Mediaboss Marketing

MUNICH -- A new cease-fire has been agreed to for eastern Ukraine, but some Russia-backed separatists could not say if they would respect the fighting halt, and a Ukrainian leader said he was not pleased with the results of a four-party meeting in Munich.

The cease-fire was announced on February 18 by Russia and was brokered together with the foreign ministers of Ukraine, Germany, and France after talks at the Munich Security Conference.

The cease-fire is scheduled to go into effect on February 20.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the agreement a "positive" development, but he also acknowledged the lack of "major progress" at the meeting.

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters the aim was to do what has long been agreed but never implemented: To withdraw the heavy weapons from the region, to secure them, and enable the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitors to control where they are kept."

Russian-backed separatists on the ground would not confirm they were planning to respect the cease-fire.

Some of them said it was not feasible for it to come into force so soon.

"There has been artillery fire all day," Eduard Basurin, a senior separatist, told AFP on February 18.

"What truce are they talking about? I don't see the point in declaring a truce."

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin confirmed the cease-fire agreement but warned it must become more than a "political slogan."

He told reporters he was "not at all" pleased with the meeting.

"This has to be the real situation -- and if that's not the case, we will have to have fresh negotiations," he told Ukrainian reporters in Munich.

He added that no "powerful results" where achieved at the Munich meeting of the so-called Normandy Format, consisting of Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France.

Russia-backed separatists control areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in Ukraines east nearly three years after the start of their war against Kyivs forces that has killed more than 9,750.

Fighting has intensified this month, resulting in the deaths of about 30 people.

Russia also annexed Ukraine's Black Sea region of Crimea in 2014.

Visit link:
New Cease-Fire Agreed For Ukraine, But Tensions Still High - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Canada's military mission to Ukraine expires in March. For several reasons, it shouldn't be renewed.

First, the present Ukrainian government, installed in a coup orchestrated by Washington, isn't worthy of our support. According to the BBC, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland admitted that the U.S. spent $5 billion over a number of years to instigate regime change in Ukraine. (1) She overthrew the democratically-elected Yanukovich government in 2014 which had less than one year remaining in its term of office and was trying to deal with competing pressures to take a financial bailout from either Russia, on the one hand, or the European Union, on the other. (2) On Feb. 21, 2014, Yanukovich secured an agreement with European Union officials on EU economic assistance, sharing of power in Ukraine, and moving up Ukrainian elections. (3) The agreement was not good enough for U.S. Senator John McCain and other key Democratic U.S. policy-makers. After violent street protests, the U.S. installed a pro-Western junta, headed by billionaire Poroshenko. According to the CBC, the Harper government allowed the Canadian embassy in Kyiv to shelter the violent street protesters for one week and one embassy staffer to use an embassy vehicle (later burned) to take part in the protests. (4) In other words, Canadian taxpayers supported U.S. regime-change in Ukraine.

Second, the agents of regime change recruited by Nuland were none other than gangs of thugs from several fascist parties, remnants of the very same Ukrainian fascists allied to Hitler in the Second World War. They fought soldiers and police in the main squares of Kyiv and other cities. Poroshenko's coup government has the dubious distinction of being the only government in Europe with fascists in cabinet, several holding key security posts. Canadian veterans might be surprised to learn that the Trudeau government is considering renewing Canada's military mission to a country with the same fascists in government that they fought in the Second World War.

Third, the Ukrainian junta immediately implemented divisive policies, such as banning the use of the Russian language and some of the country's most popular political parties. It seems logical that Crimea would have been less likely to have voted overwhelmingly to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, and eastern Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine would have been much more hesitant to seek independence if a more moderate and tolerant government took office following constitutional procedures. War and economic decline could have been avoided as well. Ukraine, a former Soviet republic (and a province of Czarist Russia for the previous 200 years) could have sought peaceful relations and constructive economic engagement with both East and West and particularly the booming economic "silk road" trade deals with China. Instead, seeking EU and NATO membership, while implementing draconian austerity policies, have only brought Ukraine to the point of economic and social collapse.

A fourth reason is the reaction of the Ukrainian government to the brutal Odessa massacre of May 2, 2014. On that day, over 40 peaceful anti-government protesters were killed and some 200 injured when pro-government thugs set fire to the Trade Union House in which they had taken shelter. This incident has not been properly investigated and no culprits arrested or punished.

Finally, contrary to the promises made to the last Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO expansion continued to the east, along with a continuing military buildup, missile installations, and war games right up to Russia's borders. It's completely understandable why Russians feel encircled by NATO, especially now with the possibility of Ukrainian membership. We should remember that Russia was invaded twice in the 20th century from the West, costing tens of millions of Russian lives and huge devastation. A major war, possibly a third world war, could develop from aggressive NATO expansion along the Russian frontier. Placing Canadian soldiers there makes no sense at all.

It's time that the Trudeau government broke with aggressive Harper-era policies and dealt fairly and diplomatically with the Russian Federation. For this reason, it would be far wiser for the Trudeau government not to extend the military mission to Ukraine and to pull its troops and equipment out of all the frontier states with Russia. Indeed, Canadians would benefit from cutting ties with NATO altogether and pursuing instead a peaceful, humane, and independent foreign policy.

Here is the original post:
Canada should not renew mission to Ukraine - Hamilton Spectator

President Vladimir Putin's decree legalizing some documents issued by authorities in Donetsk and Lugansk, in the territory of Russia, does not signal any change in Moscow's stance on the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Russia's Foreign Minister has said.

On Saturday, President Putin signed a decree that will immediately recognize documents issued by authorities in the troubled Donbass region in Ukraine.

Representatives of the Normandy Four did not discuss Moscow's decision during a meeting on the sidelines of the security conference in Munich, Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov told reporters in Germany.

"I don't think that anyone sees any change in [Moscow's] position" towards the Donbass region, the minister said.

Read more

IDs and other documents, such as birth, death and marriage certificates, education diplomas and car license plates issued for Ukrainian citizens and persons without citizenship in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, will be "temporarily" regarded as legal in Russia "based on the norms of international humanitarian law," Putin's decree stated.

"It will allow people from Donbass, Donetsk and Lugansk to legally travel to Russia and use its railway and aviation services," Lavrov explained.

Lavrov also confirmed that the order will be in place until the Minsk Agreements aimed at settling the conflict is implemented in Ukraine, as stipulated in the decree.

Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko slammed the decision, calling it "another proof of Russian occupation." After having spoken with the US Vice President Mike Pence on the fringes of the Munich conference, the Ukrainian leader accused Moscow of "violating international law" with its latest decree.

Kiev "vigorously condemns" and does not recognize the Russian decree, Ukraine's Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Saturday. Having accused Russia of "violating Ukraine's territorial integrity," the ministry claimed the decision on the documents was a "de facto recognition of illegal authorities in Donbass."

READ MORE: Russian troops in E. Ukraine no obstacle for local election German ambassador

Kiev and the authorities of the self-proclaimed Lugansk and Donetsk people's republics signed a peace agreement in Minsk almost two years ago.

The document is aimed at securing a full ceasefire in the region, while also providing for constitutional reforms that would give the region greater autonomy and special status.

However, Kiev has so far failed to deal with the political changes, instead blaming Moscow for the unresolved conflict. Russia utterly fails to understand the tendency in the West to lay responsibility for the settlement of the Ukraine crisis exclusively on Moscow, Lavrov said earlier in Munich.

Read the original here:
Moscow's position on E. Ukrainian regions seeking autonomy hasn't changed Lavrov - RT

Poroshenkos removal of Yatsenyuk has considerably strengthened the power of the president. Yanukovych in 2010 had overseen the restoration of the 1996 constitution, which featured a dominant presidency, but a 3860 vote by the parliament in 2014 reversed that move, reviving the 2004 charter. The latter, the product of a compromise during the Orange Revolution, had shifted power to the prime minister and cabinet and made them responsible to the parliament, though the president retained control over the foreign and defense ministers and the head of the security service. This division of power had led to infighting between the president and prime minister between 2004 and 2010, and similar rifts began to emerge in 2015. However, in April 2016, Poroshenko secured a dominant position by placing a close ally in the prime ministers office.

Aside from the conflict in the east, the main obstacle to effective governance in Ukraine is corruption, and the vast majority of citizens have been deeply disappointed with the governments slow progress in combating it since Yanukovychs departure in 2014. No major figures have been arrested, and the government has recovered almost none of the billions of dollars in assets that were allegedly looted under previous administrations.

Oligarchs continue to exert considerable influence over Ukrainian life through their control of some 70 percent of the economy, much of the media, and the financing of political parties. Poroshenko, a wealthy businessman who is counted among them, remains at the center of controversy. Former member of parliament Oleksandr Onishchenko, after fleeing abroad, accused him of offering bribes to lawmakers and extorting money from state companies. Odesa governor Mikheil Saakashvili resigned from his post in November 2016, claiming that the president and other high-level officials were taking advantage of the system for personal gain. Poroshenko has not honored campaign promises to sell most of his extensive assets, and his son Oleksiy Poroshenko is now a member of parliament and an increasingly powerful businessman, drawing comparisons to Yanukovych, whose sons also became power brokers.

Another key problem is pervasive corruption among Ukraines prosecutors and judges. Under intense pressure from his critics and civil society, Poroshenko in February initiated the removal of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was seen as blocking anticorruption reforms, and replaced him in May with loyalist Yuriy Lutsenko, who lacks legal training. Before his removal by the parliament in March, Shokin sacked his deputy, corruption fighter Davit Sakvarelidze; another reformist deputy prosecutor general, Vitaliy Kasko, had resigned earlier. Although the parliament adopted a lustration law in 2014, it has not been used against prosecutors and judges.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), set up to investigate corrupt officials, began operating in 2015, but critics warned that it would be ineffective without reforms in the prosecutors office and judiciary. It lacks sufficient personnel and powers, according to NABU head Artem Sytnyk, and faces institutional resistance to its work. In August 2016, for example, NABU officials conducting a criminal investigation into a department of the Prosecutor Generals Office were detained and allegedly beaten by members of the targeted unit. Poroshenkos administration is seen as supporting the prosecutors over NABU.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) focused on combating corruption complained in June that they were not properly included in the process of choosing the new leaders of the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (NAZK), as required by law. Also during the year, one prominent anticorruption NGO was targeted by prosecutors with an intrusive criminal investigation in apparent retribution for its work.

Ukraine has made some progress in advancing transparency, requiring that banks publish the identity of their owners. Under pressure from the European Union (EU), the parliament in March 2016 passed a law obliging politicians and bureaucrats to file electronic declarations of their assets by October 31. The measure exposed large amounts of property and cash held by Ukrainian officials who had no obvious means of earning such wealth. While the disclosures received significant media attention and bolstered civil society anticorruption efforts, critics warned that the NAZK lacked the capacity to properly investigate the declarations, and few criminal cases had been reported by years end.

Read the original here:
Ukraine | Country report | Freedom in the World | 2017

Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters Wednesday during a weekly news conference: "We're not returning our territory. Crimea is part of the Russian Federation."

Spicer pointed to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley's recent remarks on Russia's actions in east Ukraine and occupation of Crimea, adding that Trump "expects the Russian government to de-escalate violence in the Ukraine and return Crimea."

The Bonn summit will be Tillerson's inaugural international trip as the United States' top diplomat. He'll be joined in Bonn by Lavrov, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and representatives from the world's other major economies.

"He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want," Trump said in a July interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."

In the weeks before and after his inauguration, Trump's refusal to condemn Russian hacking during the election and his attacks on the intelligence community for investigating those hacks raised questions about his ties to Moscow.

Since assuming office the Trump administration has taken a much harder line on the occupation of the western part of Ukraine, a partner of NATO.

"The United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea," Haley said.

"Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine."

Correction: A previous version of this story inaccurately described Ukraine's relationship to NATO. Ukraine is a partner of the alliance.

Read the rest here:
Russia: 'We're not returning our territory' Crimea to Ukraine ...