RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Ukraine faces deadliest crisis in decades

04/17/2014
KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - Three pro-Russian protesters were killed and 13 injured during an attempted overnight raid on a Ukrainian National Guard base in the Black Sea port of Mariupol, Ukraine's authorities said.
The Interior Ministry said a mob of around 300 people armed with stun grenades and firebombs were involved in the bloodiest episode to date in the confrontation pitting Ukraine's new government in Kiev against an eastern insurgency tacitly supported by Moscow.

Masked and battle-ready militia bearing sophisticated firearms have been deeply involved in seizing government offices in eastern Ukraine, igniting suspicions that much of the unrest is being stirred with Russia's backing.
But Russia's President Vladimir Putin on Thursday dismissed as "nonsense" claims that Russian special forces were fomenting unrest in eastern Ukraine.

"It's all nonsense, there are no special units, special forces or instructors there," Putin said.
He did admit - for the first time - that the troops in unmarked uniforms who had captured Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula before its annexation last month by Moscow were Russian soldiers.

Putin also expressed hope that four-way talks between Ukraine, the U.S., the European Union and Russia in Geneva on Thursday could map a way out of the deepening security crisis.
Ukraine's interior ministry said shots fired by servicemen in the Mariupol base initially proved insufficient to deter the pro-Russian crowd from proceeding with their assault. It remains unclear exactly how the three protesters were killed.

There were no casualties among Ukrainian servicemen, the ministry said. At least 63 people involved in the attack were detained, but local media Thursday morning cited police as saying 38 were later released.
Speaking in parliament, acting President Oleksandr Turchynov said a pro-Russian gang carrying automatic weapons attempted to storm the base three times.

APTN footage filmed outside the base on Wednesday night showed an unidentified man acting as an intermediary coming out to speak to masked men in the crowd armed with assault rifles. He told them the military had asked for 10 minutes to think over an unspecified ultimatum.
The masked men insisted they wanted no bloodshed. A short while later, however, a crowd of mainly masked young men armed with bats and sticks began throwing Molotov cocktails at the base's gate and at the trucks parked in front of it. Sounds of gunfire were heard in response.

The skirmish came after the government announced an operation to retake control of the eastern city of Slovyansk, which has emerged as the focal point of the armed insurgency, and government buildings in several other cities in the east.
With tens of thousands of Russian troops deployed just across the border from Ukraine, there are fears the Kremlin might use the instability in the predominantly Russian-speaking region as a pretext for seizing more territory beyond its annexation of Crimea last month.

On Wednesday, hundreds of people in Kramatorsk, 15 kilometers (9 miles) south of Slovyansk, encircled a column of Ukrainian armored vehicles carrying several dozen troops. Soon after, masked gunmen in combat gear reached the site and Ukrainian soldiers surrendered the vehicles to them.

At another location near Kramatorsk, troops at 15 Ukrainian armored vehicles were also surrounded by a crowd. To end the standoff, Ukrainian servicemen handed over the magazines from their assault rifles to pro-Russian militia. The Defense Ministry said the infantry vehicles had left the area Thursday and were returning to their base in Dnipropetrovsk, 225 kilometers (140 miles) away.

There appeared little immediate sign of any planned military action by Ukraine forces. In an attempt to contain pro-Russian insurgents, a military checkpoint made of sandbags was built on the northern road to Slovyansk. An Associated Press reporter spotted 30 special forces officers, an armored personnel carrier and military vehicle with an anti-aircraft gun at the site.

Turchynov told parliament on Thursday that the brigade that handed over its vehicles would be disbanded and its members put on trial.
As the new government in Kiev struggles to contain the pro-Russian uprising, the Obama administration has said it is readying additional sanctions against Moscow and a boost in aid for the Ukrainian military in the coming days.

By Tetyana Shvachuk
April 16, 2014



It was only a matter of time before the inevitable happened and the Russians invaded mainland Ukraine.

Despite all the cautions, warnings, and disbelief in the West, Putin has been diligently working on his own plans. His plan is to keep breaking off chunks of Ukraine – and he has nothing to lose and there is nothing to stop him.


So far the West has imposed laughable sanctions, which suggest they are not going to get really involved, much like the Georgian war in 2008.

This gives a clear green light for Putin to further his own agenda in Ukraine and beyond.

In just the past few days, Russian forces, some invisible and some in plain sight, have been aggressively taking control of towns in eastern Ukraine, particularly in Donbas and Lyghansk regions. They are trying to stir up the local population to support the movement to join Russia.

The outside perception – one that the Russians have worked very hard to create – is that there is wide support for this movement, but it’s not as strong as many think. Even in Eastern Ukraine, where there is a lot of pro-Russian sentiment, people are terrified of the full-blown Russian invasion, and are calling for help to stop the Russians whom they have come to call "terrorists."

Tyrchunov, the acting president of Ukraine, has called Russia’s actions an act of terrorism and has set up special anti-terrorists military units.

Everyone knows, especially the Russians, that Ukraine does not have much to fight with in terms of military weapons. But if one thing is clear, it’s that the Ukrainians are ready to fight their enemy with whatever they can muster.


Audio of a tapped conversation between the Russian forces in Ukraine and their commanders in Russia has just been released, providing further proof of a planned Russian invasion and not a civil war in Ukraine, which is what the Kremlin has been calling it.

In the conversation, the leader of the organized military forces was asking his commander for more weapons and backup forces. He also told him that a mission has been successful and that they have wiped out a Ukrainian unit with very high-ranking people, but that he did not know exactly who these people were.

The commander reiterated that the whole world is watching, a clear signal not to make any moves that prove too aggressive or too obvious.

At the same time, it was obvious from the conversation that Russian forces were giving orders to take over government buildings in Ukraine, rouse fear in local populations, and destroy any Ukrainian counter-terror units.

The short-term goal of Russian involvement in Ukraine is to destroy planned talks in Geneva on April 17 between Ukraine, the U.S., EU, and Russia. During these talks, and given ample proof of Russian aggression, Russia would have to admit their wrongdoing. This would be an impossible task for Putin given his belief that Russia can do no wrong and that he is only intervening in Ukraine to protect the Russian population and act as a peacekeeper.

We know that this argument is nothing but a bold faced lie. But there is, indeed, even more to Russia’s plan. Putin wants to stop the May 25th Ukrainian presidential election from going forward.

This election signifies the loss of more of the Kremlin’s power in Ukraine – an outcome Putin simply cannot allow.

He will push for more violence, he will send in more troops. The Russian military personnel without insignia, the so-called "Green Men" who took over Crimea, are being bussed to Eastern Ukraine as I write.

The Crimean plan is unfolding across Eastern Ukraine. And while all this is going on, there is still inaction on the U.S. side as the government tries to find a dialogue that Russia will engage in, a truly fruitless task.

----------------------------------

Tetyana Shvachuk is a Ukrainian-American political activist and writer. She is CEO of Enlightened Beauty and will be publishing her first book in 2014.

Fox Pretends Obama Did Not Replace Scrapped Missile Defense Program In Europe
Research March 18, 2014 5:04 PM EDT ››› ALEXANDREA BOGUHN
205
Print Email

Fox News invoked President Obama's cancellation of a Bush-era missile defense program in Poland as evidence of Obama's failing foreign policy. But Fox failed to mention that the program was replaced with a system that experts say provides equivalent, if not better, protection of U.S. foreign interests, including Poland.

Fox Questions Cancellation of Bush-Era Missile Plan Without Mentioning Its Replacement

Fox's Hemmer: "A Lot Of People Would Like To See The Anti-Missile System Re-Established In Poland." On the March 18 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer criticized President Obama's foreign policies while discussing the recent Russian annexation of Crimea with Fox contributor John Bolton. Hemmer pointed to the anti-missile system in Poland as "something that was started under President Bush and was quickly dismissed during the early term, the first term of President Obama." He went on to say that "a lot of people would like to see" the program re-established and used this as proof that Obama may not be "deeply engaged" with Vladimir Putin and Russia. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 3/18/14]

Fox's MacCallum: The United States Should "Start to Rebuild The Missile Shield In Poland" Which Has "Allowed For This To Happen." On America's Newsroom, co-host Martha MacCallum moderated a discussion between Fox hosts Tucker Carlson and Bob Beckel about U.S. sanctions on Russia in the wake of Crimean annexation. In response to Beckel asking for alternatives to sanctions, MacCallum suggested that the U.S. should "start to rebuild the missile shield in Poland" and suggested that this was an example of how the U.S. has "let our defenses down" and "laid the groundwork" for allowing the Russian crisis to happen. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 3/18/14]

Fox Contributor Karl Rove: U.S. Should "Re-Institute" Poland Missile Defense Facility. On Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, Fox contributor Karl Rove said that in response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine, he would advise Obama to "re-institute the missile defense facilities that we withdrew at no price to him -- to Putin -- but a big price to us and to the Czech Republic and Poland." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 3/10/14]
Bush's Missile Program Was Replaced With A More Efficient Missile Program That Includes A Site In Poland

CBS News: The Missile Program That Replaced Bush's Is "No Less Of A Threat To Russia." A March 10 CBS News article explained that President Obama replaced the Bush-era missile defense program with "a more flexible system he said would better address the threat of potential short- and medium-range missiles":

It's long been a Republican mantra that President Obama caved to the Russians when he decided in 2009 to scrap a Bush-era missile defense program and replace it with a more flexible system he said would better address the threat of potential short- and medium-range missiles the administration believed Iran had made more progress developing. Defense hawk Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the decision "seriously misguided" at the time.

In fact, experts say, the new program was no less of a threat to Russia, which has always viewed U.S. missile defense as an affront to its own security. The president called it more comprehensive than the previous program -- as well as cost-effective -- and said it would provide "stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies." And in an op-ed about the program, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that critics who were accusing the administration of scrapping missile defense in Europe entirely "are either misinformed or misrepresenting what we are doing."

One former U.S. official who worked on national security issues called the Obama administration's new program "a double whammy" to Russia. [CBSNews.com, 3/10/14]

Defense News: New Missile Plan Includes Site In Poland. In a February 15 article, Defense News outlined the details of the new missile plan that replaced Bush's, the Aegis Ashore. The new program, which is to be instituted in several phases, includes a third stage that would include a site in Poland, as well as a phase set for deployment in Romania in 2015:

The Aegis Ashore concept evolved from a desire to operate a proven, ground-based BMD system in Europe that would be flexible and more agile than the larger ground-based interceptors initially planned. The installation is based on the sea-going version of the system, including a vertical launcher system with 24 SM-3 missiles.

Phase 2 includes the deployment of the Aegis Ashore system in Romania to provide ballistic missile coverage for southern Europe and will also use enhanced SM-3 Block IB interceptor missiles.

Phase 3 includes a second Aegis Ashore site in Poland to cover northern Europe. To be operational in 2018, Phase 3 includes deployment of SM-3 Block IIA missiles that are larger and faster than previous missiles, and, according to the Missile Defense Agency, will extend the Aegis-Standard envelope to defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, during a late January visit to Poland, highlighted the overarching Eastern European BMD plan and specifically Phase 3 in Poland.

"Our nations continue to work closely together, both bilaterally and through NATO, in response to ballistic missile threats," Hagel said. "And the United States is firmly committed to deploying a US missile defense system to Poland. We look forward to this system coming online in 2018 as part of Phase 3 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach." [Defense News, 2/15/14]

USA Today: Then-Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates Said Obama's Missile Program Was Better. On September 17, 2009, USA Today reported that the White House emphasized that changes to the missile program were a "revamping, not an abandonment" of Bush's proposed plan. They noted that then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who had originally supported Bush's plan, found the new program to be a better fit for U.S. interests:

"This new approach provides a better missile-defense capability for our forces in Europe, for our European allies and eventually for our homeland than the program I recommended almost three years ago," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon after Obama spoke. [USA Today, 11/17/09]

The GOP claim that Obama scrapped a missile defense system as ‘a gift’ to Putin

By Glenn Kessler
March 28 at 6:00 am


SAINT PETERSBURG - SEPTEMBER 05: In this handout image provided by Host Photo Agency, Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) greets US President Barack Obama during an official welcome of G20 heads of state and government, heads of invited states and international organizations at the G20 summit on September 5, 2013 in St. Petersburg, Russia. The G20 summit is expected to be dominated by the issue of military action in Syria while issues surrounding the global economy, including tax avoidance by multinationals, will also be discussed during the two-day summit.

The United States should “reconsider putting in our missile defense system back into the Czech Republic and Poland, as we once planned. As you recall, we pulled that out as a gift to Russia.”


Not to pick on Romney, but this is a common theme among Republican critics of President Obama’s handling of the tensions with Russia over Ukraine. Former vice president Richard B. Cheney, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others have made similar comments. Cheney said Obama had canceled the system to “appease Putin,” and McCain asserted he did it to “placate Putin.”

Let’s look back at this supposed gift.
The Facts

Toward the end of his presidency, George W. Bush, concerned about a possible threat to Europe and the United States from Iranian missiles, proposed to install 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. Administration officials at the time stressed repeatedly that the plan had nothing to do with Russia — and everything to do with Iran.

Then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008 said that Russia’s rhetoric about the system was “pathetic.” As she put it, “I frankly think that anybody who can do the math would know that 10 interceptors in Poland is not going to do anything to a Russian deterrent that has thousands of warheads.”

Enter President Obama, who announced in September 2009 that he was scrapping the Bush plan and introducing an alternative, what he called a “European phased adaptive approach.” The four-part plan would initially focus on threats posed by Iranian short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Europe, and then eventually would include a fourth phase that would target as-yet undeveloped Iranian intercontinental missiles.

The plan, a shield based on the Navy’s Aegis system, was designed to begin with Navy ships with SM-3 interceptors in the eastern Mediterranean and then progress to land-based SM-3s in Eastern Europe.

Obama made the announcement in the midst of a high-profile effort to “reset” relations with Russia, which included negotiations on an arms-reduction treaty. White House officials even described the new system as “less threatening” to Russia. Administration officials also failed to give a heads-up to the Poles and the Czechs, making it appear like a diplomatic snub at their expense.

Still, one key official described the shift as more effective, less costly and timelier than the Bush plan — then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. He also happened to be the guy who recommended the original plan to Bush. He defended the change at the time in an opinion article in the New York Times, noting that the Bush plan would not have been deployed until at least 2017. He then expanded on his defense of the shift in his recent memoir, “Duty.”

Gates, in his book, noted that while the Obama administration had stumbled in failing to lay the diplomatic groundwork for the shift, looking “like a bunch of bumbling fools,” the Bush plan was already running into trouble in both Prague and Warsaw and likely would have been rejected by parliaments in both countries. “The Polish and Czech governments were relieved,” he wrote.

“I sincerely believed the new program was better — more in accord with the political realities in Europe and more effective against the emerging Iranian threat,” Gates added. ”While there certainly were some in the State Department and the White House who believed the third site in Europe was incompatible with the Russian ‘reset,’ we in Defense did not. Making the Russians happy wasn’t exactly on my to-do list.”

In fact, Gates says, the Russians quickly concluded that the Obama plan was even worse from their perspective, as it eventually might have capabilities that could be used against Russian intercontinental missiles.

“How ironic that U.S. critics of the new approach had portrayed it as a big concession to the Russians,” Gates added sardonically. “It would have been nice to hear a critic in Washington — just once in my career — say, Well I got that wrong.”

The first three phases of Obama’s plan are proceeding on schedule. The plan also had a fourth European phase, which would have been aimed at protecting North America from Iranian intercontinental missiles using an interceptor called the SM-3 Block IIB that exists only on paper. But the fourth phase was canceled in 2013. So the nascent ICBM threat still needs to be addressed, most likely with interceptors on the East Coast. Still, in theory the original Bush plan for ground-based interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe could be revived, as Romney proposes.

Just remember: It’s not supposed to be about Russia.

Aides to Romney did not respond to queries.

Obama made the announcement in the midst of a high-profile effort to “reset” relations with Russia, which included negotiations on an arms-reduction treaty. White House officials even described the new system as “less threatening” to Russia. Administration officials also failed to give a heads-up to the Poles and the Czechs, making it appear like a diplomatic snub at their expense.

Poland's president all but officially endorsed Mitt Romney for president precisely because of the clear betrayal of Poland to the Russians.

KT McFarland, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan and a Fox News national security analyst, said the attack was most likely the work of Russian separatists, not the Russian or Ukrainian armies.

"I think it’s far more likely it was rebel forces in eastern Ukraine trying to get the Russian back involved," McFarland said.

But retired Army Lt. Col Ralph Peters, also a Fox News contributor, said it is unlikely the Russian military would have put missile batteries capable of knocking a plane out of the sky at such an altitude in the hands of rebels.

"It wasn't the separatists, although Russia will try to blame them, or blame the Ukrainians," Peters said. "The Russians have not given the separatists complex, high-altitude air-defense systems.If this airliner was flying at 34,000 feet or any altitude close to that, it was shot down by Russian military air-defense systems perched on the Ukrainian border."

Peters said the Russian military has been shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft in recent weeks, and most likely mistook the airliner for a Ukrainian military aircraft.

"Russia has a small number of elite forces, but most of the Russian military is ill-trained, sloppy and marginally disciplined.," he said. "With no Western response to them shooting down Ukrainian aircraft, they just got trigger happy."

Fierce battles continued in eastern Ukraine today as the presidents of Russia and Ukraine met to discuss bringing about an end to the fighting between the Kiev government and the Russian backed separatist rebels that has killed more than 2,000 in the last four months.

Just hours before Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin met with the presidents of Kazakhstan and Belarus and senior European Union officials, Ukrainian forces captured 10 Russian paratroopers in Ukraine and posted a video of interviews with them.

The ten paratroopers entered Ukraine “accidentally” because of a poorly-marked border between the two countries, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense. It’s the first public admission by Russia of the country’s troops entering Ukraine, The Daily Telegraph reports. Russia denies supporting pro-Russian separatists operating in eastern Ukraine.



“The fate of my country and Europe is being decided here in Minsk today. The interests of Donbass [eastern Ukraine] have been and will be taken into account," Poroshenko said at the opening of the talks in the Belarusian capital of Minsk, The New York Times reports. “I hope the result of today’s meeting will be the achievement of an agreement that will bring peace to Ukrainian soil.” They Russian and Ukrainian leaders shook hands at the start of the summit.

The meeting marks the first time Putin and Poroshenko have met since an event to mark the 1944 Allied D-Day landings in June. Poroshenko has been urged to negotiate a settlement with Russia to end the fighting, with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko saying both sides should "discard political ambitions and not to seek political dividend."

Putin wants a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine and thinks a solution to the fighting can be found by speaking directly with the separatists, while Poroshenko has called for tougher border controls to stabilize the embattled region, the BBC reports.

As talks progressed on Tuesday, fighting continued in the newly-opened front of Ukraine and Russia’s southeastern border. Most of the fighting in the four-month conflict has been to the north.

Ukraine accused Russia of moving an armoured column across the border on Monday and fighting was reported in Novoazovsk, in the Donetsk region, for the second day today, The New York Times reports. “Russian mercenaries” were responsible for shelling, said Andriy Lysenko, spokesman for Ukraine’s National Security Council.

Aiming to seize Novoazovsk, which lies on the road to Crimea, raises the possibility that Russia is trying to annexe land that links Russia and Crimea, The New York Times reports.

After Russian soldiers found their way into Ukraine “by accident”, Canada’s delegation to NATO
produced this map, and helpfully shared it on Twitter.


“Geography can be tough. Here’s a guide for Russian soldiers who keep getting lost & ‘accidentally’
entering Ukraine,” the delegation wrote.

Russian troops are involved in "direct military operations" inside Ukraine, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Friday. "Despite Moscow’s hollow denials, it is now clear that Russian troops and equipment have illegally crossed the border into eastern and south-eastern Ukraine," he said in a statement. "This is not an isolated action, but part of a dangerous pattern over many months to destabilize Ukraine as a sovereign nation."

Also on Friday, Ukraine said it would work towards becoming part of the U.S.-led security alliance, a move that looked set to inflame tensions with Russia. Prime Minister Minister Arseny Yatseniuk also said that his country still sought to become a member of the European Union. The toppling of pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovich by protesters calling for closer ties with the West earlier this year helped precipitate the current crisis, with separatist forces besieging much of the east of the country and the Crimean peninsula being annexed by Russia. Ukraine has accused Russia of bringing tanks, artillery and troops to support separatists in eastern Ukraine, which Moscow denies.

CNN) — Unarmed Russian fighter jets made two extremely close overflights this week of the USS Donald Cook, sailing in the Baltic Sea.

The Cook "encountered multiple, aggressive flight maneuvers by Russian aircraft that were performed within close proximity of the ship," according to a statement by European Command.



"We have deep concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional Russian flight maneuvers," the statement said.

One of the Russian jets flew within 75 feet of the Cook's ship superstructure.

The initial reports indicated the two concerning encounters occurred Tuesday night in international waters. A third overflight, at a more acceptable distance, happened Sunday, according to a U.S. official.


The Navy released video of the incident on YouTube on Wednesday afternoon.

The ship, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, also had a Polish helicopter on board as part of routine training, according to the official, leading to some speculation in military circles that the Russians were also "sending a message to Poland," the official said.

A U.S. official described the Russian maneuver as "strafing runs" without firing any weapons. The unarmed Russian aircraft swooped in over the deck in the same flight profile that would have been used if an attack was underway.

Ukraine has acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ukraine inherited approximately 5,000 nuclear weapons when it became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, making its nuclear arsenal the third-largest in the world.[111]
By 1996, Ukraine had agreed to dispose of all nuclear weapons within its territory, with the condition that its borders were respected, as part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The warheads were disassembled in Russia.[112] Despite Russia's subsequent and internationally disputed annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine reaffirmed its 1994 decision to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state.

Russia was I'm sure very happy with Trump's Syria retreat and yeah all our intelligence pointed to Russia trying to get Trump elected.

Trump withheld aid to push a conspiracy theory that would clear Russia.

And which side can't testify under oath?

Russia spent over 100,000 on Facebook ads alone. They did more than that of course like hacking into servers. And Trump is refusing to hand over documents and witnesses in this impeachment inquiry. Bill testified in his and Hillary testified and cooperated under the vey same rules created by republicans that now don't think the rules are fair. Trump is not being at all transparent here and what should bother you is if he really didn't do anything wrong than why not supply the records and testimony? Tough to lie under oath with the already damning evidence. And when we moved out of Syria guess who moved in, Russia. Do you think that really served our nation well? We betrayed the ones that was fighting Isil and now Russia has more of a foothold in the Middle East.

by Gregg Jarrett


The clown show known as an "impeachment inquiry" is getting more comical and hapless by the day.

Consider the latest remark from the circus master himself, California Rep. Adam Schiff, (think Bozo, not Pennywise). The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says he doesn’t want Republicans turning the impeachment proceedings into a “sham.” The hilarious irony is lost on no one. Schiff has already managed to accomplish it all on his own.


At first, Schiff wanted the faux “whistleblower” who triggered the impeachment farce to testify. Then, suddenly, he didn’t. What changed? In the interim, evidence emerged that Schiff and/or his staff colluded with the “whistleblower” before the complaint was ever filed and then lied about it, earning Schiff “Four Pinocchios” from The Washington Post.

GREG JARRETT: WHISTLEBLOWER NOT ENTITLED TO ANONYMITY — HE'S AN INFORMANT ACTING AS A DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE

The chairman now wants to conceal his own role in engineering the pretext for impeachment and his subsequent deceit. This is why he has insisted that the “whistleblower” remain anonymous, despite no such right, guarantee, privilege, or entitlement written in the law, as I explained in an earlier column. Even though the undercover informant (reportedly working for the CIA) does not qualify for whistleblower status under the law as determined by the Department of Justice, any effort by Republicans to call him as a witness will be blocked by Schiff.

But Schiff’s machinations are more malevolent than masking the key witness. Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

For example, Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine who will testify on Wednesday, told Schiff’s committee that it was his “understanding” there was a link between U.S. security assistance and an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. How did Taylor arrive at his opinion? He heard it through discussions with other diplomats, although there is no indication that any of these individuals had direct knowledge of anything. The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo."

But wait. If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

My favorite purveyor of assorted hearsay is another star witness for Schiff this Wednesday. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

Under cross-examination, these witnesses readily admitted they had no firsthand knowledge of the president’s intent during his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They simply propagated and repeated rumors and innuendo in their diplomatic echo chamber. But that has not stopped Schiff from pretending that they are valued witnesses. With the chairman’s encouragement and guidance, they have offered their interpretations of the Trump-Zelensky conversation. It reminds me of Schiff’s own dramatic interpretation of the phone call, which was nothing more than an unconscionable fabrication designed to smear Trump.

A transcript of the real conversation is the best evidence of what actually occurred. Indeed, it is the only relevant and material evidence. Nowhere is there a demand, condition, or pressure for a “quid pro quo” that made an investigation of the Bidens contingent on U.S. military assistance. This is corroborated by Zelensky who is on record stating that there was no blackmail involved and no pressure applied. “Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said. “We had a great phone call,” he added. “It was normal.”

The Ukrainian government has confirmed that it was unaware that U.S. aid had been temporarily suspended until almost five weeks after the call with Trump. As noted in my previous column, it is impossible for there to be a “quid pro quo” when the recipient of the “quid” is oblivious to the existence of the "quo."

In the court of public opinion, Schiff increasingly reveals himself to be the court jester playing the fool. He presides over an investigatory charade that is anathema to fundamental fairness and due process.

If the inquiry was equitable, both sides would be able to call their own witnesses. Yet, the House of Representatives passed its impeachment measure giving Schiff the right to veto GOP witnesses. He has already made it clear that he will do so, rejecting a request that the faux “whistleblower” testify. It is clear that other witnesses, including Schiff and/or his staff, will also be rejected.

To his credit, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has made it clear that if the unidentified informant who precipitated the impeachment "witch hunt" is not allowed to testify in the House, “this thing is dead on arrival in the Senate.”

In truth, it was DOA the moment Schiff was put in charge of this clown show.

After the failure of the Mueller investigation to depose President Donald Trump, in September 2019, Democrats manufactured evidence to begin an "impeachment inquiry".
Under new House Rules adopted by Democrats in December 2018, Republicans are excluded from questioning witnesses while Articles of Impeachment are being drafted. The timing of the impeachment inquiry was to blunt information coming out [from FBI inspector general (I G) Michael Horowitz, U.S. attorney John Durham, and Attorney general William Barr] regarding the fraudulent counterintelligence investigation opened up on the 2016 Trump campaign, and the Russia collusion hoax perpetrated by the Obama intelligence community in collusion with the Democratic National Committee, the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, foreign governments and intelligence agencies to meddle in American media, public opinion, sway elections and attack American democracy.

Candidate Donald Trump had questioned why the United States was shouldering the burden of European Union defense costs while Europeans enjoyed free healthcare and Americans did not, and why China was taking over $500 billion in American wealth out of the country annually by trade deficits while American communities were being destroyed.[3] The military industrial complex and corporate globalists considered Trump a threat to their security.

The alleged "whistleblower" [CIA operative and Obama administation holdover Eric Ciaramella] filed a questionable hearsay complaint in an area outside the statutory purview of the intelligence community inspector general.
The same day, August 12, 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a supposedly "non-partisan" research service that provides legal analysis to committees and Members of both houses, issued an updated version of its report, The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives.[4]
"Coincidentally," six weeks later the CRS again issued a faulty report, using no statutory citations, informing Members that hearsay evidence was acceptable under the Whistleblower Act just two days before the alleged "whistleblower" complaint was received by House Intelligence Committee.

The Democrats' so-called "impeachment inquiry" denied fundamental constitutional due process rights [to House Republicans and Trump].

The metallic likeness of Catherine the Great towers over a park in Simferopol, the capital of Crimea. First erected in 1890 to commemorate the centenary of Catherine’s capture of the peninsula, it was torn down after the Russian revolution. After the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving Crimea part of newly-independent Ukraine, attempts to rebuild the statue stalled. Only after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 did the empress’s countenance rise again. “She’s the Putin of the 18th century,” says Andrei Malgin, the director of a local history museum. A defiant message adorns the pedestal: “This monument has been rebuilt in honour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia in 2014 and FOR ALL TIME.”

Russia’s seizure of Crimea ruptured its relations with Ukraine and the West. Other crises followed: wars in eastern Ukraine and Syria, election interference in America. Ukraine still wants its territory back. Volodymyr Zelensky, the country’s new president, called it “Ukrainian land” in his inauguration speech. But Russia has the peninsula firmly under its control. Western officials pay lip service to territorial integrity, while resigning themselves to the new status quo.



Russian officials crow that they have spruced up the peninsula after Kiev let it deteriorate. Indeed, the federal government has been generous: two-thirds of the regional budgets for Crimea and Sevastopol come from federal transfers. Sergey Aleksashenko, a former deputy head of the Russian central bank, reckons Moscow has spent 1.5trn rubles ($23bn) on Crimea over the past five years—equal to three years of national health-care spending. Mega-projects have transformed the landscape. A 19km bridge stretches across the Kerch strait, linking Crimea to the Russian mainland (see map). A smooth highway runs from the bridge to Sevastopol, and the city has a sleek new airport. North of the bridge, Moscow now claims the Sea of Azov as its own. Last autumn, Russia seized three Ukrainian ships trying to enter it; their 24 sailors are still in Russian custody.

Yet the patriotic fervour of the annexation has faded. “The euphoria has completely gone,” says Oleg Nikolaev, a prominent businessman. The region suffers the same problems as the rest of Russia: corruption and mismanagement, inflation and falling salaries, repression and restrictions. “We build a road, then tear it up to lay pipes. Then we build the road again but forget the streetlights, so we tear it all down and start again,” Mr Nikolaev gripes. In Sevastopol an outsider governor appointed by Mr Putin has riled locals.

Support for the annexation remains high. Yet a recent study by Vladimir Mukomel of the Russian Academy of Sciences turned up dissatisfaction with “the Russian bureaucratic machine, staff turmoil [and] corruption”. Demands for stability have given way to a desire for change.

Crimea’s disputed legal status compounds the challenges. Western sanctions crimp business. Significant private investments are few, and tend to the quixotic. A group of investors from St Petersburg hopes to turn a dusty Soviet-era design bureau on the outskirts of Sevastopol into a Russian Silicon Valley. “What does a techie need? Himself, a laptop and inspiration,” says Oleg Korolev, the park’s managing director. “Why not on the shores of the sea!” This glosses over the things a budding entrepreneur might not find in post-annexation Crimea: connections to the outside world, access to capital and the rule of law.

The new airport offers flights only to Russian destinations. Crimean residents have trouble getting visas to other countries, few of which recognise the annexation. Crossing the land border to Ukraine, as an estimated 200,000 do each month, means braving long lines and inquisitive border guards. Most banks, even Russia’s state-run giants, see the region as toxic; only a few small ones service it directly. To order from online merchants, Crimeans use VPNs that conceal their location. Companies partner with firms on the mainland to avoid problems with suppliers. A cottage industry has cropped up offering deliveries from IKEA and other superstores in Krasnodar, just across the strait.

According to Mr Mukomel, the only material beneficiaries have been civil servants and pensioners. “There are new rules of the game, and perhaps not everyone has adjusted to these new realities,” says Mr Malgin. As director of a public museum, he is among the winners.


THE NEW RULES

“We got up early for prayers, and then we heard the knocks,” says Zera Suleimanova. On March 27th Russian security services detained her son and nearly two dozen other Crimean Tatars. It was the largest mass arrest yet in a growing campaign of repression. The Tatars, a Turkic Muslim group who controlled the peninsula before the Russian empire arrived (and who were deported for decades by Stalin), mainly opposed Russia’s annexation. Their ruling council, the Mejlis, and its leaders have been banned from Crimea.

Arrests, harassment and disappearances have become common. A Tatar activist says police threaten them: “If you misbehave, you’ll become a poteryashkoi”—a “lost one”. Activists have formed a group called “Crimean Solidarity” to support political prisoners.

Ethnic Ukrainians, a shrinking minority, face similar pressure. “Everything left from Ukraine has been erased,” laments Archbishop Kliment, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox church in Crimea. Before the annexation, the church had 49 locations, including 25 active parishes, and nearly 20 priests across the peninsula. Today it is down to just nine locations and four priests. “The language is dying,” one Ukrainian activist whispers. “There are five- and six-year-old kids for whom Ukrainian is as alien as English.”

The new authorities’ official histories efface the peninsula’s non-Russian past. Asked what came before Catherine, a tour guide at one Sevastopol history museum responds with a wave of the hand: “Just some Turks.” As Mr Kliment points out, this is nothing new: the Russification of Crimea began long before Mr Putin gobbled it up. “But whether they can make it last,” he muses, “only God knows.”

by K.T. McFarland

The Biden administration keeps yammering on about Russia invading Ukraine any minute, warning Russian troops could take Kyiv in three hours. It's right about Russian capabilities, but why is the administration screaming it from the rooftops? Does it think Europeans, especially Germany, will be spurred into action?
Well, that ship sailed a year ago when President Joe Biden started shutting down the U.S. energy industry, while at the same time allowing Russian energy exports to expand. He threw away American energy independence. It drove up oil and gas prices, hurt the U.S. and European economies, and made Russia rich.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's position was pretty clear – to everyone except apparently Biden – when the two met at the White House this week. At their joint press conference, Biden announced: "If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Chancellor Scholz dodged questions on whether Germany would go along with Biden’s threats. Therein lies the problem – Germany, and other major European powers aren’t going to war, military or economic, over Ukraine. They can’t, because they don’t dare jeopardize their economies, which rely on Russian oil and natural gas to function.

Biden claims canceling Nord Stream 2 before it goes operational will send a message to Russia, but not affect Europe’s current import flow. Putin can still punish Europe by causing supply shortages to the energy Europe already gets from existing pipelines. It could even be to Putin’s advantage – prices will go up, and he’ll get the same revenue for less product.
If Germany does cancel Nord Stream 2, Putin’s got that covered, too. He’s lined up China as the new buyer.

So, the question remains, why does Team Biden insist on threatening massive sanctions if Russia invades? President Biden may have tipped his hand when he carefully defined an invasion as Russian forces crossing the border. Just a week or two ago, Biden implied a "minor incursion" might trigger a different response or not much of a response at all. He has made no mention at all on whether we would respond to hybrid warfare.

Putin can do whatever he wants with Ukraine – everything from outright invasion to everything else that falls just below that threshold. What is important to him is to keep Ukraine out of NATO, to drive a wedge between NATO members, and ultimately to bring Ukraine back under Moscow’s control.

I do not believe Putin wants to invade and occupy Ukraine. He can probably get what he wants with hybrid warfare – economic pressure, energy outages, cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, false flag operations, and intimidation. These all fall under the threshold of a hot war, and give Putin deniability, even if nobody outside of Russia believes him.
An actual invasion could get messy. If the Ukrainian military fights to defend itself, especially if there are significant civilian casualties, Russia risks looking like a bully on the world stage. If Ukrainians resort to guerilla attacks, or if the fighting is prolonged, Putin risks Russians coming home in body bags.

Which brings me back to the original point: Why is Team Biden warning a large-scale invasion is imminent? Maybe because they’re setting the stage for the Biden version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Putin doesn’t invade – because he can get what he wants without doing so – Biden can claim this as a great victory. He would be the man who faced down Putin and got him to back away from all-out war.

The problem is that President Biden has a tendency to miscalculate things – the rapid Taliban takeover and our shambolic withdrawal; supply chain shortages; an American public fed up with masks and mandates; persistent high inflation due in part to high energy prices Biden’s own policies caused.

What if his actions are actually goading Putin into crossing into Ukraine? What if Putin calls Biden’s bluff?

Don’t worry, Biden has a plan for that, too. Biden is sending additional U.S. troops to NATO countries that border Ukraine. He’s not going to have another Kabul crisis. The Pentagon announced U.S. troops can help evacuate some 30,000 Americans in Ukraine.
____________________________________

K.T. McFarland was President Trump’s Deputy National Security Advisor. She is a board member of the American Conservative Union and author of the best-selling book, Revolution: Trump, Washington and "We the People."