[Sorenant]

[Sorenant]

Calls in Kiev to ‘regain nuclear status in six months’

Unable to resolve tensions with the largely pro-Russian autonomous region of Crimea, Kiev is bombarding Moscow with accusations and warnings. Some politicians have even threatened to restock Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal.

Throughout Friday, Russian diplomats and the military had to refute media speculation and explain that the armed people at the Crimean airports in Simferopol and Sevastopol weren’t Russian troops.

“There are no troops whatsoever. No Russian troops, at least… Some civilians claiming to be representing groups of ‘self-defense of Crimea’ arrived at Simferopol airport overnight, but they retreated and nothing happened,” Russian ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, told Euronews.

The Russian Black Sea fleet has been stationed in Sevastopol since the 18th century. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union it remained there, according to an agreement between Russia and Ukraine.

Any movements of the Russian military within Crimea are in line with the existing arrangements with Ukraine on the deployment of military assets in the former Soviet republic, Russia’s UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said.

“We have an arrangement with Ukraine about the stationing of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol and we are acting within the framework of that agreement,” Churkin told reporters.

The ultra-right “Svoboda” (Liberty) party has remained unconvinced, with one of its representatives in the Ukrainian parliament warning that if Russia doesn’t tread carefully it will be dealing with a nuclear power.

“We’ll regain our status as a nuclear power and that’ll change the conversation. Ukraine has all the technological means needed to create a nuclear arsenal – which would take us about three to six months,” Svoboda party MP Mikhail Golovko said.

The rhetoric, which contradicts the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty Ukraine signed in 1994, is not new for the Svoboda party, one of the driving forces behind the Maidan uprising. Its leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, already promised that the country would go nuclear while he was running for the presidency in 2009.

But how feasible is the prospect of Ukraine ‘regaining nuclear status’?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, former republics Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan agreed to either dispose of or send over to Russia their nuclear arsenals, which they held while being part of the USSR.

In 1994 a trilateral agreement was signed by the presidents of the United States, Russia and Ukraine, stipulating the process of Kiev’s nuclear disarmament. In 1996 Ukraine officially lost its nuclear status, having gotten rid of the whole of its stockpile.

But the country still draws almost half of its energy from atomic power, and is home to Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.

While the uranium Ukraine gets from Russia for its reactors is low-enriched, reactor waste is quite enough to make a so-called dirty bomb. The country possesses manpower and know-how to do that as well as delivery vehicles for nuclear payload, which don’t have to be too sophisticated.

The Ukrainian MP’s nuclear rhetoric is highly counterproductive amid the current turmoil, political and economic analyst Martin Seiff from The Globalist news website said.

“These threats are probably extreme, irresponsible bluff, but it’s very alarming to hear them being made in the first place,” he told RT. “The new government which has now emerged in Kiev and other figures, like this opposition MP, need to act in a responsible manner to earn the deserved respect, trust and cooperation of the international community. That comment is disastrously counterproductive and should be seen as such.”

American geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser takes the comment more seriously, in view of the financial aid the US and EU have been promising the new Ukrainian government.

“The money that we can’t use to feed the poor and the hungry in the United States and in Europe – that money is going to support Nazis in Ukraine with nuclear ambitions, who are looking to destabilize the region, and whose sole goal is the destruction of Russia,” Draitser told RT.

So far the US has been hard on nations it suspected of a nuclear build-up, like Iran. It would be curious to see how it reacts in case the idea of restocking nuclear arsenal gains popularity with more politicians in Kiev.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-neo...us/5371524

---

Isso que dá financiar neo nazi, Mr. President.

---

Bonus 2:


Bonus pra não ficar muita politicagem:

[Night]

Based Putin fazendo o que deve ser feito.

[Hajimee]

[Eleso]

Menes americanos aqui não

[chriss]

Sora eu lembro do meu professor comentar sobre a Krimeia quando estava no EM, tanto que achei estranho o povo ficar de mimi agora, mas pensei que tinham mudado os acordos. MAs continuam os mesmos.

[Sorenant]

[jasque]

Só digo uma coisa

BLITZENDEGEN !

[Sorenant]

Questions on Ukraine the West chooses not to answer

Ukrainian and Western refusal to answer Moscow’s hard questions explains Russia’s tough stance on the crisis in Kiev.

Ignoring Russian concerns is a western habit adopted after the Soviet Union’s collapse; when NATO bombed Yugoslavia; during the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state, and the US push to install an anti-missile shield over Europe that can target Russia.

It also happened recently when western diplomats flocked to Ukraine to smile and wave and lobby their interests in a future Ukrainian government, while accusing Russia of meddling in Ukrainian affairs.

But it seems that in Ukraine lies Russia’s red line and Moscow no longer takes “don’t know, don’t care” for an answer.

Here’s the questions.
1. Why did the opposition oust Yanukovich after he conceded to their demands?

On February 21st Yanukovich and the three Ukrainian parliamentary faction leaders signed a reconciliation deal co-signed by Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland. A gesture that their countries would serve as agreement guarantors.

The agreement provides a de-escalation roadmap of constitutional reform, a national unity government, early presidential election and disbandment of Maidan fighter groups.

Hours after it was signed Right Sector radicals, key to the violence unleashed in Kiev which left a hundred people dead, gave Yanukovich an ultimatum - resign or face a siege of his residence.

Against Moscow’s advice, Yanukovich fled.

Vladimir Putin’s comments illuminate the Russian position here: "He [Yanukovich] had in fact given up his power already, and as I believe, as I told him, he had no chance of being re-elected.. What was the purpose of all those illegal, unconstitutional actions, why did they have to create this chaos in the country? Armed and masked militants are still roaming the streets of Kiev. This is a question to which there is no answer."

Russia says the 21st Feb agreement must be implemented. The opposition signed it yet allows an uncontrolled militia of violent armed radicals send fear and loathing across a large swath of Ukraine.

The US says the agreement no longer matters – because Yanukovich fled. The EU signatories don’t seem to be bothered about it either.

2. Why is the coup-appointed govt replacing oligarchs linked to Yanukovich with... oligarchs?

Popular resentment of Yanukovich blossomed over corruption. Protesters pointed to power abuse, theft and allowing linked-oligarchs raid businesses of other clans. Evidence came readily after they fled - photos of their homes’ sumptuous interiors.

But the new self-appointed govt is replacing Yanukovich’s oligarchs with their own. Kiev just appointed billionaires as governors of Donetsk and Dnepropetrovsk respectively, a move that also drew Putin’s ire: "Mr Kolomoisky was appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. This is a unique crook. He even managed to cheat our oligarch Roman Abramovich two or three years ago. Scammed him..’"

Both hold major assets in their respective regions and thousands depend on them for work. Both appointments are meant to stabilize a volatile society and ensure loyalty to the capital but critics say Kiev is reinventing fiefdoms to nobility in exchange for servitude. For Putin, who famously excluded oligarchs from politics, the move is an anathema.
3. Why did the post-coup Parliament strip Russian language of its regional status?

A bill repealing a law on regional languages was among dozens rubber-stamped by a chaotic Ukrainian parliament in the first post-coup days. It allowed the Ukrainian nationalist and anti-Russian Svoboda party put a feather in its cap. Yet it sent a ripple of hostility south and east from Kiev, where Russian-speakers are a large minority or even majority.
Kiev pledged to restore the status of Russian but now says the acting Ukrainian president won’t sign such a bill into law.
4. Why did Kiev attack the Constitutional court?

Several Constitutional court judges were accused of violating their oath and abruptly fired amid govt orders they be prosecuted. The judges branded this as an attack on the principle of separation of powers. Putin called it ‘monkey business’.

As Yanukovich was not procedurally impeached but through a simple show of hands the legality of his impeachment is open to challenges taken by several Ukrainian regions and, diplomatically, by Russia. The Ukrainian Constitutional Court is the proper authority to rule on the issue yet the new Kiev admin is mooting totally disbanding it and giving its functions to the Supreme Court.

5. Why would the West support the coup in Ukraine?

From the Russian perspective, the West fueled the fires of protest and ensured the Ukrainian government was toppled. Now it is attempting to legitimize its factious replacement. What Russia calls an unconstitutional coup the west is branding a public revolution. It is possible it is both.

Moscow does not challenge the reality. It doesn’t seek a Yanukovich return to power. It would work with the people who ousted him, as it did with the Yuschenko presidency. But Moscow demands the Kiev coup govt carries a national mandate to govern, in both east and west . Without it, any government is unsustainable.

Putin’s position is that it now maybe too late, despite his repeated warnings Ukraine would polarize. "Did our partners in the West and those who call themselves the government in Kiev now not foresee that events would take this turn? I said to them over and over: Why are you whipping the country into a frenzy like this?"

A stable Ukraine is essential for Russia for many reasons, humanitarian being just few of them. Of course Russia wants ethnic Russians in Ukraine to be safe from potential violence and persecution. But there are also more pragmatic considerations as well.

There’s the Black sea Fleet, strong economic interdependence and there is gas. Ukraine transits Russian natural gas to Europe and is thus essential to the Russian and European economies. Yet now a desperate Kiev mulls privatizing its gas pipelines to fill its empty coffers, while Moscow’s questions remain unheard.

[Gorgoll]

Se for para fazer uma partilha da Ucrânia... Não se esqueçam dar à Polônia, à Romênia, a Eslováquia e à Hungria os seus pedacinhos...