We present excerpts of the most notable publications.
NATO member states should not overreact to Putin's defense historical Russian interests in eastern Ukraine, Christopher Meyer, former British ambassador to Germany and the United States, argues in an article for The Times.
According to the author of the article, what is happening is a crisis for Ukraine and the Crimea in particular. Well, for Putin, of course. After all, if he is considered a violator of international law, he and Russia will lose prestige, while in Russia Putin will have “universal contempt if people find that he“ lost ”Ukraine and especially Crimea”.
Well, of course, the result of the note is clear: we are not defending anyone there, and Putin is simply driven by the desire to return Russia to the status of a great power. "For Moscow, Obama's words that Russia will" pay "for the invasion are like water off a duck's back," the author concludes. At the same time, Obama and NATO will really "pay" if they can not move Putin from the current path, especially since Putin is sure that the United States and NATO will not fight with him.
The Daily Beast revealed US plans. The publication claims that the Obama administration behind the scenes is planning an economic attack on Russia in response to its "invasion of Ukraine." Everyone will get everything in the neck - from the Russian military to government officials and businessmen. Separately arrive "Russian-speaking separatists in Ukraine."
On Sunday, Secretary of State Kerry already threatened with harsh measures. The US also wants to harmonize sanctions with the EU countries to achieve maximum efficiency, and at the same time they are preparing a new package of economic assistance to the Ukrainian “leadership”.
The Guardian, in turn, believes that the threat of John Kerry to exclude Russia from G8 may entail a "dangerous escalation of the crisis." Kerry’s haste aspiring to punish Russia and NATO’s decision to respond to Kiev’s appeals by holding a meeting of representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance in Brussels were a mistake. Ukraine is not part of this alliance, so no commitments on collective defense can be applied here. NATO should refrain from interfering in Ukrainian affairs, both in word and deed.
At the heart of the crisis in Crimea and Russia's fierce resistance to potential changes lies NATO’s blatant desire to continue its expansion twenty years ago, moving east into the post-Soviet space. There is no doubt that the Pentagon sees in its dreams those days when the US Navy will replace the Russian Black Sea the fleet in Crimean cities.
The Wall Street Journal writes: The United States and its European allies are demanding that Russia "stop the occupation of the Crimea." On Sunday, they threatened to “isolate” Russian President Vladimir Putin and impose sanctions on the country's economy.
Washington has begun to abolish joint economic and trade initiatives with Moscow, including preparations for the G8 summit, which is planned to be held in Sochi in June. The G8 members made a joint statement on Sunday condemning Russia for a clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and said they would suspend their participation in preparing the summit until Moscow’s military intervention in the affairs of Crimea ceases.
“Russian troops now have the ability to fully control the Crimean peninsula: about 6 thousand units of aircraft, naval forces, military equipment. There is no doubt that they occupied the Crimea ", - one of the reviews.
Officials in Washington and across Europe have long searched for the Achilles heel of Moscow and decided that in a situation of weakening the Russian economy and currency, the reduction of trade relations would be exactly what was needed.
The publication reports that British Foreign Secretary William Hague arrived in Kiev to express respect for the new Ukrainian authorities and confirm the position of the United Kingdom. US Secretary of State John Kerry will visit the Ukrainian capital on Tuesday to provide support to the interim government and help quickly strengthen the shrinking finances.
The newspaper The New York Times, in turn, broke out with emotional notes and first-hand information. The source in this case was a certain 24-year-old Arthur, who told in detail about what bad taste reigned in the residence of Yanukovich - icons, leather furniture, knightly armor. In a word - not fashionable.
However, Arthur told the whole truth about the situation in Ukraine: “New people distribute posts to corrupt officials. They are corrupt idiots. "
The last two months, the young man was in the ranks of self-defense of the Maidan, so he knows everything. He is sure that Moscow’s attempts to “exacerbate the situation” will not lead to anything, since Russia has nothing to offer Ukraine except fuel and energy, “and in the era of shale gas, it will soon become completely unnecessary.” Well and, of course, the publication notes that the Russians stole the identity of Ukraine, the language and the land.
The conflict in Ukraine threatens not only regional country's sovereignty, he is able to have a negative impact on European economies, writes The Telegraph.
The “experts” interviewed by the publication warn that the situation in Crimea may lead to an increase in the price of bread in the UK, since Ukraine is of strategic importance for global food supplies and is one of the world leaders in grain exports.
It is emphasized that the Crimea is an extremely important region, since the grain of Ukraine is exported mainly through its ports.
But this is not the limit. Russia itself may be on the verge of a humanitarian crisis - hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians flee to Russia, fearing for their lives. The world is expected to boom refugees and those seeking temporary housing. Mass migration can be a serious burden for Russia, Forbes is concerned.
In addition to the Russian-speaking, from the new language law suffered Hungarians, Romanians and Moldovans. They also lost their status of official languages in several cities in western Ukraine.
Separately is the publication in the personal blog of former US Ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock. According to him - the opinion of one of the most reputable American experts on the post-Soviet states, the behavior of the United States in the international arena deprives the conviction of their reference to the need to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity in relation to Ukraine.
As he writes, Russia can rightly assert that the States are interested in the territorial integrity of countries only when it is in their interests. “The track record of US governments shows that they ignore it when it suits them,” as when they, along with NATO allies, violated the territorial integrity of Serbia, creating and then recognizing independent Kosovo, and besides Sudan from Sudan, Eritrea from Ethiopia and East Timor from Indonesia, ”writes Matlock.
That is, in fact, “giving lectures on the observance of sovereignty and territorial integrity can be perceived by the United States as a claim to special rights that are not recognized for others.” Accordingly, all the “warnings” to Moscow from Washington’s side are the “ill-conceived step” of the White House, and Russia, “like any other country,” is simply “extremely sensitive to foreign military activities on its borders.”
Matlock also told what he thinks directly about Ukraine itself. According to the definition that he gave to the country, it is “a state, but not yet a nation”, because “for 22 of the year of independence there has not yet been a leader who could unite citizens around a common understanding of Ukrainian identity”. The current "confusion in Ukraine is caused not by Russian intervention, but by the way this country was randomly assembled from a number of parts that are not always compatible with each other." Matlock is convinced that “because of its history, geographical location and economic ties, Ukraine in no case can be a prosperous, healthy and united country without friendly (or at least not hostile) relations with Russia.”
At the same time, a new trend is emerging against the background of the usual inform-wave. It can be described as an internal readiness to “divide Ukraine with Russia”.
Thus, Ukrainian political scientists note that on the website of the German publication Der Spiegel the thematic title on the main page was changed from “Ukraine” to “Crimea”. And suddenly something strange happened: in the main Germanic editions, the word “provocations” in connection with the Russian actions in Ukraine began to be used exclusively in quotes; the population of the Crimea from Ukrainians turned into Russians; Crimea, it turns out, has always been a Russian region. Even the “Right Sector” from the category of freedom fighters smoothly moved into the category of dangerous right-wing radicals.
Philip Misfelder, speaker of the Christian Democratic Union on foreign policy issues, said that rapprochement with Russia is in the interests of Europe. He told the Reuters news agency that the geostrategic issue of the Crimea is perceived by Moscow very emotionally, because the Crimea is historically “der Kernbereich Rußlands”, the “original region of Russia”.
In the early days of the Crimean crisis, phrases were heard about “Russian provocations” and “Russian aggression” - now these terms come up exclusively in quotation marks, and, at least, Der Spiegel believes that the issue with Crimea “has already been practically resolved”. The last two materials, the “Dilemma of the Europeans” and “Operation Crimean Protectorate”, clearly indicate that the issue of the peninsula is almost closed. The first article discusses the issue of financial assistance to suffering Ukraine, these plans are even compared with the Marshall Plan. At the same time, it is emphasized that Brussels is not in a hurry to sign the Association with Ukraine. Noteworthy is the phrase that the European Union is clearly not ready to engage in unresolved territorial conflicts. In this regard, the candidate for the European Parliament from the liberal FDP and foreign policy specialist Alexander Graf Lambsdorf says that Ukraine is in an extremely difficult situation. In which case, she will have to “die Krim für die Integration in der EU opfern” - “sacrifice the Crimea for the sake of integration into the EU”. The second material, “Operation Crimean Protectorate,” examines Russia's behavior. It is argued that the Russian maneuver to bring the Crimea into its sphere of influence, "perhaps one day will be included in the textbooks on military tactics."
However, it is noted that the annexation of the Crimea is not necessarily the final goal of Putin: rather, the plan is to pursue a broad autonomy within Ukraine, the “unofficial protectorate”. It is impossible not to notice the almost admiring tone of the article, despite the fact that anti-Russian rhetoric is more characteristic of this magazine.
In general, as noted in the last week a significant part of the European media has changed its position on three issues.
First, the "Invasion." If initially Russian actions in Crimea were considered to be obvious aggression, now they are described in a more neutral tone, right up to admiration and approval.
Secondly, the "Crimea". All talk about the mandatory observance of the territorial integrity of Ukraine ceased when the first Russian flags rose above the "Ukrainian cities". Now the desire of the "Russian Peninsula" to autonomy is considered the natural and democratic will of the people.
Thirdly, the "Right Sector". Freedom fighters rather quickly turned into marginal extremists, and then completely into aggressive fascists who dreamed of blood.