malinionis Vaidotas, National Defense Foundation, Lithuania
  • Maliukevicius Nerijus, researcher, IIRPS, Vilnius University, Lithuania
  • Mantila Markku, former Director of Government Communications at Prime Ministers Office, Finland
  • Manvydas Džiaugys, Vytautas Magnus University (student)
  • Manvydas Džiaugys, Vytautas Magnus University (student)
  • Marin Danu, Foreign Policy Association of Moldova
  • McKew Molly , information operations expert, USA
  • Mesik Juraj, civic activist, Slovakia
  • Milic Jelena, Director, Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies, Serbia
  • Miliute Rita, Journalist, Lithuania
  • Milo Daniel, Head of STRATCOM Initiative, GLOBSEC Policy Institute, Slovakia
  • Moser Michael, University of Vienna (Austria), Professor
  • Muchaidze Giorgi, Executive Director, Atlantic Council of Georgia
  • Naď Jaroslav, Director, Slovak Security Studies Institute, Slovakia
  • Nicolini Mario, Founder & Honorary President, Euro-Atlantic Center, Slovakia
  • Niland Paul, Founder, Statement Email, Ukraine
  • O’Connell Evan,  Senior Associate, Aspect Consulting, France
  • Panyi Szabolcs, journalist, and, Hungary
  • Pedersen Kim Bjarne, Writer and human rights activist, Denmark
  • Pelczynska-Nalecz KATARZYNA, Stefan Batory Foundation
  • Poche Miroslav, MEP, Czech Republic
  • Porchkhidze Irakli, Vice-president, Georgian Institute for Strategic Studies, Georgia
  • Potekhin Dmytro, Nonviolent.Solutions, Ukraine
  • Potiekhin Principal Oleksandr, researcher, Institute of World History, National Academy of Sciences, Ukraine
  • Preusse Detlev, Writer and independent analyst
  • Przybylski Wojciech, Visegrad Insight, Res Publica
  • Przybylski Wojciech, Visegrad Insight, Res Publica
  • Rebecca Harms, Member of European Parliament
  • Reichardt Adam, Editor-in-Chief, New Eastern Europe, Poland
  • Renate Findeis, zeitzug
  • Rey Marcin, Blogger, Rosyjska V Kolumna w Polsce, Poland
  • Rimantas Kraujalis, Chairman of the Council, Vilnius University, Lithuania
  • Roháč Dalibor, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, USA
  • Sakalauskas Giedrius, Direktor, Res Publika, Lithuania
  • Samadashvili Salome, MP, Parliament of Georgia, Deputy Chair, Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Sanchez Elisa, Autonoma
  • Saryusz-Wolski Jacek, MEP, Poland
  • Schindler John, former NSA analyst, USA
  • Sleboda Mark, Center for Conservative Studies
  • Smolar Eugeniusz, – Senior Fellow, Centre for International Relations, Poland
  • Spilva Kristaps, independent analyst
  • Spolitis Veiko, Parliament dof the Republic of Latvia / MP
  • Stollmeyer Alice, Founder & Director, Defending Democracy, Belgium
  • Szymańska – Klich Anna, Foundation Institute for Strategic Studies, Chairman of the Board
  • Szyszko Jan, Polityka Insight, European Affairs Analyst
  • Štětina Jaromír , MEP, Vice-Chair of Subcommittee on Security and Defence
  • Tabliashvili Irakli, – web page. VOICE FROM GEORGIA. DIRECTOR
  • Tatham Steve, Director Influence Options Ltd, Associate Fellow Strategy & Security Institute, University of Exeter, UK
  • Telička Pavel , MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament, Czech Republic
  • Tenzer  Nicolas, Chairman of Center for Study and Research on Political Decision, Guest Professor at Sciences Po Paris, France
  • Teperik Dmitri, Chief Executive, International Centre for Defense and Security, Estonia
  • Tudor Radu, Political and Military Analyst, Antena 3 TV, Romania
  • Umland Andreas, Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, Kyiv
  • Vaidere Inese, Member of the European Parliament, Latvia
  • Vasiloi  Rosian,   signing in personal capacity, security studies expert, former Deputy Head of the Border Police Department, Republic of Moldova
  • Vogel Nathalie, independent analyst, Germany
  • Wetzel Iryna, Board Member of, Switzerland
  • Wićaz Stanij, European Values Think Tank, Intern
  • Wierzejski Antoni, Analyst, Centre for International Relations, Poland
  • Wyciszkiewicz Ernest, director, Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding, Poland
Coordinator of this Declaration

Jakub Janda

Head of the Kremlin Watch Program

Our joint open call has been published in the POLITICO Playbook (, (, or UK tabloid Express (, more is coming. We have learnt that the team of HRVP Federica Mogherini takes this declaration pretty seriously and we have also received informal positive feedback from quite a few EU government institutions, thanking for our joint pressure on specific steps to be taken.


Sign the Prague Declaration

  • Your Surname:*
  • Your name:*
  • Your e-mail:*
  • Organization or institution and your position:*

tRUmp – connected with criminals and mafia – you must watch this 2 Zembla TV films

‘The Dubious Friends of Donald Trump, Part 1: The Russians.’”

The 45-minute documentary was produced by Zembla TV and examines Trump’s alleged relationship with Russian mobster Felix Sater — which Trump reportedly took pains to hide from regulators.

It also looks at Trump’s arrangements with wealthy Russians that apparently allow them to move their money outside Russia and details the elaborate financial networks these families use as a “pyramid scheme for money laundering,” Rosenfeld said. “The financial trail exposed raises questions about whether Trump fired FBI Director James Comey because the FBI’s investigation of his campaign’s collusion with Russia was encroaching into Trump’s world of dark money and dubious business partners.”

Zembla promoted the documentary by saying, “For months, the FBI have been investigating Russian interference in the American presidential elections. ZEMBLA is investigating another explosive dossier concerning Trump’s involvement with the Russians: Trump’s business and personal ties to oligarchs from the former Soviet Union. Powerful billionaires suspected of money laundering and fraud, and of having contacts in Moscow and with the mafia. What do these relationships say about Trump and why does he deny them? How compromising are these dubious business relationships for the 45th president of the United States? And are there connections with the Netherlands? ZEMBLA meets with one of Trump’s controversial cronies and speaks with a former CIA agent, fraud investigators, attorneys, and an American senator among others.”

Zembla has also released Part Two of the series, “The King of Diamonds,” which explores Trump’s relationship with Israeli billionaire Lev Leviev, who is suspected of trading in blood diamonds.

Watch the English language version of “The Dubious Friends of Donald Trump,” embedded below:



#Putin need a clear limit – #banRussiafromSwift and in one week negotioation are possible



A insider from a Swiss Bank explained me:

„Excluded from the international finance transfer system SWIFT, the Russian finance institutes would be bankrupt within one week“.


Even the Russian economist  Wladislaw Inozemtsew recommended „#BanRussiafromSWIFT and in a short time it would be possible to negotiate with the Kreml.“

Interview mit dem-russischen-oekonomen-wladislaw-inozemtsew: Der Westen hat keine klare Strategie im Umgang mit Russland

Interview mit dem-russischen-oekonomen-wladislaw-inozemtsew: Der Westen hat keine klare Strategie im Umgang mit Russland

Der Westen hat keine Strategie im Umgang mit Russland – Echo der Zeit, Donnerstag, 27.10.2016, 18:00 Uhr







#MH17 – to save our life and maybe our world, we must learn to imagine and see the monstrosity of #Putin, his acts and its impact


by the way –

I see no newspaper, no TV, no medium that after today’s publication of the MH17-investigation report rationally and logically draws this conclusion:

„Now is the first time we have heavy and extremely stable proof thanks to the gigantic work of an officiall international commission which exposes cristall clearly the existence and impact of Russian weapons (a BUK rocket) in eastern Ukraine, because there are 290 dead innocent passengers of a civil aircraft, shot down by Putins soldiers masked as “seperatists” in East Ukraine.”

What does that tell us?

A former President of the Swiss Parliament once told me: „Journalists are sheep-heads ….

He wanted to express I think, the majority of journalists are in the wake of the political mainstream.

The impact of Putins monstrosity and crime is also based widely on the inability for too many western people to imagine the dimensions of monstrosity and the impact of Putins acts.


We should learn first of all to stretch our ability to imagine Putins monstrosity – and we should self-reflect our cringingness towards our own political personal and their hot air and endless sensless mantras in our western capitals.


And I know there are journalists who work hard and are sufficiently resistant to politics and power, thinking and act independently.

They are great exceptions. I owe them a lot.


Simon Gerber, 28/09/2016




A British Foreign Secretary who excuses Russia’s invasion of Crimea?

Boris #Johnson, a #British Foreign Secretary who excuses #Russia’s invasion of Crimea?

Original by 14.07.16 | Halya Coynash for „Human Rigths in Ukraine“, the Information website of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group

The new UK Prime Minister Theresa May doubtless had her reasons for giving leading Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson a cabinet post.  Making him Foreign Secretary, however, defies any comprehension.  It is especially difficult not to view this as an affront to all those currently facing persecution in Russian-occupied Crimea given his extraordinary attempt to blame Russia’s aggression against Ukraine on the EU.  This was only one of a long list of distortions and lies told to encourage Britons to vote to leave the EU, but it is one which makes the new portfolio a matter of immense concern.

The new UK Prime Minister Theresa May doubtless had her reasons for giving leading Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson a cabinet post.  Making him Foreign Secretary, however, defies any comprehension.  It is especially difficult not to view this as an affront to all those currently facing persecution in Russian-occupied Crimea given his extraordinary attempt to blame Russia’s aggression against Ukraine on the EU.  This was only one of a long list of distortions and lies told to encourage Britons to vote to leave the EU, but it is one which makes the new portfolio a matter of immense concern.

On May 9 this year, during questions and answers after a speech on Europe, it transpired that for Johnson it was not Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea and its military aggression in Eastern Ukraine that had caused “real trouble”, but the EU’s actions.

“If you want an example of EU foreign policymaking on the hoof and the EU’s pretensions to running a defence policy that have caused real trouble, then look at what has happened in Ukraine, ” he told reporters.

Johnson later reacted angrily to what he called ‘smears’, denying that he was an apologist for Russian President Vladimir Putin.  He did not explain what he had meant, and what, in his view, the EU had done to stoke tensions in Ukraine.

It was hardly surprising, therefore, that his words were taken as justifying Russia’s actions.  Johnson was, after all, simply repeating a position first taken by the head of the right-wing UKIP party Nigel Farage in a speech soon after Russia’s invasion of Crimea.  In March 2014, Farage accused the EU of having “blood on its hands” for encouraging the turmoil in Ukraine which had supposedly led to Russia’s annexation of Crimea.  This was recalled days later when he was reported as saying that “Vladimir Putin is the world leader I most admire”

Farage’s view of Putin and his slanted view of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine are shared by France’s far-right leader Marine Le Pen, and in fact most far-right parties in Europe (Hungary’s Jobbik, Bulgaria’s Ataka, Poland’s Falanga and many others).  It is their members, including some individuals known for their neo-Nazi views like Luc Michel and Manuel Ochsenreiter, who are regularly invited to act as ‘observers’ rubberstamping Russia’s ‘Crimean referendum’ and ‘elections’ in Donbas.

It was undoubtedly Ukrainians’ support for closer ties to Europe and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s reneging on his pre-election promise to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement that sparked Euromaidan and the end of the Yanukovych regime.  Yanukovych had been heavily backed by Putin, and fled to Russia, together with the cronies directly implicated in the gunning down of peaceful protesters.

None of the reasons later given by Putin to justify the seizure of control by Russian troops of Crimea were substantiated.  Violent deaths, disappearances and arrests of opponents have all come under Russian occupation.  There was no evidence of any such excesses before Feb 27, 2014.

Johnson was likely parroting the line taken by Brexit lobbyists who clearly blamed the EU for somehow encroaching on ‘Russia’s patch’.  The Brexit camp, we learned, “believe that the EU’s eastwards expansion into former Warsaw Pact countries, as well as its attempts to reach economic deals with former Soviet states like Ukraine and Georgia, has provoked Russia into adopting a more aggressive military stance in areas like Crimea.”

In a nutshell, they appeared to be saying, Russia was left no alternative but to invade and annex Ukrainian sovereign territory.

This is essentially the line taken by the Kremlin, and all its friends.

It is also, disturbingly, the line which at least in 2014 was taken by the now Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and appears to be held to this day by his close aide Seumas Milne.  The bogeyman for them is NATO rather than the EU, though their perceived failure to firmly campaign against Brexit has been presented as the main reason for the leadership challenge currently underway.

Britain, together with Russia and the USA, were signatories to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum which guaranteed Ukraine protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for giving up one of the largest nuclear arsenals in Europe.  Neither the UK, however, nor other western countries reacted adequately to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The UK has, however, since taken a strong stand in supporting sanctions against Russia, imposed after Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine and the downing by Kremlin-backed militants of the Malaysian MH17 airliner on July 17, 2014.

Britain’s robust position was greatly appreciated, as was its acknowledgement of the grave human rights concerns in Crimea under Russian occupation.

What Johnson thinks appears to depend on the circumstances.  Certainly, in an article from December 2015, while advocating fighting on the same side as Putin and Bashar Assad in Syria, he was at least critical of Putin (though later effusive in his praise of Putin’s bloody Syrian campaign which is believed by human rights NGOs, like Amnesty International, to have sometimes targeted civilians).

It is, however, the Johnson of the Leave campaign whom the UK’s new Prime Minister has seen the need to appoint to a high-ranking post in her government, and his position on Ukraine and Crimea are therefore seriously alarming.

Any blinkered presentation of Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the pseudo-referendum used to justify annexation flies in the face of the facts and begs the question of why Russia needed to bring in all its Eurosceptic friends from the far-right and far-left to act as ‘observers’.

The abductions and disappearances began after annexation and are continuing with the latest victim – Ervin Ibragimov – a prominent Crimean Tatar activist.

The Crimean Tatars, the main indigenous people of Crimea, faced persecution from the outset and this has now escalated with the criminalization of the Mejlis, or Crimean Tatar representative assembly. Three Crimean Tatars, including Akhtem Chiygoz, Deputy Head of the Mejlis, have been in detention for well over a year on surreal charges over the pre-annexation demonstration on Feb 26, 2014, which prevented Russia from carrying out a coup and seizure of power without deploying soldiers.

There are a number of Crimean opponents of annexation in Russian prisons, including renowned Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov.  In Crimea, 14 Muslims, almost all Crimean Tatars, have so far been arrested and face huge sentences on totally fabricated charges.  Other Ukrainians, including Mejlis leader Ilmi Umerov and journalist Mykola Semena are facing prison sentences for what Russia labels as “public calls to violate Russian territorial integrity”, otherwise known as recognizing Crimea as Ukrainian and wanting its return to Ukraine.

All of this, and much more, is the direct result not of the EU’s support for Ukraine, but of Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea.

see also:
• Kremlin’s Donbas proxies congratulate UK for ’doing what they did’ & voting for Brexit
• Brexit a gift to Putin, the far right & Trump, a blow to democracy
• Ex-Mayor of London Boris Johnson blames Russia’s annexation of Crimea on the EU
• What European Values if Dutch Referendum Result Stands?
• Appeal by the leaders of Ukrainian national communities to the Dutch population
• Former Soviet political prisoners call on Holland to say yes to Ukraine’s European future
• Playing with fear and ignorance
• How a democratic tool became a threat to democracy
• Ukrainian Jewish leaders appeal to Holland: Give our country the chance to break with the past
• Dutch referendum puts Ukraine in spotlight


See the original article by „Human Rigths in Ukraine“, the Information website of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group:

Se the original article as pdf: A British Foreign Secretary who excuses Russia’s invasion of Crimea? :


A British Foreign Secretary who excuses Russia’s invasion of Crimea?

A British Foreign Secretary who excuses Russia’s invasion of Crimea?


#INTERPOL: a Potemkin village of #Putin

Do you know who is representative in the executive committee of INTERPOL for EUROPE?
Alexander-PROKOPCHUK, (Russia) for Europe in INTERPOL executive committee 2014-2017

Alexander-PROKOPCHUK, (Russia) for Europe in INTERPOL executive committee 2014-2017

Is this not a 1-class example of a structural dysfunctionality of an organization ?
Some of my organization development science colleges expresses such phenomenas like that:
„the degree of intelligence of an organization“….
Or in clear words: Unlimited structural stupidity of an organization!
This may explain for example this:
Why Interpol refuses to search Putin-Warcriminals?

Why Interpol refuses to search Putin-Warcriminals?

Why INTERPOL don't want search Putin-Warcriminals?

Why INTERPOL don’t want search Putin-Warcriminals?

Interpol refuses to search for Russian militant suspected of war crimes in Donbas :

Is the brainless structure of INTERPOL with an enclosed Putins trojan horse maybe also the explanation for the totally blindness for the deadly Russian violence on the current EURO 2016 in France?

Euro 2016: 150 Russians ‚behind‘ violence

BBC: Euro 2016: 150 Russians 'behind' violence

BBC: Euro 2016: 150 Russians ‚behind‘ violence

Brillen von ermordeten Juden in Auschwitz (Staatliches Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau)

Universal Declaration of #Human Rights

Das Grab eines polnischen Soldaten, Warschauer Aufstand, 1945

The grave of a Polish soldier, Warsaw Uprising, 1945

Under the shock of the extent of the violence of World War 2 and the extent of Jewish extermination by Nazi Germany triggered under Hitler – the United Nations set out to build a stronghold, which should make it impossible that such killings could take place. On 10 December 1948 the UN human rights came into power.

Russische Waffen, Russische Munition, Russische Soldaten, Russischer Krieg gegen die Ukraine

Russian weapons, Russian ammunition, Russian soldiers, Russian war against Ukraine since 2014


Syria-Russia MSF hospital-bombed-1622016


2016, as the nuclear power nation Putin’s Russia rolls over all limits and all Russian society is trimmed inside with meticulousness and relentlessness for aggressive war, even young people and children – we see the effects of Russias twice twisted war against Ukraine and Syria – we call to remember this humanistic milestone: the Universal Declaration of UN human rights.


Ausgebombtes Dorf im 2. Weltkrieg

Bombed village in WW2


Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by

teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article I

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

  1. Everyonechargedwithapenaloffencehastherighttobepresumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
  2. Nooneshallbeheldguiltyofanypenaloffenceonaccountofanyactor omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier

penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

  1. Everyonehastherighttofreedomofmovementandresidencewithinthe borders of each State.
  2. Everyonehastherighttoleaveanycountry,includinghisown,andto return to his country.

Article 14

  1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
  2. Thisrightmaynotbeinvokedinthecaseofprosecutionsgenuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

  1. Everyonehastherighttoanationality.
  2. Nooneshallbearbitrarilydeprivedofhisnationalitynordeniedtherighttochange his nationality.

Article 16

  1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  2. Marriageshallbeenteredintoonlywiththefreeandfullconsentofthe intending spouses.
  3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

  1. Everyonehastherighttoownpropertyaloneaswellasinassociationwith others.
  2. Nooneshallbearbitrarilydeprivedofhisproperty.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyonehastherighttofreedomofpeacefulassemblyandassociation. 2. Noonemaybecompelledtobelongtoanassociation.

Article 21

  1. Everyonehastherighttotakepartinthegovernmentofhiscountry, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  2. Everyonehastherighttoequalaccesstopublicserviceinhiscountry.
  3. Thewillofthepeopleshallbethebasisoftheauthorityofgovernment;this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

  1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
  2. Everyone,withoutanydiscrimination,hastherighttoequalpayforequal work.
  3. Everyonewhoworkshastherighttojustandfavourableremuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
  4. Everyonehastherighttoformandtojointradeunionsfortheprotectionof his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

  1. Everyonehastherighttoastandardoflivingadequateforthehealthand well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  2. Motherhoodandchildhoodareentitledtospecialcareandassistance.All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

  1. Everyonehastherighttoeducation.Educationshallbefree,atleastinthe elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
  2. Educationshallbedirectedtothefulldevelopmentofthehuman personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyonehastherightfreelytoparticipateintheculturallifeofthe community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

2. Everyonehastherighttotheprotectionofthemoralandmaterialinterests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

  1. Everyonehasdutiestothecommunityinwhichalonethefreeandfull development of his personality is possible.
  2. Intheexerciseofhisrightsandfreedoms,everyoneshallbesubjectonly to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  3. Theserightsandfreedomsmayinnocasebeexercisedcontrarytothe purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


Brillen von ermordeten Juden in Auschwitz (Staatliches Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau)

Glasses of murdered Jews in Auschwitz (Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum)


Agents of the #Russian World: Proxy Groups in the Contested Neighborhood , by Orysia Lutsevych

Events in Crimea and Donbas have exposed the supportive role of Russian non-state actors in fomenting conflict.


  • Anxious about losing ground to Western influence in the post-Soviet space and the ousting of many pro-Russia elites by popular electoral uprisings, the Kremlin has developed a wide range of proxy groups in support of its foreign policy objectives.
  • This network of pro-Kremlin groups promotes the Russian World (Russkiy Mir), a flexible tool that justifies increasing Russian actions in the post-Soviet space and beyond. Russian groups are particularly active in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova – countries that have declared their intention to integrate with the West.
  • Russia employs a vocabulary of ‘soft power’ to disguise its ‘soft coercion’ efforts aimed at retaining regional supremacy. Russian pseudo-NGOs undermine the social cohesion of neighbouring states through the consolidation of pro-Russian forces and ethno-geopolitics; the denigration of national identities; and the promotion of anti-US, conservative Orthodox and Eurasianist values. They can also establish alternative discourses to confuse decision-making where it is required, and act as destabilizing forces by uniting paramilitary groups and spreading aggressive propaganda.
  • The activities of these proxy groups – combined with the extensive Russian state administrative resources and security apparatus, as well as the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, proRussian elites, mass culture and the media – could seriously damage political transitions and civil societies in the region. Events in Crimea and Donbas have exposed the supportive role of Russian non-state actors in fomenting conflict.
  • In the medium term, the contest for the ‘hearts and minds’ of citizens will persist, with the scale and outreach of anti-Western groups continuing to testify to the presence of active networks of genuine believers within this new Russian World. However, greater transparency and deeper engagement with citizens as part of independent civil society organizations could bridge opposing views and help counter the challenge of artificial divisions nurtured by the Kremlin-funded non-state actors.

– See more at:





Please attention also on:

#Chubarov-We call to disconnect #Russia from the #SWIFT banking system

#Chubarov: We call to disconnect #Russia from the #SWIFT banking system

Chubarov: We call to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT banking system.

#Chubarov-We call to disconnect #Russia from the #SWIFT banking system

#Chubarov-We call to disconnect #Russia from the #SWIFT banking system

May 9, 2016, 10:43 am.

The representatives of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people are calling upon the EU countries to strengthen the sanctions against Russia by, in part, considering a temporary embargo on Russian oil.

The announcement was made by Refat Chubarov, the Chairmain of the Mejlis, on «Hromadske» TV channel.

“Given the increased repressions of the Crimean Tatars, our goal is to convince the international community to strengthen the sanctions against Russia,” he said.

“We call to disconnect the SWIFT banking system. I also spoke about the European countries considering the possibility of imposing an embargo, at least temporarily, on energy carriers from Russia, oil in particular,” said Chubarov.

The European Parliament intends to conduct debates and adopt a resolution on the violation of the human rights in Crimea during its plenary session on May 12, 2016. The EU will revise its sanctions regime against Russia in June of 2016.


Translation into English: Oksana Pooley,


Flags of the OSCE participating States (OSCE:Mikhail Evstafiev)

DAILY REPORT #OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to #Ukraine, based on information received as of 19:30hrs, 1 April 2016


The SMM continued to observe a high number of ceasefire violations in Donetsk region. In Luhansk region the SMM recorded a higher number of ceasefire violations than the previous day. The SMM followed up on reports of shelling. It facilitated the safe passage of civilians between Ukrainian Armed Forces and “LPR” checkpoints in Luhansk region. The Mission encountered freedom of movement restrictions in areas not controlled by the Government, including in border areas.*

The number of ceasefire violations observed in Donetsk region remained at a high level. Positioned in “DPR”-controlled Donetsk city between 19:40hrs on 31 March and 06:30hrs on 1 April, the SMM heard 307 undetermined explosions and 31 bursts of small-arms fire 3-10km north, north-west and east of its position. Whilst at the Donetsk central railway station (“DPR”-controlled, 6km north-west of Donetsk), between 09:26 and 14:25hrs the SMM heard 122 undetermined explosions, 20 outgoing rounds of multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), two airbursts, five bursts of heavy-machine-gun and three single shots of small-arms fire at locations ranging from 3-8km north, north-north-west, north-west and west of its position.

While in government-controlled Svitlodarsk (57km north-east of Donetsk) between 19:30 and 21:30hrs on 31 March, the SMM heard 45 impacts of mortar rounds (120mm) and 101 bursts of heavy-machine-gun fire in areas 3-5km south-west of its position. During the evening hours of 31 March, while in “DPR”-controlled Horlivka (39km north-east of Donetsk), the SMM heard 63 explosions assessed as caused by artillery (152mm) and mortar rounds (82 and 120mm) and at least 37 bursts of heavy-machine-gun fire and 12 outgoing rounds of automatic grenade launcher, 6-12km north and west-north-west of its position.

Whilst in “DPR”-controlled Yasynuvata (16km north-east of Donetsk) between 10:45 and 15:35hrs, the SMM heard 100 undetermined explosions, 36 single shots of small-arms and 42 bursts of heavy-machine-gun fire 1-5km north-west, west and south-west of its position. While in government-controlled Avdiivka (17km north of Donetsk) the SMM heard 10 impacts of mortar rounds (82 and 120mm), two impacts of artillery rounds (122mm), 16 impacts of automatic-grenade-launcher rounds, 13 impacts of recoilless-gun (SPG-9) rounds, and eight impacts of infantry fighting vehicle (IFV; BMP-1), along with bursts of heavy-machine-gun and small-arms fire in areas 2-5.5km north-east, east, south-east and south of its position.

In Luhansk region, the SMM recorded an increased number of ceasefire violations compared to the previous day. While in “LPR”-controlled Pervomaisk (57km west of Luhansk), during the evening of 31 March, within 25 minutes, the SMM heard 43 explosions (assessed as caused by artillery) 8km west of its position. Whilst in “LPR”-controlled Stakhanov (50km west of Luhansk) between 17:25 and 18:45hrs, the SMM heard at least 200 explosions (caused by automatic-grenade-launcher rounds, including 20 assessed as caused by 120mm mortar) and automatic-grenade-launcher rounds) along with bursts of anti-aircraft gun (ZU-23) all 10km south-west of its position.

The SMM followed up on reports of shelling from media sources and Russian Federation Armed Forces representatives at the Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination (JCCC). Directed and escorted by Russian Federation Armed Forces JCCC representatives in “DPR”-controlled Horlivka (39km north-east of Donetsk), and “DPR” members it visited alleged sites of shelling. Accompanied also by media, they showed to the SMM a number of craters in two locations two in Horlivka and one location in Zaitseve (50km north-east of Donetsk).

In the eastern part of “DPR”-controlled Holmivskyi (49km north-east of Donetsk), on the outskirts of “DPR” controlled Horlivka, the SMM analysed six fresh craters, assessed as caused by 152mm artillery rounds fired from east and north-east. On one of the buildings the SMM observed the impact of a round fired from a westerly direction. The SMM observed a water purification tank damaged by shrapnel and one crater (assessed as 120mm mortar round) filled with the liquid pouring from the holes in the tank. Close to another five-storey building, the SMM observed a crater assessed as caused by a 120mm mortar round fired from the west. According to residents the shelling had occurred at 06:00hrs on 31 March. On Varlamova Street in Horlivka the SMM observed that a wall of a one-storey building was destroyed by what the SMM assessed as the impact of a 120mm mortar round fired from north-north-east. The SMM observed another building where the shrapnel had damaged the windows and the ceiling of an apartment and was informed by the injured residents (one man, and two women aged between 21 and 40years) that the shelling had occurred at 07:02hrs on 31 March. The man had suffered an injury to the right eye, the woman to the knee (both were treated but not hospitalized) and the 21 year old daughter had sustained light injuries.

In “DPR”-controlled areas of Zaitseve, near a building used by the “village council”, the SMM was shown six fresh craters assessed as caused by 82mm mortar rounds. Another three craters, also assessed as caused by 82mm mortar rounds, were observed in the yard and at the entrance of a severely damaged private house. All nine craters were assessed as caused by rounds fired from the west.

In “DPR”-controlled Kominternove (23km east-north-east of Mariupol) residents showed the SMM seven craters spread within a 100m radius area and told they were caused by shelling that occurred on the night between 31 March and 1 April. The SMM assessed that the craters were caused by mortar rounds (six of them by 120mm and one by 82mm) fired from a south-westerly direction. The SMM observed that another two 120mm mortar rounds had impacted near a house and damaged the roof and windows. The resident, one elderly woman had not sustained injuries. The SMM observed that power and gas pipelines were also damaged.

In relation to the implementation of the Addendum to the Package of Measures, the SMM revisited a Ukrainian Armed Forces permanent storage site whose location corresponds with the withdrawal lines and noted that three towed howitzers (D-44, 152mm) were missing, as has been the case since 29 January.

Aerial surveillance imagery available to the SMM revealed the presence of seven tanks, in violation of the withdrawal lines and outside storage sites, in Donetsk city.

The SMM continued to monitor the withdrawal of heavy weapons foreseen in the Minsk Package of Measures. The SMM has yet to receive the full information requested in the 16 October 2015 notification. The SMM revisited locations known to the SMM as heavy weapons holding areas, even though they do not comply with the specific criteria set out for permanent storage sites in the 16 October 2015 notification.

In government-controlled areas beyond respective withdrawal lines, the SMM revisited such locations and observed: 18 towed howitzers (2A65 Msta-B, 152mm), 12 MLRS (BM-21 Grad, 122mm) and 11 self-propelled howitzers (2S3 Akatsiya, 152mm). Six self-propelled howitzers (2S1 Gvozdika, 122mm) were noted as missing.

In “DPR”-controlled areas beyond respective withdrawal lines, the SMM revisited such locations and observed: seven self-propelled howitzers (2S1 Gvozdika, 122mm), two towed anti-tank guns (MT-12 Rapira, 100mm), eight towed howitzers (six 2A65 Msta-B, 152mm; two D-30, 122mm). One self-propelled howitzer (2S1 Gvozdika, 122mm) was observed missing.

In violation of the respective withdrawal lines, the SMM observed one surface-to-air missile system (9K35 Strela-10, 120mm) near “DPR”-controlled Komuna (57km north-east of Donetsk).

The SMM observed the presence of other hardware within the security zone: three armoured combat vehicles (BRDM-2) near government-controlled Pavlopil (26km north-east of Mariupol); seven armoured personnel carriers (APC; MTLB) stationary north of government-controlled Vilkhove (22km north-east of Luhansk); six APCs (BTR-60) near government-controlled Petrivka (27km north of Luhansk); 16 IFVs (BMP-2) near government-controlled Hirske (62km north-west of Luhansk); one anti-aircraft gun (ZU-23)  towed by a civilian vehicle near „LPR“-controlled Chornukhyne (70km south-west of Luhansk). Aerial surveillance imagery available to the SMM revealed the presence of 39 armoured vehicles in “DPR”-controlled Donetsk city and 15 armoured vehicles near government-controlled Svitlodarsk (government-controlled, 57km north-east of Donetsk).

The SMM continued to observe the presence of mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO). At a “DPR”-controlled checkpoint in Staromarivka (46km north-north-east of Mariupol), the SMM saw three pieces of unexploded ordnance (from 120mm mortar projectiles), stuck in the middle of the road.

The SMM continued to monitor the situation affecting civilians at checkpoints in Zolote (60km north-west of Luhansk) (see SMM Daily Report 1 April). Some of the civilians who had been stranded on the road between the checkpoints and were returned the previous day to government-controlled areas were transported to Stanytsia Luhanska official crossing checkpoint. The SMM liaised with both sides, facilitated dialogue and monitored the safe passage through the contact line, using a local route, from government-controlled areas towards “LPR” controlled area of Zolote of another 208 people who had been stranded the previous night between the checkpoints.

The SMM endeavoured to visit border areas not controlled by the Government. Upon two attempts to reach two border areas, armed “LPR” members at the Chervonopartyzansk border crossing point (67km southeast of Luhansk) and Izvaryne border crossing point (53km south-east of Luhansk) prevented the SMM from accessing and monitoring in both areas and told the SMM to leave.

The SMM continued to monitor the situation in Kherson, Odessa, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kharkiv, Dnepropetrovsk, Chernivtsi and Kyiv.

*Restrictions to SMM’s freedom of movement or other impediments to the fulfilment of its mandate

The SMM’s monitoring is restrained by security hazards and threats, including risks posed by mines and unexploded ordnance, and by restrictions of its freedom of movement and other impediments – which vary from day to day. The SMM’s mandate provides for safe and secure access throughout Ukraine. All signatories of the Package of Measures have agreed on the need for this safe and secure access, that restriction of the SMM’s freedom of movement constitutes a violation, and on the need for rapid response to these violations.

Denial of access: 

  • Armed men refused the SMM to enter a military-type compound in “DPR”-controlled Svobodne (49km north-east of Mariupol) and stated the SMM should request permission from the “DPR” “command” located in Komsomolske (42km south-east of Donetsk). The JCCC was informed.
  • Two armed men in military-type clothing denied the SMM entry to a residential building near “DPR” controlled Kulykove  (30km north-east of Mariupol) to verify the presence of heavy weapons within the security zone. The SMM observed a military-type truck stationary in the garden. The JCCC was informed.
  • At the border crossing point in “LPR”-controlled Izvaryne (53km south-east of Luhansk), armed men insisted on seeing the SMM patrol plan. The SMM refused to show and was told to leave the area. The JCCC was informed.
  • At the border crossing point in “LPR”-controlled Chervonopartyzansk (64km south-east of Luhansk) an “LPR” member from “komendatura” in Sverdlovsk (61km south-east of Luhansk) told the SMM to leave, citing an order from “border guard headquarters”. Even though it informed the JCCC calling for its intervention, the SMM was escorted out of the area up to the entrance of “LPR”-controlled Sverdlovsk.


  • At a “DPR” checkpoint on highway H-15 near Oleksandrivka (19km south-west of Donetsk), armed men requested to see monitor’s national passports citing an order from “minister of security” to check all passports of people entering the “DPR”-controlled area, including OSCE and UN. The SMM refused, contacted the JCCC and was allowed passage after 30 minutes.
  • At a “DPR” checkpoint in Olenivka (“DPR”-controlled, 23km south-west of Donetsk), armed men requested to see monitor’s national passports and the OSCE vehicles registration documents. A “DPR” member recorded the data from the requested documents and the SMM was allowed to pass after 30 minutes.
  • At a temporary checkpoint in “LPR”-controlled Sverdlovsk (61km south-east of Luhansk) an “LPR” member of the local “komendatura” requested to see the patrol plan. The SMM refused but was allowed to proceed after three minutes delay.

For a complete breakdown of the ceasefire violations, please see the annexed table.

For PDF attachments or links to sources of further information, please visit:


Iuliia Poberezhna
26 Turhenievska Street
01054 Kyiv
mobile: +380 67 467 75 65

Iryna Gudyma 
26 Turhenievska Street
01054 Kyiv
mobile: +38 067 4021716


Lockheed L-100-30 Hercules

free airspace of #Europe and #Switzerland for #Putins weapons towards #Africa ?

Report from Simon Gerber, March 10. 2016

The sound of a not identifiable Lockheed L-100-30 Hercules today forced me to have a look to the sky over Switzerland above my house:

Flight radar showed it only like this:


In reality, the type of this transport air plane looks like this:

Lockheed L-30 Hercules

Lockheed L-30 Hercules

Normally, if an airplane is not unter military secrets flying, you can identify the country of the owner, the starting point and the destination – also the owner is declared.

Here only the typ of the airplane was visible, nothing else, which was congruent with what my ears was able to hear above me.

From that, you can conclude, it must be a military transport, and the operator does not like to give any more information about from where it is, or what it is, or what the destiny is:

For me reason enough to fellow this plane.

The first interesting thing: This mysterious military transport across over whole Europe, started in Moscow, was on its way to south-west.

After 17.26 flight radar shows clear, on the west coast of Africa, in the air space of Morocco the plain was already in descending flight, but then, the transponder was switched off.

Wie can conclude so far:

It was no doubt a military transport from Moscow to the west coast of the African continent: We can’t say exactly where its destiny was – could be Morocco, could easy be one of its neighbor-country – sure is: There is many thing to hide on this flight.


  1. Is it functionally, for Europe, for Switzerland, to hold their airspace open for a dictatorship like Putins Russia, who is violating all basic laws of our civilization? Is it really smart, to hold your airspace open so Putins Russia can spread its deadly weapons further into the continent Africa? Is it really smart, to do so, in the current dramatically geopolitical circumstances with a never before seen crisis with people bombed out of their houses and countries?
  2. Has the authorities of Europe, of Switzerland any idea, what type of weapons Russia today transported with this hided airplane through their airspace?

Simon Gerber, March 10. 2016

Look the protocol of the described flight:

Time: 14.28

Russian Weapon on its way to Africa in European Airspace?

Russian Weapon on its way to Africa in European Airspace?

Time: 14.51

Russian Weapon on its way to Africa in European Airspace?

Russian Weapon on its way to Africa in European Airspace?

Time: 15.01

Russian Weapon on its way to Africa in European Airspace?

Russian Weapon on its way to Africa in European Airspace?

Time: 17.26

Russian Weapon on its way to Africa in European Airspace?

Russian Weapon on its way to Africa in European Airspace?

Short time after 17.26, it switched off its transponders!


See also:

The faces behind the suffer of #refugees in #Europe – we all know it

Pic 1 – MH17-New (2016-February 24.) BellingcattReport

by Bellingcat: #MH17: Potential Suspects and Witnesses from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade A bell¿ngcat Investigation

MH17 – Potential Suspects and Witnesses from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade

February 23, 2016

By Bellingcat

if the Belingcat internet site would be in function because of any attacks –

here a pdf Version of the BellingCat Report, stored on our site:
 53rd- Belingcat-report-public2
The report can be downloaded here stock_save_pdfThis report, MH17: Potential Suspects and Witnesses from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, presents information regarding the Russian brigade that we believe provided, and possibly operated, the Buk-M1 missile launcher that downed Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. In this post, we will summarize the role of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade and “Buk 3×2” in the downing of MH17 before providing a summary of the report. At the bottom of this post, an index is provided of Bellingcat’s previously published major research projects on the MH17 disaster.


From June 23 to 25, 2014, Russia’s 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade transported several Buk-M1 anti-aircraft missile systems to areas near the Russia-Ukraine border. Bellingcat has extensively covered this convoy of military vehicles over the past year and a half, including numerous reports on the 53rd Brigade’s most notable piece of cargo: Buk 3×2, the missile launcher that we believe downed MH17. You can trace the 53rd Brigade’s journey from its base in Kursk, Russia to near the Russia-Ukraine border on Storymap, through which you can watch the videos and photographs in which the convoy, including Buk 3×2, are captured.

There is no direct evidence indicating if it was Russian or separatist soldiers who operated Buk 3×2 when it was in Ukraine. However, considering the complexity of the Buk-M1 system, it is most likely that the Russian military did not transfer a Buk missile launcher to separatist commanders without some guidance or a Russian crew. In the likely case that the Buk 3×2 did come with a Russian crew, it is almost certain that they were from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, which was deployed at the border throughout the summer of 2014.

Bellingcat has published numerous reports indicating our confidence that the Buk-M1 system that most likely downed MH17 was the Russian Buk 3×2. In the six available photographs and videos of the Buk-M1 missile launcher in Donetsk, Zuhres, Luhansk, Torez, and Snizhne on the day of and after the airliner’s downing, numerous features on the Buk match uncommon features found on Buk 3×2. Many of these features can be seen in this comparison between Buk 3×2 (in Russia, June 2014) and the Buk seen in Donetsk, Ukraine on the day of the tragedy:


There are numerous other features on Buk 3×2 that match the Buk seen in eastern Ukraine on July 17 and 18, 2014 that indicate that it is definitely a Russian Buk, and more specifically 3×2. These features include:

  • H-2200 mark on the left side (a load-bearing code used in railways, and extremely common on Russian equipment, with only a few examples of it seen on Ukrainian tanks and none on Buks)
  • Cross hair symbol (gravity mark) next to H-2200, meant for stabilizing while loading onto railways
  • Visible unit designation, with a likely “3”, an obscured middle digit, and fairly clear “2”
  • Distinct marks on hull and side-skirt
  • Side-skirt damage pattern
  • Distinct white mark on right side-skirt, visible in July 18 Luhansk video and a June 23 video in Alexeyevka, Russia (see comparison here). The same white mark is visible on the other side skirt below the H-2200 mark, as seen in the above comparison video.

Summary of Report

The report contains five sections, each covering a different aspect of the 53rd Brigade and its activities in the summer of 2014.

The first section, “The 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” describes the role of the brigade within the Russian military and its structure, including the unit designations of Buk-M1 systems within the brigade.

The second section, “Mobilization of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” provides a detailed account of the deployment of the brigade throughout the summer of 2014. By studying the makeup of the convoy that transported Buk-M1 systems from Kursk, Russia to near the Russia-Ukraine border on June 23-25, we have established that the 2nd Battalion of the 53rd Brigade was responsible for the transport of Buk 3×2. The missile launcher designated Buk 3×2 replaced the 2nd Battalion’s missile launcher numbered 222, thus indicating that the officers and soldiers normally responsible for Buk 222 were the most likely candidates to operate its replacement, Buk 3×2. This second section also details another convoy in which equipment from the 1st Battalion was transported in the days following the MH17 disaster.

The third section, “Soldiers of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” details the soldiers within the 53rd Brigade and the information provided by their public postings on social media. The soldiers of the 2nd Battalion provided a wealth of information, including photographs and written notes, describing their time on the Russia-Ukraine border in June and July, 2014. More extensive details are provided regarding the soldiers who were normally responsible for the Buk missile launcher numbered 222, which was replaced by Buk 3×2, which we believe downed MH17. Additional details are provided on soldiers of the 1st and 3rd Battalions in order to demonstrate that they likely had no involvement or knowledge regarding the transfer or operation of Buk 3×2 in Ukraine. The identities of all of these soldiers have been anonymized in this public version of the report, with their names changed and faces blurred, though an uncensored version with their true identities has been provided to the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT).

The fourth section, “Cadets at the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” describes a summer cadet training program at the Kursk base of the 53rd Brigade. Information provided by these cadets gives us additional understanding of the structure and operations of the brigade, in addition to ruling out numerous officers from any involvement with the MH17 disaster. The identities of all cadets have been anonymized, like with the soldiers in the previous section.

The final and most important section, “Commanders of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade,” provides extensive information regarding the leadership structure of the brigade and battalion that provided and possibly operated the likely murder weapon in the downing of MH17. We provide partially anonymized information regarding 14 officers of the 2nd Battalion of the 53rd Brigade, including the commanders of the Buk unit vehicles within the battalion. Sergey Borisovich Muchkaev, the commander of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, is closely detailed, along with his superiors, including Aleksey Zolotov of the Air Defense of the 20th Guards Army and Andrey Kokhanov of the Air Defense of the Western Military District. Ultimately, responsibility for the downing of MH17 from a weapon provided and possibly operated by the Russian military lies with the Ministry of Defense and the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed Forces, President Vladimir Putin.

Previous Major MH17 Investigations


Screenshot aus der RTS-Reportage vom 14. Jan. 2016

Die „Meeresbrücke“ für Putin & Assad finanziert aus der Schweiz, Recherche von RTS

Screenshot aus der RTS-Reportage vom 14. Jan. 2016

Screenshot aus der RTS-Reportage vom 14. Jan. 2016

Die NGO Schweiz-Ukraine ( ruft SRF und RTS dringend auf – diese gut recherchierte und gewichtige Reportage nicht einzig der Französischen Sprachregion der Schweiz zur Verfügung zu stellen, sondern den anderen Sprachregionen der Schweiz voll zugänglich zu machen. Das gesamte Material ist vorhanden, es muss einzig sprachlich adaptiert werden – dazu gibt es in den Studios von SRF und RTS Fachleute –

Die geopolitische – und Schweiz-innenpolitische Bedeutung dieser Recherche kann nicht hoch genug eingeschätzt werden.

Es wäre aus Sicht der in der Schweiz ansässigen NGO „Schweiz-Ukraine“ ( völlig unverständlich, wenn diese zweifellos aufwändige und gut belegte Recherche durch den „Röschtigraben“ in seiner Ausstrahlung künstlich klein gehalten würde.

Die NGO „Schweiz-Ukraine“ ( ruft mit aller Dringlichkeit dazu auf, alles zu tun, damit diese bedeutungsvolle journalistische Arbeit durch eine adäquate Verbreitung die ihr zustehende Beachtung erhält.

LE PONT MARITIME RUSSE VERS LA SYRIE FINANCÉ DEPUIS LA SUISSE Une société administrée depuis Genève a financé l’achat de deux bateaux affrétés en Crimée, dont un s’est rendu en Syrie au moment de l’intervention russe.ève

EU and US: Stop the bloodshed ‑ no further appeasement of the Russian Federation!

Sign the Petition to end #EU and #US appeasement policies to #Putins #Russia by Europeans for Ukraine

for sign the petition, Klick on this link : 


The German civic action group “Europeans for Ukraine” has launched a petition to end European and international policies of accommodation and concessions for the Government of the Russian Federation.

Their demands are simple, non-military in character, and yet very clear:

  1. Consistent implementation of the sanctions that have already been imposed.
  2. Withdrawal of the visa travel permits of the ruling 500 families in Russia.
  3. Temporary exclusion of the Russian Federation from SWIFT.

The petition calls upon political leaders to implement these measures until Minsk II is fully implemented and Crimea is returned under Ukrainian control.

Read more here

While we have seen a lot of online petitions come and disappear these days, this petition is special in that it is hosted on the site, which asks participants to supply their full details to gain credibility, and has committed itself to make MPs and governments in Europe aware of any petition that reaches a satisfactory quorum. Further, it is backed by two influential people: Heidi Rohrlack and Martin Luithle.

EU and US: Stop the bloodshed ‑ no further appeasement of the Russian Federation!

EU and US: Stop the bloodshed ‑ no further appeasement of the Russian Federation!

Putin for ever, by Jean Michel Carré

#Putin for ever, Dokumentarfilm von Jean Michel Carré



Am 7. Oktober feiert Wladimir Putin Geburtstag – er wird 63. Ein Grund mehr zum Feiern für den Präsidenten, dessen Rückhalt in einem Grossteil der russischen Bevölkerung nach wie vor ungebrochen ist. Das ist erstaunlich.

Ein Film von Jean Michel Carré

Kaum jemand hätte gedacht, dass Wladimir Putin nach 2008 noch einmal Präsident werden würde. Wie Putin die Wahlen 2012 gewonnen hat, wie er sich seither an der Macht hält, wie er mit seinen politischen Gegnern umgeht, und welche Visionen er für sein Land hat, zeigt der Dokumentarfilm «Putin Forever».

Es geht vor allem um Macht und um den Missbrauch von Macht in Jean Michel Carrés Film. Er zeigt auf, wie Putin 2008 hinter den Kulissen die Fäden gezogen hat und Dimitri Medwedew zu seinem Nachfolger machte – damit er selber 2012 wieder Präsident werden konnte. «Das war einfach nur zynisch», sagt Garry Kasparov, «diese Clique bleibt einfach an der Macht, man kann nichts dagegen tun.» Der ehemalige Schach-Weltmeister und Oppositions-Politiker ist nur einer von vielen Oppositionellen, die aufgegeben haben und aus Russland geflohen sind – aus Angst vor Repressionen und politischer Verfolgung. Viele russische Intellektuelle haben dasselbe getan.

Putin betreibt einen regelrechten Personen-Kult. Am liebsten lässt er sich in TV-Kampagnen feiern, in Popsongs, Glitzershows mit Frauen, die seine Männlichkeit preisen und bewundern.

Dass ihm gleichzeitig Betrug vorgeworfen wird, welcher mit Video-Aufnahmen belegt wird, kümmert ihn wenig. Seine politischen Gegner versucht er einfach aus dem Weg zu räumen. Und während er und seine Vertrauten sich an Russlands Gas- und Öl-Ressourcen bereichern, werden die Ungleichheiten im Land immer stärker sichtbar: Mehr als ein Drittel des Landes hat noch immer keinen Zugang zu Gas, Trinkwasser oder zur Kanalisation.

Dieser Film zeigt auf, wie die Anhänger von Putin seine gefährliche Philosophie von Nationalismus, Religion und Homophobie übernommen haben. Und wie der Opposition fast nichts anderes mehr übrig bleibt, als ins Exil zu flüchten.


Putin for ever, by Jean Michel Carré

Putin for ever, by Jean Michel Carré



Putin told the Arab League that international military intervention was not the way to solve the world's conflicts EPA

More monstrosity: #Putin says #Russia will fight for the right of #Palestinians to their own state | Middle East | News | The Independent

via Vladimir Putin says Russia will fight for the right of Palestinians to their own state | Middle East | News | The Independent.


While Russia openly opposes the stance of US-backed Israel on the Gaza crisis, its position in the Middle East is complicated. Mr Putin is one of Iran’s key allies, but as he spoke on Saturday the core nations of the Arab League engaged in air strikes on the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Putin told the Arab League that international military intervention was not the way to solve the world's conflicts EPA

Putin told the Arab League that international military intervention was not the way to solve the world’s conflicts EPA

To Keep #Ukraine Free, We Need to Keep the #Sanctions on #Putin

This article first appeared on the Atlantic Council site.

Ever since Moscow’s „little green men“ appeared in Crimea, the West has been anxious to provide Russian President Vladimir Putin an „off-ramp“ from his aggression in Ukraine. U.S., French, German and European Union diplomats have made numerous efforts to find a face-saving way for Putin to back off.


For the longest time, however, it seemed that Putin saw no need for an exit. After all, he took Crimea without paying any real price, and the sanctions imposed on Russia for „annexing“ Crimea were small. Furthermore, his hybrid war has yet to achieve its minimal objective: to either remove the pro-Western government in Kiev or compel it to reverse Western-oriented domestic and foreign policies.

This does not mean Kremlin diplomacy has been unwilling to feint in the direction of a peaceful settlement. For instance, after sending the Russian Army into the Donbass in August 2014 to crush Ukraine’s nearly successful counteroffensive against the Moscow-backed insurgency, Putin did sign the Minsk I cease-fire.

However, the Kremlin and its proxies in the Donbass violated that cease-fire so regularly that by February 2015 they had gained control of an additional 500 square kilometers of Ukrainian land. This led to the Minsk II cease-fire that month, but the same pattern persisted. Since then, regular small advances of the Moscow-backed forces have picked up an additional 200 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory.

Unlike in Crimea, Putin’s gains in the Donbass have come at a real cost. First, in the wake of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine in July 2014, Washington and Brussels imposed painful sanctions on Russia’s financial sector. Much to Putin’s surprise, the EU did not fall for Russia’s pseudo-compliance with the cease-fire, renewing sanctions this year.

What’s more, a revamped Ukrainian military is putting up stubborn resistance to the Kremlin-led military campaign, and the result has been slow, hard-fought advances for the „separatists“ and hundreds of dead Russian soldiers. Despite Putin’s massive propaganda campaign vilifying the Petro Poroshenko government in Kiev, the Russian people do not want their soldiers fighting in Ukraine, which is why Putin has resorted to hiding Russian casualties from his people.

Syria may be Putin’s rest stop—if not off-ramp—from the Ukraine crisis. Moscow has already acknowledged sending troops there to prop up the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. In the past few weeks, the Kremlin has flown dozens of transport planes loaded with military hardware to Syria, set up an air base south of Latakia, deployed hundreds of troops to guard that base and begun bombing operations against rebel groups.

Putin has not given up his objectives of reversing Ukraine’s westward course. Perhaps the lull will end after he returns from his trip to the United Nations, and after his expected October meeting with French President François Hollande, Ukrainian President Poroshenko and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But it would be a mistake of historic proportions to indulge him. Sanctions relief should come only when the Kremlin fulfills its Minsk commitments: the withdrawal of all Russian military and heavy equipment and the re-establishment of Ukrainian control over its border with Russia.

Anything less offers Moscow the ability to resume hostilities at any time.

John E. Herbst is director of the Atlantic Council’s Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. He served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006.

The Real Reason #Russia Is ‘Helping’ #Syria / Confused about #Putin’s motives? Look at #Ukraine

Eighteen months ago, when Russia seized Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, confusion prevailed in the West. Today, as Russia sends troops, armor, and aircraft to Syria, we are once again perplexed. On Monday President Vladimir Putin provided the explanation: Russia’s intervention is aimed to defeat ISIS and reduce the flow of refugees to Europe. A review of the last major Russian intervention, in Ukraine, might help us to evaluate this claim.


The superficial links between the two conflicts are obvious. For the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine, a ceasefire is holding. This has allowed Moscow to send special forces from Ukraine to Syria. The naval base in Crimea is now used to project Russian power southwards.

From Moscow’s perspective, there is not much difference between university students protesting in Kyiv for closer ties with the European Union and Islamicist terrorists gaining ground in Syria. In both cases, Russian leaders can, quite understandably, see a coming domestic problem. If people can gather peacefully in Kyiv, why not in Moscow? If Islamic terrorism can work in Syria, why not in southern Russia?

But the more important factor is domestic public opinion. Russia is a television culture, and Russian television news is devoted almost entirely to the world beyond Russia. In the last few days, Russian television has completely changed the subject: from Ukraine to Syria. What must not be mentioned is that Russia has not achieved its goals in Ukraine. The Ukrainian war shows that Russia can fail even when the European Union pays only a very small amount of attention to the conflict. What Russian leaders seem to want in Syria is a war without EU sanctions, which they can win for the viewers at home.

The war in Ukraine was thus never about Ukraine alone. It was always about the destruction of the European project as such. If the European Union fails, then there is no danger that Russians will see Europe as an alternative. If Europe fragments into nation-states, Russia becomes a much stronger player. Thus Russia seeks to destroy the European Union by supporting radicals and populists who oppose European integration and seek a return to the nation-state. Although President Putin spoke of a revived “anti-Nazi coalition,” his friends in Europe include fascists.

So Ukrainian experience gives reason for skepticism about Putin’s claim that Russia is intervening in Syria to help Europe with its refugee problem. The politics might well be exactly the opposite. Having found a powerful ally in its quest to end European integration, the European far right has followed Moscow’s lead on the Ukrainian conflict. But the natural subject of Putin’s allies in Europe is immigration. By supporting the Assad regime, Russia helps to produce the refugees that drive European politics rightward.

President Putin spoke of the “universality” of international law regarding “sovereignty.” And here he was quite right. If Russia were serious about law and sovereignty, President Putin might have announced at the UN that Russia is withdrawing its support from its separatist clients in Ukraine and withdrawing its troops and armor from sovereign Ukrainian territory. If he had said these things, then the world would have had very good reason to listen.

Timothy Snyder is the Housum Professor of History and the author of Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning, released earlier this month.

Russian troops 'fear secret Syria mission' by BBC

#Russian troops fear secret #Syria mission – #BBC News

via Russian troops ‚fear secret Syria mission‘ – BBC News.

(here exclusively the BBC-Report to Russian military mission in Syria, on Facebook blocked through curious manipulation…)

A top Russian human rights body says it has been contacted by Russian soldiers who fear being sent to fight in Syria.

The presidential Human Rights Council told BBC Russian that it was seeking an explanation from the Russian military.

Officers reportedly told some soldiers that they would be sent to fight „in a hot country“. Russia has sent military hardware to Syrian government forces.

Separately, a top Russian security official said nearly 2,400 Russians had joined Islamic State (IS) fighters.

Russian troops 'fear secret Syria mission' by BBC

Russian troops ‚fear secret Syria mission‘ by BBC

1000-fache EU-RU-Sanktionenbrecher

#Boycott the 1000-fold #EU-RU-Sanctions breakers +

Many thanks to Mario Galgano, Radio Vatican, for the hint

Thanks for Translation to Marc Lindt!

The society Swiss-Ukraine calls for all decent and reasonable people to join the boycott against the following two travel agencies.

With their offers for holidays on the Crimea peninsula (occupied by Russia) they break the EU sanctions regime against Russia.

Putin’s Russia has occupied Crimea breaking all international laws and hereby putting in question fundamentally the basic rules of our civilization. On the Crimea peninsula the Russian occupiers constantly violate human rights. Let’s just think about the brutal force against the Crimean Tatar population.

Reasons enough to boycott these two agencies!

Who continues to do business with the occupiers, stabs the EU for its Russia policies in the back, and this solely on the basis of pure greed.

We also call on the EU authorities to put in place the necessary measures to penalize and prevent such activities. breaks 1282 fold the EU sanctions, which have been put in place to prevent business with companies on the Russian occupied Crimea peninsula.

1000-fache EU-RU-Sanktionenbrecher

1000-fache EU-Russland-Sanktionenbrecher

1000 fold breakers of sanctions against Russia;dcid=4;hide_ss=1&

X-fache EU-RU-Sanktionenbrecher

X-fache EU-RU-Sanktionenbrecher

Umpteen times breaker of EU sanctions against Russia

Veröffentlicht am 16.08.2015 Compilation of daily updates from Ukraine's Ministry of Defence.

Wer ist hier der Aggressor???!!! Die Ukraine verteidigt sich gegen Russland und seine Proxies

Bei gewissen Moskau-basierten Korrespondenten – sogar von reputablen Zeitungen wie der NZZ – merkt man die Kreml-Nähe (oder vielleicht auch einfach die Angst, selber in Moskau unter Druck zu geraten). Es entstehen Pseudo-aequidistante, nichtssagende Artikel, die jeglicher Intelligenz spotten und voll auf die hybride Kriegsführung der Russischen Propaganda einzahlen. Sich als Journalist zu einem Instrument Putins zu machen, ist gelinde gesagt, eine Schande!
z.B.: „Kiew argwöhnt, dass Moskau über den rund 400 Kilometer langen Grenzverlauf die Separatisten unvermindert mit Waffen und Kämpfern versorgt“.
=> es ist mittlerweile 100fach bewiesen, dass die Russen mit gigantischen Waffenlieferungen und Tausenden von eigenen Soldaten den Krieg in der Ostukraine führen, die Separatisten sind nur ein Feigenblatt!

Mit einem solchen Kommentar entlarvt sich der Schreiber ohne Zweifel als Putinist und Mittäter, Naivität kann man das nicht nennen!
Artikel in der NZZ vom 18.8.2015 vom Moskau-basierten Daniel Wechlin

(Man beachte im Uebrigen, wie klein das Krebsgeschwür der Russischen Infiltration im Vergleich zur ganzen Ukraine ist)


Russland oder Nordkorea?

Russland unter Putin macht jeden Tag von Neuem von sich reden: die Distanz zum moralischen Tiefpunkt Nordkorea wird immer kleiner (die Liste könnte endlos verlängert werden, hier nur ein Auszug):

  • Überfall durch Russland auf das souveräne Nachbarland Ukraine und damit Verantwortung für weit über 6000 Tote, zehntausende Verletzte und 1.5 Mio Flüchtlinge – unter Missachtung jeglicher internationaler Vereinbarungen
  • Kriegstreiberei mit mehr als 50’000 Russischen Soldaten an der Grenze zur Ukraine und 9000 in der Ukraine mit einem rieseigen Waffenarsenal und mit dem Potenzial, gigantische zusätzliche Flüchtlingsströme Richtung Europa auszulösen
  • gerichtliches Verbot, dass Mütter um gefallene Russische Soldaten trauern dürfen, weil diese – offiziell – nie in der Ukraine kämpften und deshalb nicht gefallen sein dürfen
  • Vernichtung von Lebensmitteln, obwohl die eigene Bevölkerung hungert
  • Verfolgung und Diskriminierung von Homosexuellen und Behinderten, wie der u.erw. Artikel von heute (einfach exemplarisch) zeigt

Wer heute noch Russland- oder Putinversteher ist, unterstützt dieses faschistische Gebahren und macht sich mitschuldig.

Wer heute einfach nur zuschaut und hoft, es geht vorbei und dauernd von „beide Seiten sollen sich in der Ukraine zurückhalten“ plappert (Merkel, Steinmeier, OSCE, etc.) macht sich mitschuldig und wird die Verantwortung dafür übernehmen müssen… oder, gibt es das überhaupt noch „Verantwortung übernehmen“? Das ist ja in der gegenwärtigen Politik der saturierten alt 68er die grosse Abwesende.

Quelle: Artikel (Link) und Bild Sonntagszeitung 16.8.2015

When OSCE stops its silence about complete dead of Minsk ll?

#Minsk ll in fact is complete dead – @OSCE_SMM stop your silence about or you are responsible for the ongoing killing by #Russia!

 ll in fact is complete dead – so long  is hiding this – you are responsible for the ongoing killing by !

this is war, real war and nothing like what is declared in Minsk ll, so stop covering it and hiding the truth abut Russian killings in Ukraine, otherwise OSCE is part of this mechanism that makes this ongoing Russian killing-machinery possible –

OSCE stop to hide the truth – Mins ll is completely dead!

When OSCE stops its silence about complete dead of Minsk ll?

When OSCE stops its silence about complete dead of Minsk ll?

Kremlin wants to disrupt the whole process of European integration of which Ukraine is only one example, says historian and Yale professor Timothy Snyder.

Thanks to Marc Lindt for this article!

Klick here to read the whole interview with Timothy Snyder: There will be no Maidan on Red Square

I case the original disappear: The link to the pdf : Snyder: There will be no Maidan on Red Square

In a few days the EU will very probably prolong the sanctions against Russia, are they working? Are they an effective enough way for the West to contain Russia in Ukraine after the annexation of Crimea and the support of separatism in the east of the country?


We are in the post-post Cold War period.  This is the era when Europeans do (or don’t) realize that the project is liberating and Enriching and requires some effort to defend.


Originally by: Interview by Mirek Tóda for Dennik June 18th, 2015

Portrait of Timothy Snyder – Foto: Vladimír Šimíček

Portrait of Timothy Snyder – Foto: Vladimír Šimíček

Mihail #Šiškin and Sofi #Oksanen Helsinki Lit - you must watch: (english)

Mihail #Šiškin and Sofi #Oksanen Helsinki Lit – you must watch: (english)

via Mihail Šiškin ja Sofi Oksanen Helsinki Lit -kirjallisuusfestivaaleilla | Helsinki Lit -kirjallisuusfestivaali | TV | Areena | Mihail #Šiškin and Sofi #Oksanen Helsinki Lit – you must watch: (english)

Mihail #Šiškin and Sofi #Oksanen Helsinki Lit - you must watch: (english)

Mihail #Šiškin and Sofi #Oksanen Helsinki Lit – you must watch: (english)

The links above are working on a computer, (any system), if you like to watch this on a smartphone or a tablet, please install the requested app, use please one of the following links! Thank you! Yle Areenaa voi käyttää mobiiilaitteilla erillisillä sovelluksilla (iPad, iPhone, ja Android-laitteet). iPhone-sovellus: Android-sovellus: Windows Phone-sovellus:

Russia and Ukraine, War and History by Timothy Snyder, 09. March 2015 at Claremont McKenna College

▶ Timothy Snyder, Monday, March 9, 2015 – YouTube

take this 1.18 hour for listening Prof. Timothy Snyder, published on 09.05.2015, by Claremont McKenna College

Russia and Ukraine, War and History

Timothy Snyder is the Housum Professor of History at Yale University and a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences. He received his doctorate from the University of Oxford in 1997, where he was a British Marshall Scholar. Before joining the faculty at Yale in 2001, he held fellowships in Paris, Vienna, and Warsaw, and an Academy Scholarship at Harvard.

Among his many publications are several award-winning books, all of which have been translated into other languages. His recent book, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010) examines the history of Nazi and Soviet mass killing on the lands between Berlin and Moscow and has won 12 cross-disciplinary awards including the Emerson Prize in the Humanities, a Literature Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the Leipzig Award for European Understanding, and the Hannah Arendt Prize in Political Thought. Bloodlands has been translated into more than thirty languages and was a bestseller in six countries.

Snyder is on the editorial boards of the Journal of Modern European History and East European Politics and Societies. His scholarly articles have appeared in many journals and he writes frequently for major publications around the world including Foreign Affairs, The Nation, and The New Republic.

He is a member of the Committee on Conscience of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and sits on the advisory councils of the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research and other organizations.

Professor Snyder’s talk is sponsored by the Center of Human Rights and the Keck Center for Strategic and International Studies.

A protester walks past a burning tent camp and a fire in the trade union building in Odessa last MayYevgeny Volokin/Reuters

Ukraine claims to foil Kremlin plot for new breakaway state

via Ukraine claims to foil Kremlin plot for new breakaway state.

By Maxim Tucker

„Specially trained groups were asked to play the role of Ukrainian nationalists,“ said Vitaliy Naida, head of the SBU department responsible for intercepting online traffic. They planned to stage attacks on Soviet veterans and distribute videos of the attacks online, on Russian television and using pro-Russian outlets in Odessa.“


EU-FACT-SHEET UKRAINE, about frequently asked questions

Bildschirmfoto 2015-04-29 um 08.52.08




The following issues are enclosed:

Frequently asked questions about Ukraine, the EU’s Eastern Partnership and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement

Published 24. April 2015, in Brussels

„Have the European Union and the West destabilised Ukraine?“

„What has the EU offered Ukraine in real support, beyond words and promises?“

„Is there actually a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine? If not, why support the Minsk Agreements?“

„What is the EU doing about the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine? And what about those Russian convoys?“

„Who is responsible for the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17?“

„Was the so-called ‚referendum‘ in Crimea legitimate?“

„Are Ukraine’s authorities legitimate and representative?“

„Were the „elections“ held in Donetsk and Luhansk legitimate?“

„Was power in Kyiv seized undemocratically in a Western-backed coup? Was the 21 February agreement respected?“

„Are extremists the biggest danger for Ukraine?“

„Are Ethnic Russians in Ukraine under threat?“

2. Questions about the Eastern Partnership

„Are Eastern Partnership and the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement meant to force Ukraine to choose between east and west?“

Netrebko unterstützt die Verbrecher, die MH17 abgeschossen haben

Chronicle of Russian War Crimes in Ukraine – (English)

via Chronicle of Russian War Crimes in Ukraine – (English).

July 17, 2014  – March 6, 2014

INFORMNAPALM is a volunteer initiative to inform both Ukrainian citizens and the foreign public about the crises in Ukraine. We are all volunteers giving our time and efforts for this project. The project team consists of journalists, political scientists, military experts, public figures,  IT specialists, editors, and translators. While the team is mostly Ukrainian we have also welcomed supporters into our ranks from around the world.

The team is committed to fighting for the freedom of Ukraine from the aggression of the Russian Federation in its attempt to break up and dominate Ukraine. Ukraine will choose its own course in history. There are many websites publishing on the situation of Ukraine. We don’t wish to duplicate this work, and we cannot cover everything. Therefore our focus is clearly on the military situation, although we must reflect how the military intertwines with the social, economic and political aspects.

The foreign language platform was first published under the name BurkoNews but now all media is published under the common name of INFORMNAPALM.

Ketchum calls it quits on Russia work | PR Week

via Ketchum calls it quits on Russia work | PR Week.

„Ketchum no longer represents the Russian Federation in the US or Europe with the exception of our office in Moscow,“ the firm said in a statement. „Our partner in the consortium, [Omnicom subsidiary] GPlus, continues to operate under the terms of the contract.“

Ketchum was paid nearly $23 million by the Russian federation from 2006 through mid-2012, according to ProPublica, as well as $17 million by energy giant Gazprom.

The firm declined other comment on the matter.

Bundesrat Mauerer und Putin stossen an in Sotschi während Russland die Krim überfällt

The knive in Ukraine’s back: Switzerland – 90 MCHF arms deal with the Putin regime – it can’t get any more cynical!

…other MP’s consider the export as legitimate. “The Swiss Federal Council hasn’t bent the law”, says SVP Member of Parliament Maximilian Reimann and reckons that Switzerland should not be “holier than the Pope” in this matter. His Party colleague Hans Fehr: “it is imperative for Switzerland to be able to defend itself as a sovereign State. We hence need a defense industry with export capabilities.”

Source: Faiban Eberhard, Sonntagszeitung “Mitten im Krieg umgeht die Schweiz Russland-Sanktionen” dated Sunday, March 8th, 2015

While the Putin regime forces an aggressive Hybrid war upon Ukraine as a sovereign country, Switzerland delivers for 90 MCHF top notch high-tech camouflage equipment to the law breaking regime of Putin, and Swiss SVP politicians, claiming regularly to be top patriots, justify this with the notion that Switzerland as a sovereign country was depending on such business, to stay defensible…

With this gigantic deal, consisting of unique, modern high-tech camouflage material, Switzerland supports the Superpower Russia in its aggressive war in a very relevant way and hereby weakens much smaller Ukraine, which is trying to defend its sovereignty paying an enormous price in terms of casualties.

Translation: Marc Lindt

See also:

Association Switzerland-Ukraine, Switzerland office, Simon Gerber

Swiss Minister and former OSCE-president Burkhalter hand in hand with Russian foreign minister

Swiss Minister and former OSCE-president Burkhalter hand in hand with Russian foreign minister

Switzerland expands sanctions against Russia over Ukraine war – watch on –

via Switzerland expands sanctions against Russia over Ukraine war – watch on –

A further 19 individuals and 9 organisations will now face banking and travel restrictions, bringing Switzerland into line with the European Union. Last month HSBC’s Swiss office was accused of supporting billionaire associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

#Czech Republic sold #Russia modern American weapons Чехия продала России современное американское оружие – Rzeczpospolita | Новое Время

Such acts are unmistakable hard evidence benchmarks for #Europeans „spirit“. Who is a liar, who violates law, wehre is corruption, where is failure or lack of control?

Thanks to

USOSCE Statements | United States Mission to the OSCE

USOSCE Statements | United States Mission to the OSCE.

Resolving the Russia-Ukraine crisis will require Russia to make a fundamental decision to recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and support peace.

To resolve this crisis, Russia must decide to support peace

Ongoing Violations by the Russian Federation in Ukraine | As delivered by Chargé d’Affaires Kate Byrnes a.i. to the Permanent Council, Vienna | February 26, 2015 | Comment on this item on our Facebook page

One year ago, the corrupt former President of Ukraine abandoned his office and the people of Ukraine took their opportunity to choose a future based on democracy, free trade, and rule of law.

In response, Russia occupied and attempted to annex a portion of Ukraine’s sovereign territory, where it has systematically persecuted ethnic minorities and others who oppose the occupation.

It has also sparked a conflict that has left more than 5,700 people dead, and displaced nearly 1.5 million.

During the course of the conflict, Ukraine – supported by the international community – has made several efforts to find diplomatic solutions to the crisis – in Geneva, Normandy, Berlin, Moscow and Minsk.

A very clear and sobering pattern has developed.

After intense diplomatic effort, an agreement is reached. Both sides make commitments, but only one side implements them. Time and again Russia and the separatists it backs fail to implement their commitments.

A pattern repeating that we’ve seen too many times already

We welcomed the latest round of intensive diplomacy aimed at finding a lasting and peaceful resolution to the conflict, which culminated in the February 12 Minsk package of implementation measures that provided for a full ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons, unfettered access by the Special Monitoring Mission, and the full implementation of the September 2014 Minsk agreements. Unfortunately, the past two weeks have demonstrated a repeat of the pattern that we have witnessed too many times already, as Russia and the separatists it backs have repeatedly violated the ceasefire and refused the SMM unfettered and unrestricted access to separatist-controlled areas.

Russia-backed separatist forces captured Debaltseve on February 20, five days after the ceasefire went into effect on February 15.

Russian military personnel have participated in the recent attacks on Debaltseve and Vuhlehirsk, a town located nearby.

The separatists have denied the Special Monitoring Mission access to Debaltseve, with the exception of a single 30 minute visit while the SMM escorted an ICRC relief convoy on February 21.

Notably, an SMM UAV flying over Debaltseve on February 21 recorded a significant military presence, including armored personnel carriers, a truck that may have been carrying missiles, and three artillery positions.

The Normandy format ministers met on February 24, and issued a joint statement calling yet again for a comprehensive ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and full access for OSCE monitors to all areas. Following this latest good faith effort by Ukraine, France, and Germany to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, we once again look to Russia and the separatists to live up to their commitments.

The actions taken by Russia and the separatists suggest instead an effort to consolidate the ground the separatists gained in recent weeks, and preparations for further military action.

Chipping away at Mariupol’s defenses in advance of an assault

The Russian military continues to provide equipment, including tanks and artillery, to separatist forces inside Ukraine. Separatist associated heavy artillery and combat elements remain deployed in and around Debaltseve. Separatist or Russian military elements, including trucks and artillery batteries, are on the outskirts of Mariupol. The SMM has reported numerous ceasefire violations in recent days, and we are concerned that Russia and the separatists intend to begin chipping away at Ukrainian defenses around Mariupol in advance of an assault.

If Russia wants to demonstrate to the international community that this is not the case, Russia and the separatists need to implement a genuine ceasefire and allow the SMM access to monitor the withdrawal of heavy weapons.

On February 25, Foreign Minister Lavrov claimed that a withdrawal of heavy weapons is underway in separatist-controlled areas. He criticized the SMM for not being present to monitor the alleged withdrawal despite the fact that it is the Russia-backed separatists who have repeatedly denied access to the SMM.

For effective monitoring of the withdrawal of heavy weapons to occur, Russia and the separatists must provide the SMM with full information on what heavy weapons they have in eastern Ukraine, where these weapons are now, which routes will be used to withdraw them, and where they will be located after they have been withdrawn.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, while the United States hopes that this time Russia and the separatists will follow through on their commitments, we must also remain clear-eyed about the situation in eastern Ukraine. The Russia-backed separatists now have a fighting force numbering in the hundreds of tanks, armored vehicles, heavy artillery pieces, and other military vehicles. Pro-Russia separatists now have a larger and better equipped fighting force than many of the countries represented around this table.

The separatists are an instrument of Russian national power

The separatist movement at this point is a de facto extension of the Russian military and an instrument of Russian national power. The Russian military has put in place a robust command structure in eastern Ukraine, ranging from Russian General Officers overseeing operations down to junior officers. Russian personnel conduct communications, intelligence gathering, direct military operations, and help correct artillery fire. Separatist fighters have publicly acknowledged that they are operating under instructions from Moscow.

As if this is not enough, we have seen attempts to bring the conflict to Ukrainian cities far from the front lines.

Most recently, a bomb exploded during a February 22 Maidan commemoration in Kharkiv.

The explosion – which occurred just 100 meters from an SMM observation team – killed four people, including two teenagers, and injured several more. Ukrainian authorities have disclosed that there were several other unsuccessful terrorist attempts that day. There have been bombings in Odesa and attempted bombings in Kyiv and Lviv. The United States condemns these efforts.

Mr. Chair, let us also recall that Russia’s violation of international law and defiance of OSCE principles and commitments includes its occupation and attempt to annex Crimea, which remains a part of Ukraine.

Resolving the Russia-Ukraine crisis will require Russia to make a fundamental decision to recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and support peace.

Russia and the separatists it backs must stop their aggression in eastern Ukraine and contribute to a genuine ceasefire; Russia and the separatists it backs must allow the SMM unfettered access to all areas under their control; and, Russia and the separatists it backs must withdraw heavy weapons from the conflict zone in a verifiable manner.

Should Russia fail to live up to its international commitments, there will be further consequences.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.