'It’s Nato that’s empire-building, not Putin' - Peter Hitchens

RUSSIA It’s Nato that’s empire-building, not Putin Two sides are required for a New Cold War — and there is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe Peter Hitchens 7 March 2015 "Rapid Trident" Military Exercises In Western Ukraine Just for once, let us try this argument with an open mind, employing arithmetic and geography and going easy on the adjectives. Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding? There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine. From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors, wrote back in 1997, ‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’ This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, Nato, like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir Putin asked sulkily, ‘Against whom is this expansion intended?’ I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which Nato was founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now? Why does it even still exist? There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe. Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either Nato or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of defensible borders. But we do not do this. Instead we have a noisy pseudo-moral crusade, which would not withstand five minutes of serious consideration. Mr Putin’s state is, beyond doubt, a sinister tyranny. But so is Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey, which locks up far more journalists than does Russia. Turkey is an officially respectable Nato member, 40 years after seizing northern Cyprus, which it still occupies, in an almost exact precedent for Russia’s seizure of Crimea. If Putin disgusts us so much, then why are we and the USA happy to do business with Erdogan, and also to fawn upon Saudi Arabia and China?  [A sinister tyranny?  Guy's off his head.  For sinister tyranny, check out the British mass surveillance, infiltration of political groups, US rendition, torture etc.] Contrary to myth, the expansion of the EU into the former communist world has not magically brought universal peace, love and prosperity. Croatia’s economy has actually gone backwards since it joined. Corruption still exists in large parts of the EU’s new south-eastern territories, and I am not sure that the rule of law could be said to have been properly established there. So the idea that the recruitment of Ukraine to the ‘West’ will magically turn that troubled nation into a sunny paradise of freedom, probity and wealth is perhaps a little idealistic, not to say mistaken.  [Foreigners will make a sh*tload of money out of Ukraine.  So the money part's right.] It is all so much clearer if we realise that this quarrel is about power and land, not virtue. In truth, much of the eastward expansion of Nato was caused by the EU’s initial unwillingness to take in backward, bankrupt and corrupt refugee states from the old Warsaw Pact. The policy could be summed up as ‘We won’t buy your tomatoes, but if it makes you happy you can shelter under our nuclear umbrella’. The promise was an empty assurance against a nonexistent threat. But an accidental arrangement hardened into a real confrontation. The less supine Russia was, the more its actions were interpreted as aggression in the West. Boris Yeltsin permitted western interests to rape his country, and did little to assert Russian power. So though he bombarded his own parliament, conducted a grisly war in Chechnya, raised corruption to Olympic levels and shamelessly rigged his own re-election, he yet remained a popular guest in western capitals and summits. Vladimir Putin’s similar sins, by contrast, provide a pretext for ostracism and historically illiterate comparisons between him and Hitler.  [ *Eyeroll*  How sneaky is this?  Now Putin is another Yeltsin?  Doubt that, or the West would love him.  It's precisely because he's got rid of all the leeches that he's vilified by the West.] This is because of his increasing avowal of Russian sovereignty, and of an independent foreign policy. There have been many East-West squabbles and scrimmages, not all of them Russia’s fault. But the New Cold War really began in 2011, after Mr Putin dared to frustrate western — and Saudi — policy in Syria. George Friedman, the noted US intelligence and security expert, thinks Russia badly underestimated the level of American fury this would provoke. As Mr Friedman recently told the Moscow newspaper Kommersant, ‘It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and thought about what it [Russia] wants to see happen least of all: instability in Ukraine.’  [Hey, that's Stratfor Friedman.] Mr Friedman (no Putin stooge) also rather engagingly agrees with Moscow that overthrow last February of Viktor Yanukovych was ‘the most blatant coup in history’. He is of course correct, as anyone unclouded by passion can see. The test of any action by your own side is to ask what you would think of it if the other side did it. If Russia didn’t grasp how angry Washington would get over Syria, did the West realise how furiously Russia would respond to the EU Association Agreement and to the fall of Yanukovych? Perhaps not. Fearing above all the irrecoverable loss to Nato of its treasured naval station in Sevastopol, Russia reacted. After 23 years of sullenly appeasing the West, Moscow finally said ‘enough’. Since we’re all supposed to be against appeasement, shouldn’t we find this action understandable [Sneaky barb.] in a sovereign nation, even if we cannot actually praise it? And can anyone explain to me precisely why Britain, of all countries, should be siding with the expansion of the European Union and Nato into this dangerous and unstable part of the world? http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9459602/its-nato-thats-empire-building-not-putin/ COMMENT Thought it was finally a positive article about Russia, but it's just another article with anti-Russian barbs.  Didn't really enjoy this one.  Found it rather depressing. No way has Syria got anything at all to do with the behaviour of US-NATO in Ukraine.   US tit-for-tat regarding Syria is a load of horse manure.  The Americans have been pouring money and NGOs into Ukraine for decades, to install themselves in Ukraine, because it's part of their overall strategy for that region. Why Britain of all countries should be siding with expansion of the EU & NATO?  For the same reasons Britain was fighting Russians in that part of the world in the mid 1800s:  imperialism.

Nemtsov, Crimea & Western Hypocrisy

GOOGLE TRANSLATION A black day for Russia and Europe February 28, 2015 Megeve: Boris Nemtsov was a truly fearless political fighter with strong convictions and a confidence that the ideals he stood for, sooner or later, would win and form a better Russia.  [Oh, please.  Spare us the 'high ideals' propaganda and put away the violin.] He was murdered most likely to silence him. His critical and clear voice was uncomfortable for the strong and dark interests which unfortunately means more and more in today's Russia. [We don't know who murdered him.  Guy was a womaniser by the look of things, so it could even have been some crazed boyfriend.  But what we do know is that the Kremlin is unlikely to knock off a minor player, ahead of a protest (near the Kremlin), so that the likes of McFaul & Bildt can have a media field day.] And there were probably actually no other way to silence Boris on. Others let themselves might be intimidated - it did not work on him.  [The motive is an assumption.  Not fact.  We don't know why he was killed.] When he occasionally arrested for participating in a demonstration declared illegal, he spent time in jail for spreading their beliefs and information to the police and guards. And had, as far as I remember he told me, considerable success with this.  [Does Bildt express the same care-factor for the Swedish protesters that were charged at by mounted police?  Or is it just some minor Russian opposition puppet that's worthy of the subsequent, and convenient, Western media hype?] We got to know each other first in the Russian democracy birth in the early 1990s. He belonged to the leader of the Democratic Party which then were set up and became the reform policy leading carriers. Along with Anatoly Chubais, he was its leading force. And then we had contact. In recent years, he has almost always been to spend an autumn weekend in Visby, along with friends from Europe and the United States of Jarl Hjalmarsson Foundation's annual meeting. His crystal clear analysis of developments in Russia has been important to many of us. In one little book after the other, he with difficulty been distributed across Russia, he has gone on the attack against the regime's lies and its corruption. A small writing the other year on the luxury and splendor that surrounds President Putin was extremely unpopular in the Kremlin. He was a friend of Ukraine since years back, albeit not by the regime Yanukovich there. And when the militant nationalism was trumpeted in connection with the aggression and the takeover of the Crimean a year ago he was one of the voices that stood up for Ukraine's right.  [Instead of crying about 'aggressor' Russia inciting 'righteous' Ukraine nationalism (and therefore Russia being responsible for Ukraine aggression, which is alluded to as apology for murderous neo-Nazi Ukraine thugs), why wasn't this 'liberty loving' crusader protesting the murder of his independence seeking compatriots - the ethnic-Russian majority civilians in eastern Ukraine (which, by the way, is historically Russian - hence 'Novorossiya').  Edit:  On subsequent reading of the 'friend of Ukraine' and 'militant nationalism was trumpeted in connection with the aggression' blah blah blah 'takeover of Crimea', it looks as though I have misunderstood whose 'aggression' and 'militant nationalism' Bilt was referring to. Talk about twisting facts and history to suit oneself.  Crimea is Russian.  Novorossiya is Russian.  And probably most of what has become 'Ukraine', post Soviet era, is historically Russian. 'Russian' 'militant nationalism' and 'aggression' is Russia stepping up to protect people in Crimea from the consequences of having murderous neo-Nazi thugs running amok and potentially subjecting Crimeans to (historically CIA fostered and Nazi collaborator fomented) neo-Nazi militant nationalism and hostility; thugs that were associated with the Ukraine puppet politicians and were supported by the US interlopers, because they're useful idiots. Furthermore, Slavic peoples of Europe have been divided by enemies who have exploited useful idiots who foster regional loyalties and separatist identities, rather than pan Slavic nationalism, because 'divide and conquer' is an effective take-down strategy. Why wasn't Nemtsov denouncing the West for backing the puppet Kiev & neo-Nazi murder of civilians?  MILITANT NEO-NAZI AGGRESSON was HARNESSED by the CIA & THE WEST & EXPLOITATION OF UKRAINE NATIONALISM was employed for a thug OVERTHROW of an ELECTED UKRAINE GOVT.  But this isn't denounced & the murder of the ethnic Russians in the east isn't denounced.  But Russia is denounced?  The only aggression is US-NATO-EU aggression and US-NATO-EU backed aggression enacted by Ukraine nationalist thugs - oddly, in a country run by FOREIGNERS.] Perhaps it is an irony of fate that he was killed exactly one year after the Crimean invasion launched by special forces early in the morning took over control of the regional parliament in Simferopol.   [Russians protecting Crimean Russians (who voted overwhelmingly to INTEGRATE with Russia) is Bildt's idea of an 'invasion'?  Nah, he and the West are just manipulating the narrative to suit their anti-Russian scaremongering, so that Western banking & corporate interest and NATO (strategic interests) can continue to mount their aggression against Russia, while the taxpayer is burdened with cuts to welfare and services, in order to finance more Western military spending and greed-based aggression, serving the interests of the wealthy banking, energy, and hedge fund elites.] On social media, I see reports that he was now working with a new scripture to expose the regime's lies about the war in the Donbass and how it has been driven and supported by the Kremlin. And it seems very likely.  [Social media?  Is that all the evidence Bilt and the West have?  Gee, it's like all those fake 'Russian army' invading Ukraine announcements we've had over and over and over again.  The West is a joke.  Seriously.  The West might have got away with this when all people had to rely on was maybe a daily newspaper or two, but there's a host of information available and the lies and propaganda the West keeps churning out do more to discredit the West than their targets.] A new generation has partially managed to take over the leadership of the weak but important Russian opposition, but Boris Nemtsov was always there with and remained a name with distinguished reputation and credibility. https://carlbildt.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/en-svart-dag-for-ryssland-och-europa/ INFO Jarl Hjalmarson Foundation Name = homage to the late Moderate Party Chairman Jarl Hjalmarson Chairman  =  Göran Lennmarker, former MP Former: Gunnar Hökmark, MEP Swedish former MFA, Margaretha af Ugglas ‘democracy foundation’ Closely linked to Moderate Party Founded 1994 (when Moderate Party supported newly independent Baltic countries) Member of the Centre for European Studies official foundation/think tank of the European People's Party Purpose: training of politicians active in the Moderate Party’s sister parties women youth engaged democratic political party workings educational programs & how to work politically know-how taught Operates in Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey & Balkans. Also:  Belarus, Africa & Latin America =  regional projects. [SOURCE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarl_Hjalmarson_Foundation COMMENT A black day for Russia and Europe.  Exaggerating much, Carl?  LOL Of course, Carl Bidlt, the Eurocentric mob, UK politicians, the UK professional political chorus (ex MI6, some humanitarian bandwagon medico and anointed opinion-shaper, a lapdog press etc) and the USA team (Obama, McCain (who was 'heartbroken' LMAO), McFaul and the US ambassador in Russia dashing over for a photo-op) have all jumped on the suspiciously timed & located killing of a minor Russian opposition figure who was insignificant in elections and polls. McFaul's message still gives me the giggles.  Mein Gott, is that a touch of Killary I've got happening?  Guess I'm not the only one suspecting a US hand in the shooting of Nemtsov, just prior to a protest that had been arranged. Jarl Hjalmarson Foundation must be Sweden's version of the Freedom House trojan for dislodging those that are not Western puppets and appointing Western puppets in their place, using the guise of bringing 'democracy' to the targets of their exploitation:  in this case, women and youths. The aim in the Baltics was to get a firm hold of the politics and commerce, and to maintain a grip while denying the Russians a stake in the action, in any way possible. Pretty much the same deal everywhere else, however far-flung.  It's about keeping the regions in the sphere of American / Western corporate and military interest influence.  Funny how Bildt refers to the 'regime' and it's 'corruption' and the splendour the guy that got whacked reckons Putin's living in.   How, exactly, is this different to the riches of the 1% puppet-masters in the West, the benefits to their political puppets in Western politics, the fascist control that is capitalist government protecting the interest of those at the top, and the corruption of 'democracy', cronyism and so on that is the political reality of Western 'democratic' regimes? Oh, and this is what happens to protesters in a democracy (Sweden): Police spokeswoman Ewa-Gun Westford said officers on horseback chased rock-throwing demonstrators who were "causing violent riots" in Malmo, Sweden's third-largest city. Swedish media published photos of people on the ground as police horses raced over them down a street. [Daily Mail] Source:  Daily Mail Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. So somebody is throwing rocks somewhere during this protest and mounted police decide to charge ... right through a crowd of protesters?  Riiiiiight. When not charging over protesters on horseback or belting, capsicum spraying or otherwise abusing protesters, the West also imprisons protesters and does sneaky stuff like giving them bail (on charges they'll never pursue), so that the people charged can be excluded from participating in protests (which is their political right).  And it infiltrates dissenters.  Check out UK.  ............................................................ The West's Crimean 'annexation': Supreme Council of Crimea Determined:  ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych (2014 Ukraine): i)   a coup ii) interim govt in Kiev therefore illegitimate Referendum (March 2014)  = response to these developments Result =  96.77% vote (83.% turnout) Crimea CHOSE:  integration of region into Russian Federation Source:  Wikipedia [Edit = reference to 'Ukraine' earlier, in error.  Probably half asleep composing this rant. Noticed, also, that I'd misunderstood what Bilt was getting at.]

CRIMEA

CRIMEA Scythians (Scytho-Cimmerians) Tauri Greeks Romans Goths Huns Bulgars Kipchaks  Khazars Kievan Rus + Byzantium [Modern Belarus, Ukraine & Russia all claim Kievan Rus  inheritance] Mongol (Golden Horde) Venetians + Genovese (13th C. - ie 1200s) Crimean Khanate + Ottoman Empire (15thC. to 18thC. ie 1700s) Russian Empire (1783) Catherine the Great Crimean Autonomous            Soviet Socialist Republic (1921) Russian    SSR* (1945-1954)    Soviet Socialist Republic Ukrainian  SSR* (1954-1991)   Soviet Socialist Republic Autonomous Republic (Ukraine) 1991-2014) Russian Federation in (2014) [Wikipedia]

GLOBAL OFFENSIVE BY U.S. IMPERIALISM

Crimea Referendum: the Hidden Truth Behind the U.S.-Russia Rivalry The next stage in the global offensive by U.S. imperialism  Brian Becker Imperialism, however, isn’t fundamentally an ideological program or project. It is a global economic system that compels the banks and corporations to dominate every piece of potential real estate for the benefit of those same entities. ... Source - Global Research - here.

Lenin Characteristics of the imperialist epoch - concentration of production growth of monopolistic trusts and cartels importance of the export of capital (compared with the export of commodities) internationalisation of capitalist economic relations struggle between the rival European powers to partition the world market parasitism and decay of capitalism Kautsky Argued wrong to "identify with imperialism all the phenomena of present-day capitalism — ": cartels protection domination of the financiers colonial policy According 'to Kautsky, imperialism was not a "phase" of capitalist economic development but a "special policy" of capital ...': "striving of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex ever bigger areas of agrarian territory irrespective of what nations inhabit them". 'Kautsky argued that this "special policy" might be superseded after the world war by a new policy': 'the extension of the policy of the cartels to foreign policy, the phase of ultra-imperialism' "i.e., the peaceful uniting of all the rival finance groups into a single,world-wide trust and the "abolition of imperialism through a holy alliance of the imperialists". 'Lenin sought to counter this argument by demonstrating that imperialism was the highest and last stage of the development of capitalism.' Source - DSP - here.

Karl Johann Kautsky ( 1854 –1938) was a Czech-German philosopher, journalist, and Marxist theoretician. Kautsky was recognized as among the most authoritative promulgators of Orthodox Marxism after the death of Friedrich Engels in 1895 until the coming of World War I in 1914 and was called by some the "Pope of Marxism." Following the war, Kautsky was an outspoken critic of the Bolshevik Revolution and its excesses, engaging in polemics with V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky on the nature of the Soviet state. He saw the Bolsheviks (or Communists) as a conspiratorial organization that had gained power by a coup and initiated revolutionary changes for which there was no economic rationale in Russia. Karl Kautsky died October 17, 1938 in Amsterdam. His son, Benedikt Kautsky (de) spent seven years in concentration camps, while his wife Luise Kautsky died in Auschwitz.  Kautsky is remembered, in addition to his anti-Bolshevik polemics, for his editing and publication of Marx's Capital, Volume IV (usually published as "Theories of Surplus Value"). Source - Wikipedia - here. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) (1870 – 1924) was a Russian communist revolutionary, politician and political theorist. He served as the leader of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic from 1917, and then concurrently as Premier of the Soviet Union from 1922-[1924]. Under his administration... Russian Empire ... replaced by the Soviet Union, a single-party constitutionally socialist state; all wealth including land, industry and business were nationalized. Based in Marxism, his theoretical contributions to Marxist thought are known as Leninism. Died aged 53. Chinese premier Sun Yat-sen ... said: Through the ages of world history, thousands of leaders and scholars appeared who spoke eloquent words, but these remained words. You, Lenin, were an exception. You not only spoke and taught us, but translated your words into deeds. You created a new country. You showed us the road of joint struggle... You, great man that you are, will live on in the memories of the oppressed people through the centuries. Petrograd was renamed Leningrad in his honour. Source - Wikipedia - here.

So are we living an an age of ultra-imperialism?

I think we are, but I don't think it matters whether it is a progression of capitalism to it's logical conclusion or if it is the result of a 'special policy'.

How amazing is it that people sat around working out these theories?  

Unsure what the mutual disdain was about:

Kautsky ... castigated Lenin in his 1934 work Marxism and Bolshevism: Democracy and Dictatorship: "The Bolsheviki under Lenin's leadership, however, succeeded in capturing control of the armed forces in Petrograd and later in Moscow and thus laid the foundation for a new dictatorship in place of the old Czarist dictatorship."

Both Lenin and Trotsky, however, defended the Bolshevik Revolution as a legitimate and historic social upheaval akin to the French Revolution, casting themselves and the Bolsheviks in the role of the Jacobins, and viewing the "opportunism" of Kautsky and similar figures as a function of "social bribery" rooted in their increasing intimacy with the privileged classes. [wikipedia]

Even though I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm going to side with Lenin and Trotsy, because Lenin got past the theorising and actually got the job done.

Why do these guys take this stuff so seriously?  

What's wrong with trying something just to see if it works, without over-thinking it or expecting it to be some absolute solution?

So is it possible to escape 'imperialism'?  

To my way of thinking, it's impossible.  All you can change is the rulers and the rules.

Trying to picture global communism but it's impossible for me to imagine.  

What would happen?  

Wouldn't it still be the same thing, in that nations would still be vying for resources, profit, territory, military supremacy ... etc?

The articles are worthwhile looking at.  Might have to revisit the 'Imperialism Highest Stage ...' article (Source - DSP - here) because my concentration and ability to take things in is fairly limited.  LOL

P.S.  Thought about it some more doing the dishes ... I'm with Lenin again.  

It's a progression:   imperialism is the final stage of capitalism.

The very nature of capitalism is MORE, MORE, MORE ... more stuff, more consumption, more sales, more profits, more markets ... and, as cartels and monopolies grow out of that, doesn't that just feed into the MORE, and MORE, and MORE nature of the beast (only the MORE is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer powerful players) ... so it's a cycle that feeds on itself to a logical conclusion:  concentration and control.

After bashing that out, I'm having second thoughts ... what if I'm wrong?  LOL.

Nope, I'm sticking with that. 

INDEPENDENT UK - Alleged secret German-Russian 'land for gas' negotiations

Independent Article

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/land-for-gas-secret-german-deal-could-end-ukraine-crisis-9638764.html

Independent claims they can reveal Merkel and Putin had been working on a secret deal to 'broker a peaceful solution' and to end tensions over Ukraine.

Aim is twofold:

1. Stabilise Ukraine borders; and
2. Secure new energy agreement (gas) to lift Ukraine economy.

The deal supposedly hinges on:

1. UN and international community recognising Crimean independence.
2. Russia withdrawing financial aid to East Ukraine independence supporters.
3. If I understand correctly, East Ukraine to receive some 'devolved' (delegated) powers.
4. Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO.
5. Russia agreeing not to 'block or interfere' with Ukraine's newly signed trade agreement with the EU.
6. Russia offering a long-term Gazprom future gas supply agreement.  Ukraine expected to run out of gas by winter, which would be 'ruin' economically and socially.
7. Russia to compensate Ukraine with $1 billion financial package for loss of rent Ukraine would have received from Russia stationing its fleets at Crimean ports, to the independence vote in March.

The deal is supposedly still on the table and the only negotiation hitch holding things up is the MH17 investigation.

The deal disclosure sounds like garbage to me.

For starters, the Russians deny financing the East Ukraine independence supporters.

Cannot see how the Russians could 'block' or 'interfere' with an EU trade agreement, that broke US-controlled and IMF reamed Ukraine has signed up for.

The Gazprom deal doesn't sound right either.  Ukraine hasn't paid their gas bill.  From what I read elsewhere, they were told by the US not to.  Russia cut off the supply.  But all this gas drama is then playing into US hands.  And let's not forget who has plenty of shale gas:  US.  And US is bent on selling Europe infrastructure and gas.  So there's no way I believe there's a Gazprom gas deal being negotiated.

The billion dollar 'compensation' to non-paying gas customer, Ukraine, sounds laughable.

Look forward to seeing how this piece of news pans out.  LOL

EU-UN TOOTH FAIRY - UKRAINE - RUSSIA

Summary: 18 July 2014, Brussels - Council of the European Union Background on the Foreign Affairs Council 22 July 2014 in Brussels The Council will start at 9.30, presided by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton. The Council will first exchange views on the situation in Ukraine. [...] The Council will take stock of the follow up given on the agreement at the European Council of 16 July to expand the EU restrictive measures, as well as on further diplomatic steps as outlined by Heads of State and Government and discuss next steps. In particular, the European Council stressed again the EU's support for a peaceful settlement of the crisis in Ukraine and urged agreement on a genuine and sustainable cease-fire to create the conditions for the implementation of President Poroshenko's peace plan. It regretted that the requested steps set out in the 27 June conclusions have not been adequately taken and agreed to expand the restrictive measures. It also requested the European Investment Bank to suspend the signature of new financing operations in the Russian Federation and invited the Commission to reassess EU-Russia cooperation programmes. (see European Council conclusions). The Council also is set to formally establish an EU civilian mission under the Common Security and Defence Policy, which will advise on a revised strategy for the civilian security sector in Ukraine, including the police and national guard, and mentor the implementation of reforms. The European Council of 26/27 June saw the signing of the remainder of the Association Agreement/DCFTA with Ukraine. EU leaders urged the Russian Federation to actively use its influence over illegally armed groups and to stop the flow of weapons and militants across the border, in order to achieve rapid and tangible results in de-escalation. In addition, the European Council set out its expectations on four steps towards de-escalation, underlining the EU's readiness to adopt further restrictive measures (see European Council conclusions, paras 29-33). A trilateral meeting between the EU, Ukraine and Russia was held on 11 July in Brussels in order to consult on the implementation of the recently signed Association Agreement/DCFTA and to explore its possible economic effects on Russia. The participants agreed to launch a consultation mechanism with primary focus on technical regulations, standards, customs administration, conformity assessment procedures and sanitary and phytosanitary measures arising from the implementation of the AA/DCFTA. The EU strongly condemns the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and refuses to recognise it. As part of the EU's non-recognition policy, imports of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol into the EU have been prohibited unless they have Ukrainian certificates. In response to the crisis in Ukraine, several summit-level meetings involving Russia have been cancelled and negotiations on visa matters and a new agreement with Russia have been suspended. The EU has also targeted 72 persons responsible for actions that threaten or undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine with an asset freeze and a travel ban. Two confiscated entities in Crimea are also subject to an asset freeze. EU leaders have reiterated several times that further steps by Russia to destabilise the situation in Ukraine will lead to additional and far reaching consequences for relations between the EU (and its member states) and the Russian Federation in a broad range of economic areas. The EU supports the Ukrainian economy as set out in the Commission's package of 5 March. Disbursements of the macro-financial assistance (up to € 1.6 bn) and of EU assistance under the state-building contract (up to € 355m) have started. At the same time, the Commission has made it clear that it stands ready to continue to act as a mediator between Ukraine and Russia and their respective energy companies on gas supplies, transit and prices. ...extract only...rest @... SOURCE - EU-UN - here.

------------------------------------------------
COMMENT

[Iraq, Gaza & Syria also get a mention.]

Looks like EU's hitting the Russians economically.

The move with the certification of goods from Crimea is evil genius.

And check out the whopping  €1.6 billion ($2.16 billion) earmarked financial assistance as well as €355 million (abt $480 million) 'state building' assistance.

Is that the EU tooth fairy at work or is it something else?

The EU acting as 'mediator' should be fun times to be had by all; the EU's not exactly impartial.

US & EU - Hit Russia with further sanctions

Reuters Article

U.S. hits oil giant Rosneft, other firms with toughest Russia sanctions

By Anna Yukhananov and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:29pm EDT

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama imposed the biggest package of U.S. economic sanctions yet on Russia on Wednesday, hitting Russia's largest oil producer Rosneft (ROSN.MM) and other energy, financial and defense firms, with what he called significant but targeted penalties.

Obama's latest round of sanctions came after close consultations with European leaders, who announced a less-ambitious package. The ultimate impact of the U.S. sanctions likely depends on whether the European Union follows suit.

The extent of the sanctions against key parts of the Russian energy and financial industry, including Gazprombank (GZPRI.RTS), was intended to serve notice to Moscow that its refusal to curb violence in eastern Ukraine has consequences.

The targeted companies also include Russia's second-largest gas producer, Novatek (NVTK.MM), Vnesheconombank, or VEB, a state-owned bank that acts as payment agent for the Russian government, and eight arms firms.

The U.S. Treasury Department said the measures effectively closed medium- and long-term dollar funding to the two banks and energy companies. But the sanctions did not freeze those four companies' assets, or otherwise prohibit U.S. firms or companies from doing business with them. [WOULD NOT RECOMMEND BUSINESS IN USA ... LOL]

It is the first time the United States has imposed such narrowly targeted measures as it seeks the maximum impact on Russia, a huge energy producer, while avoiding any immediate shock to global oil markets or U.S. and EU companies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking in Brasilia, said the sanctions would damage U.S. energy companies, and bring relations with Russia to a "dead end."
...

POSSIBLE FURTHER SANCTIONS

Obama said the United States could impose further sanctions if Russia did not take concrete steps to ease the conflict.

The United States has already imposed several rounds of sanctions on Russian and Ukrainian senior officials since the start of the violence, including Rosneft's chief executive, Igor Sechin. But the sanctions have had only a limited impact on the Russian energy industry, a cornerstone of the country's $2 trillion economy.

It is not yet clear how large an impact the new measures will have on Rosneft ...

Sechin, who like Putin was speaking in Brasilia, said the sanctions would not affect Rosneft's current project with ExxonMobil (XOM.N), but would damage the shareholders of U.S. companies cooperating with Rosneft.

The new sanctions would not appear to prevent Rosneft from selling its oil, but may raise questions about the company’s more than $15 billion worth of oil-related finance arrangements with companies including BP (BP.L), which now owns almost a fifth of Rosneft, and Glencore.

Morgan Stanley (MS.N), which is selling the majority of its global physical oil trading operations to Rosneft, declined to comment.

The sanctions stopped short of targeting Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM), the world's largest natural gas producer and provider of much of Europe's energy supplies. Gazprombank is 36 percent-owned by Gazprom.  [Gazprom, as I understand, only provides about 30% of European energy supplies.]

RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE
...
The new measures were announced on the same day that EU leaders met in Brussels and agreed to expand their own sanctions on Russia.

The new U.S. sanctions also include Feodosiya Enterprises, a shipping facility in Crimea, and senior Russian officials, several of whom had already been targeted by the European Union.
...
The new sanctions were unlikely to please Republican lawmakers, many of whom have been calling for the imposition of sanctions on entire Russian industries, rather than specific companies, as the best way to control Putin.

...
EXTRACTS ONLY
SOURCE - Reuters - here.

---------------------------------------------
COMMENT

Whatever happened to free trade and free market prinicples?  LOL

Any Russians with bank accounts in the US, might want to start withdrawing fast.