Project "ZZ". Obama confessed to the Ukrainian sin, but appointed Putin guilty
Barack Obama has admitted on television that Washington was a "mediator" in the "transition of power" in Kiev. There is a saying: saying “a”, speak and “b”. The American president interpreted this ancient doctrine in his own way: he said that after the “deal” on the “transition” Putin “began to violate international law more and more.” Substitution of lexical units is a well-known method of manipulation of consciousness. Obama's statement should be interpreted as follows: Putin "violated the American law of the strong."
Obama took a short interview with a journalist CNN Farid Zakaria.
Somewhat unexpectedly, the American president confirmed the White House’s participation in the coup d'état that happened in Kiev last February. No, Obama did not use the phrase "coup d'etat", it would not be comme il faut for the main democratizer, freedom-lover and peacemaker on the planet. He told the TV channel about the "mediation" of the United States in the "deal" on the "transfer of power." Obama said this in an ordinary context for the White House - criticizing Putin:
Next, Obama turned to his favorite topic:
Then the US president criticized Russia's foreign policy, noting that the inclusion of the Crimea in the Russian Federation turned out to be "unprofitable." He mentioned the "exceptional" and the effectiveness of US and European sanctions against Moscow, adding to this that the pressure on Russia will continue, and Ukraine will receive support from the United States.
Apparently, wanting to support the president, they wrote about helping Ukraine in Washington Post big geopolitical experts Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott. The first is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, and previously worked as the US ambassador to Ukraine. The second is the president of the aforementioned Brookings Institute. 1994 to 2001 He served as Deputy Secretary of State.
Two experts have a vocabulary in the spirit of the new cold war. Instead of “insurgents” (“insurgents” in the American press are often called militias in the east of Ukraine) they write: insurgents (“fighters”). These "militants", according to the authors, supported by "Russian troops", attacked Donetsk and Lugansk.
Diplomatic efforts led to no progress; there is no question of any cease-fire; “Everything collapsed,” former diplomats say.
The West, including the United States, should "seriously approach the issue of assisting Ukraine." Otherwise, the situation will "worsen."
How to help? The authors know how: it is necessary to give Kiev "money for defense".
“Moscow has done nothing to promote a peaceful settlement,” the Americans write. “She did not withdraw her armed men and did not ensure the security of the border between Ukraine and Russia, as she had earlier promised to do in Minsk.” Vladimir Putin simply denies that his forces are fighting in Ukraine.
Experts talk about the "full-scale" war that is going on in eastern Ukraine. The military actions "are concentrated around the railway lines that are of strategic importance" for both opposing sides - Kiev and the "separatists", assisted by the Kremlin.
Apparently, the authors conclude, the Kremlin is seeking to keep the conflict “hot” and “destabilize the Ukrainian government.”
The Ukrainian crisis has already gone out for the West "beyond Ukraine." Russia no longer follows the rules that "have preserved peace, stability and security in Europe for almost seventy years." From now on, Russia "uses force to reshape the borders."
And if the West "does not push back" Russia, it can get "problems" concerning the promotion of Russia "to other countries." And then the solution to these new "problems" will require a much more "expensive answer."
Today, the United States and the European Union responded to Russia's aggression with economic sanctions, the authors remind. Sanctions seriously hit the Russian economy, but so far "have not reached a political goal." This latter goal implies Moscow’s consent to “real negotiations”.
As for US military assistance to Ukraine, Kiev has so far received equipment from the United States only for the sum of $ 120 million (and that is just “non-lethal assistance”).
Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott recommend that the White House "do more" and "force Russia to change course." In other words, Washington should give "the Ukrainian army enough money to make further aggression so expensive that Putin and the Russian army would refuse to escalate."
Experts have already calculated everything. The White House and Congress should transfer to Ukraine "serious money": 1 billion dollars in the form of military aid in the current fiscal year, and then another billion in the 2016 fiscal year. The US government should change its policy and begin to provide Ukraine with “lethal assistance”.
But this is not enough. The US government should turn to other NATO member states on assistance to Ukraine. First of all, the White House should talk with those countries that still exploit the former Soviet equipment and weapon systems compatible with the Ukrainian equipment. If the United States takes measures to provide "lethal assistance," then some other NATO countries will "do the same," the authors are sure. “Time does not wait!” They exclaim belligerently.
The opposite opinion about the assistance to Ukraine expressed in Newsweek Doug Bandow (Doug Bandow).
According to the publicist, there are a number of reasons why Washington should abandon its confrontation with Russia over Ukraine.
First, Russia is not for you Serbia, not Iraq, not Afghanistan and not Libya, the author lists. Yes, American warriors who live "in the ivory tower" are pushing the White House to arm Ukraine and even to American participation in the battles. This could lead to war, the journalist warns. Well, yes, Washington expects an "easy victory", but Russia is a tough nut. And a nuclear nutlet.
Secondly, Moscow has more at stake than Washington. Ukraine is much more important for Moscow than for Washington. Accordingly, the Kremlin will allocate much more resources and take on much more risks than the West.
Third, no one in the West is in a hurry to support Ukraine. The reason is simple: there is no point in getting into this mess. "Allies" just do not care about all this. Take Ukraine into NATO? Well no! This will lead to a sharp deterioration in the security of the United States itself: an endless dispute with Russia will begin.
Fourth, all sorts of alliances during world wars often serve as a catalyst of conflict - this was the case in World War I.
Fifth, why should the US foreign policy be based on the interests of some other countries, and not the United States itself?
Sixth, let Europe act. Ukraine is close to it.
Seventh, settlement is possible only through negotiations. This is the “only solution,” the analyst believes.
Summary: Washington can not act "as a belligerent"; Washington should focus on a “diplomatic solution.”
So let us add on our own, the United States through the mouth of the president acknowledged their participation in the coup d'état in Ukraine, but stated, albeit covertly, that Comrade. Putin has prevented the realization of their interests in the "nezalezhnoy."
Now America is at the geopolitical crossroads. If some experts who had previously served the good of American democracy call on Obama and congressmen to give Kiev money and weapons to fight the "aggressor", others advise the White House to stop listening to the "warriors" and go into the phase of negotiations. The Kremlin will not retreat, because Ukraine is the sphere of its interests, but Washington, in search of democracy, has climbed too far this time.
Obama is on TV. Frame: CNN
Obama took a short interview with a journalist CNN Farid Zakaria.
Somewhat unexpectedly, the American president confirmed the White House’s participation in the coup d'état that happened in Kiev last February. No, Obama did not use the phrase "coup d'etat", it would not be comme il faut for the main democratizer, freedom-lover and peacemaker on the planet. He told the TV channel about the "mediation" of the United States in the "deal" on the "transfer of power." Obama said this in an ordinary context for the White House - criticizing Putin:
"Putin made a decision on the Crimea and Ukraine, not because he had an outstanding strategy, but because he was taken by surprise and protests on the Maidan, and Yanukovych’s escape, which happened just after we mediated in the power transfer transaction in Ukraine ".
Next, Obama turned to his favorite topic:
“Since then, Putin has become increasingly violating the existing norms of international law, including encroaching on the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine.”
Then the US president criticized Russia's foreign policy, noting that the inclusion of the Crimea in the Russian Federation turned out to be "unprofitable." He mentioned the "exceptional" and the effectiveness of US and European sanctions against Moscow, adding to this that the pressure on Russia will continue, and Ukraine will receive support from the United States.
Apparently, wanting to support the president, they wrote about helping Ukraine in Washington Post big geopolitical experts Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott. The first is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, and previously worked as the US ambassador to Ukraine. The second is the president of the aforementioned Brookings Institute. 1994 to 2001 He served as Deputy Secretary of State.
Ukrainian army. Patrol near the village Orekhova, Lugansk region. Photo: Maksim Levin / "Reuters"
Two experts have a vocabulary in the spirit of the new cold war. Instead of “insurgents” (“insurgents” in the American press are often called militias in the east of Ukraine) they write: insurgents (“fighters”). These "militants", according to the authors, supported by "Russian troops", attacked Donetsk and Lugansk.
Diplomatic efforts led to no progress; there is no question of any cease-fire; “Everything collapsed,” former diplomats say.
The West, including the United States, should "seriously approach the issue of assisting Ukraine." Otherwise, the situation will "worsen."
How to help? The authors know how: it is necessary to give Kiev "money for defense".
“Moscow has done nothing to promote a peaceful settlement,” the Americans write. “She did not withdraw her armed men and did not ensure the security of the border between Ukraine and Russia, as she had earlier promised to do in Minsk.” Vladimir Putin simply denies that his forces are fighting in Ukraine.
Experts talk about the "full-scale" war that is going on in eastern Ukraine. The military actions "are concentrated around the railway lines that are of strategic importance" for both opposing sides - Kiev and the "separatists", assisted by the Kremlin.
Apparently, the authors conclude, the Kremlin is seeking to keep the conflict “hot” and “destabilize the Ukrainian government.”
The Ukrainian crisis has already gone out for the West "beyond Ukraine." Russia no longer follows the rules that "have preserved peace, stability and security in Europe for almost seventy years." From now on, Russia "uses force to reshape the borders."
And if the West "does not push back" Russia, it can get "problems" concerning the promotion of Russia "to other countries." And then the solution to these new "problems" will require a much more "expensive answer."
Today, the United States and the European Union responded to Russia's aggression with economic sanctions, the authors remind. Sanctions seriously hit the Russian economy, but so far "have not reached a political goal." This latter goal implies Moscow’s consent to “real negotiations”.
As for US military assistance to Ukraine, Kiev has so far received equipment from the United States only for the sum of $ 120 million (and that is just “non-lethal assistance”).
Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott recommend that the White House "do more" and "force Russia to change course." In other words, Washington should give "the Ukrainian army enough money to make further aggression so expensive that Putin and the Russian army would refuse to escalate."
Experts have already calculated everything. The White House and Congress should transfer to Ukraine "serious money": 1 billion dollars in the form of military aid in the current fiscal year, and then another billion in the 2016 fiscal year. The US government should change its policy and begin to provide Ukraine with “lethal assistance”.
But this is not enough. The US government should turn to other NATO member states on assistance to Ukraine. First of all, the White House should talk with those countries that still exploit the former Soviet equipment and weapon systems compatible with the Ukrainian equipment. If the United States takes measures to provide "lethal assistance," then some other NATO countries will "do the same," the authors are sure. “Time does not wait!” They exclaim belligerently.
The opposite opinion about the assistance to Ukraine expressed in Newsweek Doug Bandow (Doug Bandow).
“Pavlo, do you see Russians?” - “No.” - "And they are!"
Photo: Laurent Gillieron / "Pool" / "Reuters"
Photo: Laurent Gillieron / "Pool" / "Reuters"
According to the publicist, there are a number of reasons why Washington should abandon its confrontation with Russia over Ukraine.
First, Russia is not for you Serbia, not Iraq, not Afghanistan and not Libya, the author lists. Yes, American warriors who live "in the ivory tower" are pushing the White House to arm Ukraine and even to American participation in the battles. This could lead to war, the journalist warns. Well, yes, Washington expects an "easy victory", but Russia is a tough nut. And a nuclear nutlet.
Secondly, Moscow has more at stake than Washington. Ukraine is much more important for Moscow than for Washington. Accordingly, the Kremlin will allocate much more resources and take on much more risks than the West.
Third, no one in the West is in a hurry to support Ukraine. The reason is simple: there is no point in getting into this mess. "Allies" just do not care about all this. Take Ukraine into NATO? Well no! This will lead to a sharp deterioration in the security of the United States itself: an endless dispute with Russia will begin.
Fourth, all sorts of alliances during world wars often serve as a catalyst of conflict - this was the case in World War I.
Fifth, why should the US foreign policy be based on the interests of some other countries, and not the United States itself?
Sixth, let Europe act. Ukraine is close to it.
Seventh, settlement is possible only through negotiations. This is the “only solution,” the analyst believes.
Summary: Washington can not act "as a belligerent"; Washington should focus on a “diplomatic solution.”
So let us add on our own, the United States through the mouth of the president acknowledged their participation in the coup d'état in Ukraine, but stated, albeit covertly, that Comrade. Putin has prevented the realization of their interests in the "nezalezhnoy."
Now America is at the geopolitical crossroads. If some experts who had previously served the good of American democracy call on Obama and congressmen to give Kiev money and weapons to fight the "aggressor", others advise the White House to stop listening to the "warriors" and go into the phase of negotiations. The Kremlin will not retreat, because Ukraine is the sphere of its interests, but Washington, in search of democracy, has climbed too far this time.
Information