FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "How about mediation to seek a peaceful solution of Ukraine issues? Mediation? Who would do the mediating? And how many parties would have to mediate? Where would any mediation take place? And under whose auspices? And so on...All good questions, to be sure. And all beside the point."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. (photo: Reuters)
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. (photo: Reuters)


Calm in Ukraine, Who Wants That?

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

14 April 14

 

How about mediation to seek a peaceful solution of Ukraine issues?

ediation? Who would do the mediating? And how many parties would have to mediate? Where would any mediation take place? And under whose auspices? And so on … All good questions, to be sure. And all beside the point.

What’s the point?

The point is that no one of public stature is suggesting anything of the sort, from which it’s fair to infer that no one is serious about anything but stoking tensions until there’s a real crisis (not just governmental and media bloviating about a new Cold War).

You don’t think so?

Mediation, by definition, requires a neutral third party (to the degree that’s ever possible), namely the mediator. Bi-lateral or multi-lateral talks, whatever good they may achieve, are not mediation. Serious mediation begins with the assumption that all the parties have legitimate interests.

Does anyone involved in Ukraine’s turmoil grant that all the others have legitimate interests?

If there were a seriously peaceful party in the struggle, wouldn’t it be making peaceful suggestions? If not mediation per se, how about bringing it to the United Nations in a neutral form? How about UN peacekeepers in Ukraine, at least along the borders? How about UN observers for the May election? How about any other suggestion designed to calm things down?

If anyone is making such suggestions, you’d think we’d hear about them, somehow, from somebody. (Reportedly, on March 1, the US ambassador to Ukraine called once for observers in Crimea.) So why is actual solution-seeking so clearly off everyone’s table? Let us speculate:

RUSSIA feels threatened by the west, which is both real and paranoid. It took Crimea willingly, without firing a shot. It may also hope to take some of eastern Ukraine without firing a shot. It wants to get paid for its natural gas. It thinks it’s winning.

THE UNITED STATES feels almighty and self-righteous and sees bringing a military alliance (NATO) to Russia’s borders as God’s work or the equivalent. Having engineered a coup d’état in Ukraine, it expects the government’s illegitimacy to be expiated by the May election. It thinks it’s winning.

EUROPE, which would include all the countries, the European Union, and NATO, feels trapped between the US and Russia, with no obvious way out of the trap, except maybe neutrality, which won’t be allowed. Europe is the Rodney King of this situation: “Can we all get along?” It doesn’t think it’s winning, but it hopes it’s not going to lose (at least not lose too much).

UKRAINE is angry about just about everything, depending on which Ukrainian you ask. Ukraine would like to be free, peaceful, not corrupt, and nobody’s puppet – but it has no consensus as to how that can be achieved. The hope and idealism of the Maidan has passed with the coup. Ukraine’s divisions are bitter and ancient. One measure of Ukrainian desperation is their turning over at least part of the government to oligarchs, who became oligarchs by plundering the government. If everyone left Ukraine alone, Ukrainians would go on killing each other, because the extreme factions have one thing in common: they think they’re winning.

THE UNITED NATIONS should be a place for possible conflict resolution, but Russia and the US have Security Council vetoes, so forget that. The General Assembly might try to achieve something like a just solution, but why would they? And even if they did, how much more effective would it be than what they’ve tried to do for the Palestinians? Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has seen the UN help his country (South Korea) recover from war, if not unite it. But he has not been a particularly assertive leader. Maybe he thinks someone is winning – or should win. It’s not clear.

On April 12, 2014, the UN issued the following “Statement Attributable to the spokesperson for the Secretary-General on Ukraine”:

“The Secretary-General is deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in Eastern Ukraine and the growing potential for violent clashes.

“The Secretary-General stresses that further disturbances will not serve the interests of any side. He therefore appeals to all sides to work towards calming the situation, adhere to the rule of law and exercise maximum restraint. He calls again for urgent and constructive dialogue to deescalate the situation and address all differences.

“The United Nations stands ready to continue to support a peaceful resolution to the current crisis facing Ukraine.”

Like Europe says: “Can we all get along?”

Encouraging blue skies, nothing but blue skies, is not objectionable, but it’s not all that helpful either, and it’s certainly not a practical proposal. If anything, Ban Ki-Moon’s focus only on “Eastern Ukraine,” while rational it its way, is a focus on only a symptom and is more likely than not to make the disease worse. He expressed the same selectivity on April 4, saying he had urged leaders in Kiev and Moscow to de-escalate, but not a word about Washington (which should have de-escalated 20 years ago). That’s not serious statesmanship.

What is serious is that so many of the parties to the conflict think they’re going to win. That is a sure recipe for creating a lot of losers.

According to an unconfirmed report, acknowledged as such by the Voice of Russia on April 8:

The United Nations Security Council has, for the umpteenth time, considered the Ukrainian issue, and experts made a rather unexpected conclusion. It turned out that Ukraine has no official boundaries. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, Kiev hasn’t demarked its borders. Nor has it registered at the United Nations the demarcation of its borders as a sovereign state.

If it’s true that in some way, legally or geopolitically, Ukraine has no meaningful boundaries with some or all of its seven border states, that might be a good place to start sorting things out. In 2009, the International Court of Justice ruled on a maritime boundary dispute between Ukraine and Romania. The same court issued an advisory opinion in 2010 that a unilateral declaration of independence does not violate international law (that was Kosovo; the Crimean example has not been litigated). In its global summary of international border disputes, the CIA provides partial support for the Voice of Russia assertion.

Meanwhile, Russians users of Google Maps see Crimea as part of Russia, while the rest of the world sees the Ukraine-Crimea border as “disputed.”



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+18 # zach 2014-04-14 17:54
Indeed. Why spoil a good show. Now that the search for the lost jetliner is winding down to only obsessive coverage, the news media need a good scrap.
So, they interview guys who haven't had as much fun since the Berlin Wall toppled. The duly elected members of the US government are getting good brownie points with the electorate: everyone hates Russia. It's a no cost bashing. Watch them outdo each other on how we are going whup their Rooskie butts.
So, with Letterman leaving CBS, and most good shows in re-run status at the moment, we need some good entertainment. A little shock and awe never hurt anyone.
Pardon my cynicism, but I am getting awfully tired of it. The Obama Administration doing a little light editing of warnings about Saddam's WMD, really now, do you think our memories are that short? Please, don't answer that.
 
 
0 # RobertMStahl 2014-04-15 14:40
Exactly. The game is fixed with no referees. It is Goliath versus nothing, not even David, putting Russian 100% passive politics in the NOTHING category, and no one is even interested in what this will become facing off with nuclear ignorance. As for nuclear, has anyone heard of one harmful disease accruing from the Fukushima disaster? Just, wondering, because I don't find any studies based on those facts!

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/04/14/washington-drives-world-war-paul-craig-roberts/
 
 
+10 # listentome 2014-04-14 17:59
"If it’s true that in some way, legally or geopolitically, Ukraine has no meaningful boundaries with some or all of its seven border states, that might be a good place to start sorting things out."
Pretty amazing if this is the case, but maybe overlooking borders sheds a bright light on future without them, just as technology allows instant global communication without borders and just as mother nature operates.
 
 
+1 # jojo5056 2014-04-14 18:44
The author has forgotten one item of importance---Wi thout Crimea, the west does not want any part of Ukraine.Sad part is, Russia also don't want a basket case.
Let's stop the chase, America's interest was to punish Russia by acquiring Crimea's Russian Naval base and block aid it.
What are the motives--suppor ting Syria Iran and most important--the control of the Russian oligarch Jews.
 
 
+4 # BKnowswhitt 2014-04-14 21:08
You seem to have some sort of incite please elaborate. Notice how the USA Media discusses none of it .. no historical reporting what so ever on the region and what's going on there .. any one wonder WHY? I sure fucking do!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
 
+2 # Doll 2014-04-15 07:01
Incite? Or do you mean it's homophone, insight? It changes the meaning of your arguement.
 
 
0 # punch 2014-04-17 07:52
It's? Or do you mean its homophone, its?
 
 
+16 # Icon 2014-04-14 19:23
It's all about the goodies that can be pillaged from the peasant Ukrainians!

Russia jumped first to secure the gas wells in & off the Crimea coast & to protect their naval base. Now the other players US Chevron, Cargill & Monsanto who are licking their chops to pillage all they can, have got the US trying to pull off another Iraq Stunt just for them!

What needs to happen is, the Ukrainian people need a real "Honest" leader to kick out all the Scum & take control of their own country & lives & that most definitely does not include Yats & the Puppet scum that the US/CIA put into power!!
 
 
+7 # NOMINAE 2014-04-14 19:38
From the aritcle:

“The Secretary-Gener al stresses that further disturbances will not serve the interests of any side. He therefore appeals to all sides to work towards calming the situation, adhere to the rule of law and exercise maximum restraint. He calls again for urgent and constructive dialogue to deescalate the situation and address all differences."

Does Ban Ki-Moon share the same planet with the rest of us ?

His little Pollyanna proposal above sounds like *JUST* the thing that one could immediately "sell to" the Neo-Nazis (and their shadow handlers) who have been so instrumental in the present take over of Kiev.

Rodney King does indeed persist and prevails in many places.

Good call, William.
 
 
+5 # motamanx 2014-04-14 20:18
Mediation would be good. Meditation would be better. Stop that greedy posturing, start meditating.
 
 
+1 # woofer 2014-04-14 20:50
It's always instructive to get the Vermont Life point of view.
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2014-04-15 10:18
funny, woofer –
but have you read Vermont Life recently?
 
 
-25 # BKnowswhitt 2014-04-14 21:06
USA should blow Putin and his troops off the map. They are illegal invaders taking over a country that is not there own. Of course that is not an alternative today. So Putin gets away with it. Let's see we'll meditate .. should be attack .. should we not ... should we attack .. should we not ... should we attack ..
 
 
+5 # Kootenay Coyote 2014-04-15 08:33
& who blew the USA off the map when it started a vicious war of aggression in Iraq?
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2014-04-15 12:41
Quoting BKnowswhitt:
USA should blow Putin and his troops off the map.


O.K. We'll sacrifice the lives and Treasury it would take to follow up on your fantasy under one condition - that when the war starts, *YOU* have to be the first one to be placed in harm's way, and if you have any children or grandchildren, they have follow right behind you.

Yeah ..... didn't think so.
 
 
+8 # Mediator_Tom 2014-04-15 00:01
Mr Boardman,

Let me say that it is not actually the case that: "Serious mediation begins with the assumption that all the parties have legitimate interests."

As a mediator practicing nearly 20 years, I don't make judgments about the legitimacy of any party's interests. I am much more: "I really don't care what color is the Sun is on your planet, I just want to know what you want and why."

Mediation is too often a mis-understood and underappreciate d means to resolve conflict in our world. I speak out about it whenever I see the need to clarify and illuminate. So please tolerate my 'splitting hairs' with you on this small aspect of your article.
 
 
-3 # Philothustra 2014-04-15 00:46
Good point. The opinions expressed above are otherwise largely nonsense. What is most interesting is the complete lack of concern about 46, now make it 44 million people have to say about their own state.

Particularly the childish rants about crazed "neo-nazis." Sounds like the old McCarthy era screeching about "commies: and pinkos. Left and right are braindead.
 
 
+6 # WBoardman 2014-04-15 10:24
Mediator_Tom -- point taken, gratefully.

When I wrote "legitimate" I did not mean to imply that
any side, or all sides, was correct –
rather I mean that all sides should be heard with respect,
which is what I take you to mean.

I should have been more precise.
 
 
+8 # janie1893 2014-04-15 01:08
There hasn't been a decent bombing or mass genocide for weeks. The rapturists are afraid the end is not nigh. So let's keep on killing. God will take us to heaven 'cause we are the good guys. And wear your white hat!!
 
 
+4 # robcarter.vn 2014-04-15 04:20
A/ USA don't honor UN if they lead anyhow (see Nicaragua won ILICOS UNCLOS but USA has a UNSC Like IMF Veto it doesn't abide has Vetoed 77 UNSC's so far and resigned UNCLOS after Nicar did them.

B/ They usa aren't noble or righteous they want war sales profits. so fan the flames matey
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2014-04-15 08:58
Getting the UN involved?????!! !??? Are you kidding me? It takes them weeks to decide which chairs to sit in. I'd get the UN involved but only as a photo-op. That's the only thing the UN is good for.

And let's not forget, people. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferati on of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996.

Following the 2014 Crimean crisis, the U.S., Canada and the U.K. all separately stated that Russian involvement is in breach of its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, and in clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
 
 
+4 # WBoardman 2014-04-15 10:49
bmiluski – the Budapest Memorandum appears to be
a good subject for a case study in good faith/bad faith.

Recently, the official position of the US government '
has been that the terms of the Budapest Memorandum
are "nonbinding."
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/23051-focus-as-for-ukraine-is-anyone-playing-this-qcrisisq-straight
 
 
-3 # bmiluski 2014-04-15 13:28
Yeah, we're now going into "diplomatic speak".
 
 
+1 # WBoardman 2014-04-16 09:15
More like power politics, really –
diplomacy was signing the memorandum
in order to get the nuclear weapons out.

Nothing very diplomatic now, just saying "never mind."
 
 
+6 # Charles3000 2014-04-15 09:40
Putin was busy with the Olympics when the US was stirring up the troubles in the Ukraine. Putin's reactive approach has been similar to but much more modest than what the US did to start the mess.
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2014-04-15 13:22
I'm sorry Charles3000 amassing several thousand troops on the border of Crimea is modest? Sending in trained hooligans to take over several government buildings is modest?
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2014-04-15 13:36
Quoting bmiluski:
I'm sorry Charles3000 amassing several thousand troops on the border of Crimea is modest? Sending in trained hooligans to take over several government buildings is modest?


But did Russia actually do any of this ? They claim they didn't. It's pretty much whoever you want to believe on that topic. Accepting US propoganda as the sole source of truth is exactly the kind of thinking that got us into an unjust and illegal war with Iraq and nearly put us into a war with Syria when it now looks like Assad really didn't launch Sarin gas at his own people. Everything the US has asserted, they've done so without a single shred of evidence. After their debacle in Iraq, the US is more or less just stating to the world ... trust us. You may choose to do so ... but I don't. Of all the stories being told by both sides, one thing ... perhaps the only thing ... that has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt is that the US and EU were complicit in stirring up the current unrest in Ukraine and inserting their puppet. Everything else is just propoganda.
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2014-04-15 14:57
I have Ukranian friends who have relatives in the Ukraine and unless we have somehow been able to kidnap their broadcasting stations, the relatives verified that there were Russian troops on the Crimea borders.
The "rebels" that have taken over several government buildings ALL speak Russian. There was an independant reporter that managed to get himself invited into one of these buildings and he reported that there was nothing amateur/spontan eious about these "rebels". They had enough provisions to last for a long time. Everything was being organized in a very military fashion. These were not idealistic kids wandering around the halls of these buildings. These were very purposful people who had everything well organized.
 
 
+1 # dsepeczi 2014-04-16 07:19
Quoting bmiluski:
I have Ukranian friends who have relatives in the Ukraine and unless we have somehow been able to kidnap their broadcasting stations, the relatives verified that there were Russian troops on the Crimea borders.
The "rebels" that have taken over several government buildings ALL speak Russian. There was an independant reporter that managed to get himself invited into one of these buildings and he reported that there was nothing amateur/spontaneious about these "rebels". They had enough provisions to last for a long time. Everything was being organized in a very military fashion. These were not idealistic kids wandering around the halls of these buildings. These were very purposful people who had everything well organized.


What you say may be true but I remind you that you don't have to kidnap broadcasting stations to control them. All it takes is a little programming bias. Just look at our own msm. If the only news we got on this topic was the news provided by the msm, we wouldn't even be able to dream that our government would have been responsible for the coup. We would still think that Assad launched Sarin without even considering the possibility that it was Turkey. Hell, we would still be thinking that Iraq was a good idea. Russia may have amassed troops along the border but why aren't there any pictures then ? Forty thousand people are pretty hard to hide. As for the reporter you mentioned, why aren't we seeing this story from the US ?
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2014-04-16 08:06
But there were pictures and if you watched PBS there were videos. I don't know what you're watching but you're beginning to sound like the other side of the coin. One side believes everything the other nothing.
 
 
+1 # WBoardman 2014-04-17 10:40
No one disputes that Russian troops are stationed in Russia,
within 50 miles +/- of the Ukraine eastern border.

What is not clear is how many troops are there as a normal
fact of life (such as the 25,000 in Crimea as allowed by treaty).
The Russians say they're on maneuvers.
The West says they're getting ready to invade.
Nobody tells the simple truth, whatever it is.

As for speaking Russian –
that's what people in Russian-speakin g regions do sometimes.

Language is a Ukrainian flashpoint,
that's why the new Kiev government immediately
eliminated Russian as an official language in Ukraine
(a deliberate affront, soon rescinded).
 
 
+3 # geraldom 2014-04-15 18:26
Out of all of the choices listed in the article, at the very end it lists the United Nations and its secretary general (SG), Ban Ki-moon.

The article implies that Ban Ki-moon is a weak and not very assertive, but, if truth be told, he’s done his job quite admirably, at least the job that he was put there to do by the U.S. who helped him get his job as SG.

Ban Ki-moon and the U.N. itself have become puppets of the United States. Ban Ki-moon has protected the U.S. from condemnation by the world organization for war crimes and crimes against humanity, while, at the same time, has attacked other countries that he was directed to attack by the United States, in many cases, for the very same crimes committed by the U.S. but to a much lesser degree.

As a result of the lack of neutrality and fair play by the U.N. and its leader, SG Ban Ki-moon, neither it or its leader, Ban Ki-moon, can properly mediate the situation in Ukraine. And, as a result of the current situation with the United Nations, there is really no one in the world that can mediate this situation in Ukraine. But, if truth be told, there should be no need to mediate this matter. It was the U.S. itself who instigated this mess by illegally overthrowing the democratically- elected leader of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, in a coup d’etat and now has the audacity to tell Russia to stay out of it and not interfere with the new illegitimate govt of Ukraine, and this in Russia’s own backyard!

Continued
 
 
+2 # geraldom 2014-04-15 18:30
Continued

If Russia allows the U.S. to get away with this in its own backyard, then it might as well give away its own sovereignty to the United States.

If the United States started this mess in Ukraine (as it did), in Russia's own backyard, then Russia has the right to clean it up without any BS or interference from the United States.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2014-04-15 23:17
And as the Obama-appointed NeoCon, Victoria Nuland famously said, since we can get the UN to back our regime change, "F*ck the EU."
 
 
+1 # geraldom 2014-04-15 23:33
Quoting Radscal:
And as the Obama-appointed NeoCon, Victoria Nuland famously said, since we can get the UN to back our regime change, "F*ck the EU."


I would suggest that you watch the full video at the following URL site:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/14/358540/us-seeks-nuclear-war-with-russia/

It is my belief that Russia is going to be dumb enough to throw the pro-Russian demonstrators in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine underneath the bus by not interceding militarily on their behalf against the thugs that were sent by Kiev.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2014-04-17 00:38
Thanks for the link. I may be a fool, but I don't think even the NeoCon Artists want a full scale nuclear war.

As it stands this evening, the Ukrainian military seems to have refused orders to invade the cities in the east that are defying the coup government. If enough of them refuse, or even decide not to support the coup more generally, it may not be necessary for Russia to decide whether to get directly involved militarily.

I sure would like to know what our CIA Director was up to.
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-04-17 10:45
Radscal, I give you a new link to visit:

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/17/we_are_not_beginning_a_new?autostart=true

It's a portion of Democracy Now that aired today, April 17th, which discusses the situation in Ukraine. Amy Goodman's guest today is Professor Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus at N.Y. University and Princeton. You need to watch this interview. It's about 15 minutes long.

You mentioned the current head of the CIA, John Brennan, who visited Kiev. If you watched that video that I gave you in my initial posting to you, it implied that the CIA has moved into Kiev and is orchestrating what's currently happening in eastern and southern Ukraine.

It is my opinion that the U.S. has jumped in with both feet into the Ukrainian matter, at least covertly.

There is a saying, Radscal. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, meaning that if Russia had intervened military before things got this bad, things wouldn't have gotten this bad. Yes, the U.S. and NATO and even the U.N., which is really no longer the U.N. anymore since it has become part and parcel of the U.S., would all have been screaming and yelling and threatening Russia with more sanctions and who knows what else. But, in the end, things would have eventually quieted down and both the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine would have been stabilized under the Russian umbrella and Kiev would not have sent in their thugs as they did.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2014-04-17 13:19
Hi Harold,

I watched that DemocracyNow! this morning. Stephen Cohen remains convinced that Russia will not back down.

Putin has been consistent since before the November protests/riots that Ukraine should be free to trade with both the EU/US and Russia. That seems to be what was discussed again in the meeting you linked to below.

In other news, the coup-government got the military to fire on, and kill some people in eastern Ukraine, so it all just got hotter.
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-04-17 15:13
The article that I referenced below states that all illegal groups be unarmed and for control of all govt buildings (I assume in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine) to be return to the Kiev govt.

What this agreement does is to render all pro-Western demonstrators/g roups virtually toothless, unable to defend themselves if the (illegitimate) Ukrainian govt were to betray them, and I guarantee it will when everyone has been disarmed.

For Russia to bargain with the United States, the primary mover behind the coup d'etat that took place to dethrone the democratically- elected leader of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, and the current illegitimate govt of Ukraine, which legally has no rights to negotiate anything, is completely beyond me.

When Russia, in the end gets screwed over by the west and by the illegitimate leader of Ukraine, Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk, it will find itself in even more of a mess if it tries to go in and correct the situation. The Ukrainian govt will have sent in military reinforcements into the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine to prevent another uprising by pro-Russian forces, and the U.S. and NATO will be more entrenched in the region than they are now.

Can't you see that, Radscal? Why can't Russia see it?

As it turned out, Stephen Cohen was unfortunately wrong. Putin has in fact backed down and will unfortunately regret that decision in the end. He has, in effect, legitimized the illegitimate govt of Ukraine.
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-04-17 18:53
I may have been in grave error, Radscal, and I hope that I am. When I first saw that article claiming that Russia had made a deal with the United States and the illegitimate government of Ukraine, I thought that it was true. It may not be.

I am seeing all kinds of articles on the web to the contrary, that Putin seems to be pushing back hard and I hope that that is what really is happening.

http://news.yahoo.com/putin-reminds-force-ukraine-remains-table-nato-beefs-130024419.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/is-putin-s-next-move-to-take-over-odessa.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

The last URL is a long one. Just left-click from the very beginning and drag until the whole thing is highlighted and then right-click and select copy.

The web title of this article was "Has Putin Picked His Next Targets?"

The article speaks of Odessa as Putin's possible next target.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2014-04-17 19:27
The "agreement" does state that "illegal" groups must disarm. I guess since Putin's stand is that the coup government in Kiev is "illegal," that could be taken a couple of different ways.

I've seen some of his 4-hour Q&A and - at least to a Russian audience - he remains resolute, and reminds everyone that the Legislature/Par liament gave him the authority to use the military.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2014-04-17 19:40
Harold,

Here's an article describing how the Maidan "protesters" were trained in riot/coup tactics in Poland just couple months before they started their riots in Kiev.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/polands-role-in-destabilizing-ukraine-polish-military-trained-neo-nazi-militants-for-euromaidan-protests/5378129
 
 
+1 # geraldom 2014-04-18 00:07
Radscal, I subscribe to Dish Network, and I watch RT, Russian Television, Ch 280. It's a Russian news channel based in the U.S. It's all in English with some recognized names like Thom Hartmann and Larry King. It's website is RT.com.

In any case, their headline news covered the meeting between Russian FM Sergey Lavrov, John Kerry and the Ukrainian representative among several others who were at the meeting.

At the bottom of the screen they show streaming news headlines. One headline stated that nothing had come from the negotiations and then another stated that an agreement had been reached. It was somewhat confusing, but it does appear that an agreement had been reached, one that precisely matches that first article that I referenced.

I'm sorry to say that Putin was a damn fool in accepting this agreement that came out of this meeting. As I said, if the pro-Russian demonstrators/f orces in the east and in the south give up their weapons and vacate the buildings that they've occupied, the Ukrainian govt will move right in with the military in an attempt to secure the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine.

The agreement favors the illegal Ukrainian govt and the western powers that created it and puts Russia at a distinct disadvantage.

Once again, the irony of this is that the U.S. was behind the coup against Yanukovych and placed its puppet leader, Arseny Yatseniuk, in power. They should've had no legal standing at these negotiations.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2014-04-18 01:04
Harold,

Yeah, I watch RT, too. It's fascinating to compare the propaganda of RT compared to that on corporate U.S. media.

As the riots got really heated up in February, I saw a Chris Hayes segment on MSNBC. He said he just didn't know what to make of it. That his sympathies naturally go for protesters, especially when riot police are facing them off.

But, then he saw the obvious neo-nazi connections, tossing molotov cocktails to burn cops alive, etc. and so he didn't think these "protesters" were exactly the good guys. He closed saying he just didn't know what to make of it.

The very next day, he was onboard the propaganda bandwagon, calling Putin crazy, referring to the rioters as a pro-democracy movement, etc.

I guess he got the memo. All his coverage since has been toeing the party line.

Anyway, Putin is a lot of things, but a damn fool is not likely one of them. I doubt he wants war with the EU/US, but I doubt he'll let NATO set up right on Russia's border either.
 
 
+1 # geraldom 2014-04-18 08:35
Radscal, Putin may not want war with the U.S. and NATO because he knows that all life on this planet will end, most especially human life. But, at some point, a point that I thought has long been passed, he has to stop bending over and kissing the asses of both the U.S. and NATO and stand his ground and move no more.

In the film "Dr. Strangelove," at some point the Russian diplomat tells the U.S. that Russia has a doomsday device that will automatically be triggered if a U.S. nuclear device is dropped on the Soviet Union. The response, I believe, by Dr. Strangelove was "Why didn't you tell us this before we attacked? Such a weapon is only effective when you warn your enemies."

And, in a real life situation during the Cuban Missile Crisis, four Russian submarines in the north Atlantic were carrying nuclear-tipped torpedoes completely unbeknownst to the U.S. navy that was hunting them.

One of the subs was under heavy depth charge attack by a U.S. surface ship and was about to launch one of these torpedoes. Three men had to agree on this and thank God one them didn't.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that the U.S. will continue to pressure Putin until he issues an ultimatum to the U.S. to back off on Ukraine and to stop pushing Russia into a corner as it is doing even now, that the U.S. will force a nuclear war to end all life on earth, that Russia will not tolerate no more and has now drawn a line in the sand from which it will not move any further.
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-04-17 13:02
Radscal, Russia just cut its own throat:

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-deal-reached-calming-ukraine-tensions-163644646--politics.html

I don't know what else to say.
 
 
-1 # FDRva 2014-04-16 02:37
The financial community folks who largely control Pres. Obama appear to want a war with Russia.

If we leave it to him--and them--we get mushroom clouds.

Perhaps some means should be devised for replacing Obama with Biden.

Retiring to spend more time with the kids has always been a popular one.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2014-04-16 08:08
In what way has President Obama shown that he approves of war and will drop boots on the ground at any slightest provocation?
 
 
+1 # geraldom 2014-04-16 14:46
Quoting FDRva:
The financial community folks who largely control Pres. Obama appear to want a war with Russia.

If we leave it to him--and them--we get mushroom clouds.

Perhaps some means should be devised for replacing Obama with Biden.

Retiring to spend more time with the kids has always been a popular one.


FDRva, replacing Obama with Biden is not going to change anything in terms of the current policy of the United States for world hegemony, control of (literally) the whole word.

We would need someone like Cynthia McKinney as president in order for that to happen, and I don't know how long she, or someone like her, would be alive before someone from the military-indust rial-complex side of the house would get rid of her.
 
 
0 # FDRva 2014-09-08 02:17
I voted for her--as a last resort protest vote. Biden is slightly more human than than the mega-narcissist Barry Obama.
 
 
+2 # elizabethblock 2014-04-17 12:36
I am reminded, not for the first time, of a line from a song by the brilliant, and wise, Aussie Eric Bogle:

May you find peace, if peace is what you´re seeking.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN