RT: March 4, 2014

Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement.

Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia’s invasion of Crimea?”

It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade.

Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined that the country’s military “strictly executes the agreements which stipulate the Russian fleet’s presence in Ukraine, and follows the stance and claims coming from the legitimate authority in Ukraine and in this case the legitimate authority of the Autonomous Republic Crimea as well.”

So here are the facts, numbers, and details of this long-standing (but rarely cited) deal:

1) The Black Sea Fleet has been disputed between Russia and Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union back in 1991.

2) In 1997, the sides finally managed to find common ground and signed three agreements determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea. Two years later, in 1999, the Russian and Ukrainian parliaments ratified them. Russia has received 81.7 percent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government a compensation of US$526.5 million.

3) Moscow also annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequency resources, and for the environmental impact caused by the Black Sea Fleet’s operations.

4) According to the initial agreement, the Russian Black Sea Fleet was to stay in Crimea until 2017, but the deal was later prolonged for another 25 years.

5) The 1997 deal allows the Russian navy to have up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes on Crimean territory.

6) In compliance with those accords, there are currently five Russian naval units stationed in the port city of Sevastopol in the Crimean peninsula:

– The 30th Surface Ship Division formed by the 11th Antisubmarine Ship Brigade, which includes the Black Sea Fleet’s flagship guard missile cruiser Moskva as well as Kerch, Ochakov, Smetlivy, Ladny, and Pytlivy vessels, and the 197th Landing Ship Brigade, consisting of seven large amphibious vessels;

– The 41st Missile Boat Brigade, which includes the 166th Fast Attack Craft Division, consisting of Bora and Samum hovercrafts as well as small missile ships Mirazh and Shtil, and 295th missile Boat Division;

– The 247th Separate Submarine Division, consisting of two diesel submarines – B-871 Alrosa and B-380 Svyatoy Knyaz Georgy;

– The 68th Harbor Defense Ship Brigade formed by the 400th Antisubmarine Ship Battalion of four vessels and 418 Mine Hunting Ship Division, which consist of four ships as well;

– The 422nd Separate Hydrographic Ship Division, which includes Cheleken, Stvor, Donuzlav and GS-402 survey vessels as well as a group of hydrographic boats.

7) Besides the naval units, Moscow also has two airbases in Crimea, which are situated in the towns of Kacha and Gvardeysky.

8) The Russian coastal forces in Ukraine consist of the 1096th Separate Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment in Sevastopol and the 810th Marine Brigade, which hosts around 2,000 marines. (Several other coastal units of the Black Sea Fleet are located in Russia’s Krasnodar Region, including the 11th Separate Coastal Missile Brigade in Anapa, the 382th Separate Marine Battalion, and a naval reconnaissance station in Temryuk).

(Read the full article at RT)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Putin: Deploying military force is last resort, but we reserve right

RT: March 4. 2014

Russia will not go to war with the people of Ukraine, but will use its troops to protect citizens, if radicals with clout in Kiev now try to use violence against Ukrainian civilians, particularly ethnic Russians, Putin told the media.

Putin, who was given a mandate by the Russian senate to use military force to protect civilians in Ukraine, said there is no need for such an action yet.

Putin cited the actions of radical activists in Ukraine, including the chaining of a governor to a stage as public humiliation and the killing of a technician during an opposition siege of the Party of Regions HQ, as justification for Russia to be concerned for the lives and well-being of people in eastern and southern Ukraine.

Incidents like those are why Russia reserves the option of troop deployment on the table.

“If we see this lawlessness starting in eastern regions, if the people ask us for help – in addition to a plea from a legitimate president, which we already have – then we reserve the right to use all the means we possess to protect those citizens. And we consider it quite legitimate,” he said.

Russia is not planning to go to war with the Ukrainian people, Putin stressed, when a journalist asked if he was afraid of war. But Russian troops would prevent any attempts to target Ukrainian civilians, should they be deployed.

“We are not going to a war against the Ukrainian people,” he said. “I want you to understand it unambiguously. If we do take a decision, it would only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. Let anybody in the military dare, and they’d be shooting their own people, who would stand up in front of us. Shoot at women and children. I’d like to see anyone try and order such a thing in Ukraine.”

Putin dismissed the notion that the uniformed armed people without insignia who are currently present in Crimea are Russian soldiers. He said they are members of the Crimean self-defense forces and that they are no better equipped and trained than some radical fighters who took part in the ousting of Yanukovich.

He assured that the surprise military drills in Russia’s west which ended on Tuesday had nothing to do with the Ukrainian situation.

Sanction threats are counterproductive

Asked about criticism of Russia over its stance on Ukraine, Putin dismissed the accusations that Russia is acting illegitimately. He stated that even if Russia does use force in Ukraine, it would not violate international law.

At the same time he accused the United States and its allies of having no regard to legitimacy when they use military force in pursuit of their own national interests.

“When I ask them ‘Do you believe you do everything legitimately,’ they say ‘Yes.’ And I have to remind them about the US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, where they acted either without any UN Security Council mandate or through perverting a mandate, as was the case in Libya,” Putin said.

“Our partners, especially in the United States, always clearly and formulate for themselves their geopolitical and national interests, pursue them relentlessly and then drag the rest of the world in, using the principle ‘You are either with us or against us’. And harass those refuse to be dragged in,” he added.

As for the sanctions Russia faces over Ukraine, Putin said those threatening them should think of the consequences to themselves if they follow that path. In an interconnected world a country may hurt another country if it wishes, but it would be damaged too.

Threats are counterproductive in this situation, Putin warned. He added that if G8 members choose not to go to Sochi for a planned G8 summit, that would be up to them.

(Read the full article at RT)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

By Andrew McKillop
Global Research: March 03, 2014

This week the whole of the western media and geopolitical discourse reads ‘Crisis in Ukraine’, and the media juggernaut is quickly morphing into one of ‘The West vs Russia’.

Few in the western media, much less the leading political mouths in Britain, Europe and the US, are willing to address what triggered this latest geopolitical ‘crisis’. It’s better to move the public along with the threat of war narrative (much better for news ratings).

Always Smoldering – Ukraine’s Gas Debts to Russia

Defending Moscow’s December 18, 2013 agreement to provide Ukraine with an aid package estimated at about $15 billion, and cheaper natural gas through discounts and “gas debt forgiveness” estimated as able to save Ukraine $7 bn in one year, Vladimir Putin said the decision to invest $15 bn in ‘brotherly slavic’ Ukraine, and grant the gas discount was “pragmatic and based on economic facts”.

At the time, the “investment” in Ukraine was already conditional – not only on the political issue of Ukrainian loyalty to Moscow – but on Ukraine complying with previous longstanding, often revoked, modified or extended commitments to repay gas debts dating from as far back as the early 1990s. In December, Russia’s Finance minister Anton Siluanov said payment of the “aid or investment” funds to Ukraine, in tranches of about $2 bn each, would need Ukraine making a serious response to end-2013 estimates, by Russia, of the minimum “monetized gas debt” Ukraine has to pay. Siluanov’s ministry said this was about $2.7 bn, itself a large downward revision on other published figures from Russian sources, extending well above $5 bn. His ministry also published statements suggesting that Ukraine’s non-payment of gas taken and consumed by the country, since 2010, ran at a yearly average as high as $2 – $2.25 bn.

To be sure, events starting in February as the “Maidan movement” drew massive public support in the capital and western Ukraine to overthrowing the government-in-place. This was a repeat of Egypt’s anti-Morsi flash mob street revolution, followed by the Saudi-financed military coup against elected president Morsi. In Ukraine, however, the street magic stopped in the east, and especially in Crimea where 75%-85% of votes cast in the 2010 election were for Viktor Yanukovych.

To be sure, this blood-colored version of the Orange Revolution aimed at aligning Ukraine with the European Union may have scarpered further bail out payments by Moscow. Any upping of the ante, as enacted and supplied by NATO and John Kerry, could lead to Russia also making a total shutdown of gas supply to Ukraine – Kiev’s Independence Square flash mob could hope that Global Warming will shorten the winter, ease heating needs, and give Ukraine a head start for becoming a debt wracked European Union associated country – but this is far from a sure thing.

Debt, Gas Debt and Gas Prices

The national gas debt will surely feature in the round of proposals for “Ukraine bailout” being developed by the IMF, European Commission, EU member states on a bilateral basis, the US and potentially other actors, including the ECB and the UN ECE (the UN’s European economic agency), as well as private banks and energy companies. One thing is sure and certain, much higher gas prices for Ukraine are inevitable, under any scenario.

As of early January 2014, Russia’s second largest state bank, VTB, organized the first tranche of the $15 bn financial bailout, by making a $3 bn sale of Ukrainian debt bonds on the Irish Stock Exchange, guaranteed by Russia’s $88 bn sovereign-wealth National Welfare Fund, which was also tasked with financing of the $7 bn natural gas price discount and gas debt forgiveness to Ukraine in counterparty for Ukrainian starting payment of its monetized gas debt.

Current estimates of Ukraine’s total national debt stand at about $145 bn, around 80% of GDP in 2013, but late-February foreign exchange reserves were said by newswires to be only about $15 bn.

Although heavily affected by political rivalries and disputes, Yulia Tymoshenko’s two-month-only role as Ukrainian deputy prime minister responsible for fuel and energy, in 1999-2000, included her attempts at cutting back Ukraine’s constantly rising gas debt, by proposing a huge increase in gas prices inside the country. One of her proposals was for Ukraine to start paying Russia’s Gazprom $400 per thousand cubic meters (about $11 per million BTU, close to current west European prices at the major gas hubs NBP, Zeebrugge, Baumgarten).

After her “time in the political wilderness” and return to power as Prime Minister in 2007, this price was a major bargaining chip in very rocky Ukrainian negotiations with the Kremlin and Gazprom. Her supposedly “surprising” decision to pay for Ukraine’s gas through gas trading using a specially created Switzerland-based trading subsidiary, partly owned by Gazprom and major business and political figures in Ukraine – several of them “suspected of organized crime” – was a key factor in the 2009 “Ukraine-Russia gas crisis”. Tymoshenko tried a political wriggle-out by claiming there was either no outstanding Ukrainian gas debt – or that if it existed, it was now the debt of Swiss-registered company called, RusUkrEnergo.

Only for year 2008 gas deliveries, the new and additional gas debt of Ukraine towards Gazprom was estimated by analysts at about $2.4 bn. Since 2010, about the same annual rate of gas debt increase is claimed to have been racked up by Ukraine, according to Russian sources such as Alfa Bank Moscow.

Certainly at times in the long, complicated and dispute-riddled negotiations with Tymoshenko, Alexei Miller, CEO of Gazprom said his corporation could and would supply Ukraine with gas at $235 per thousand m3, but RusUkrEnergo was too attractive to Ukrainian business and political players as an opaque gas payments and trading entity able to be milked for huge kickbacks. On January 1, 2009 Russia halted all shipments of gas to Ukraine and demanded $450 per thousand m3. Then prime minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin said that $470 would be the future price, close to the 2009-price paid by many EU national gas companies “lower down the gasline”, of about $500.

Proving the extent to which this was Kremlin armtwisting of Ukraine, to make Tymoshenko close down RusUkrEnergo for reasons including this entity’s total impossibility of repaying national gas debt, when gas supplies were resumed after the crisis they were billed by Gazprom at about $230 per thousand m3, far below then-current west European gas prices, and still so, today.

Even this price was however too much to pay, for Ukraine. To be sure, inside Ukraine, especially after its government collapse and the “disappearance” of its now-fugitive (for western Ukrainians) former president Yanukovych, Russia can be portrayed as cynically allowing Ukraine to run up massive, unpayable gas debts. For Gazprom however, the euros-and-cents costs of gas supplies, trade and disputes with Ukraine over the years is a black hole for corporate finances. Some analysts suggest that only for the three years 2011-2013 Ukraine’s total gas debt could be $7 bn, and that writing this amount off (calling it a “friendship discount”), and returning to the previous $2.7 bn “official monetized gas debt” figure was pure political largesse by Vladimir Putin, aimed at buying Ukrainian loyalty.

(Read the full article at Global Research)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Bombshell: Ukraine President Requested Russian Assistance

By Daniel McAdams
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity: March 3, 2014

Today in an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin dropped a bombshell: President Viktor Yanukovich had sent a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin requesting Russian military assistance to restore law and order in Ukraine.

Churkin read the letter from Yanukovich to Putin:

“People are being persecuted for language and political reasons. So in this regard I would call on the President of Russia, Mr. Putin, asking him to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine.”

Yanukovich, for his faults, weaknesses, incompetence, etc., is nevertheless the legitimately elected president of Ukraine. He was not legally impeached according to the Ukrainian Constitution and he has asserted that he remains Ukraine’s legal president.

The US and EU claim that Russia has “invaded” Ukraine (never mind that we have seen no signs of any significant Russian military activity at all). However, if assistance was requested by a legitimate leader to put down what it viewed as an extremist coup and that assistance was given by a willing ally, the charge of illegal invasion becomes much more dicey. The US has deployed its military repeatedly overseas (invited and uninvited) to assist local governments in fighting terrorism.

Ever the tin-ear, however, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power followed Ambassador Churkin’s bombshell with one of the US’s most aggressive statements to date:

“It is a fact that today Russian jets entered Ukrainian airspace. Russia military action is a violation of international law. Russian military bases in Ukraine are secure. Russian mobilization is a response to an imaginary threat. Military action can not be justified on the basis of threats that haven’t been made or aren’t being carried out. Russia needs to engage directly with the government of Ukraine.”

Perhaps it was too late to ask for a new draft speech, or perhaps the US will simply ignore this significant new development.

Whatever the case, the Europeans are “going wobbly” on the US administration’s demands for punishing action against Russia. The Germans are beating a retreat from early calls to kick Russia out of the G8. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier yesterday argued against kicking Russia out of the G8, and according to the Wall Street Journal the German government is opposed to any sanctions on Russia

And the BBC is reporting that:

“The [UK] government will not curb trade with Russia or close London’s financial centre to Russians as part of any possible package of sanctions against Moscow, according to an official document.”

The Chinese, who have major business interests in Ukraine, have expressed agreement today with Russia’s recent actions.

(Read the full article at The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-