Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 25, 2014

A Few Ukraine Coup Links

A collection of interesting reads on how the putsch in the Ukraine happened and the background behind it.

Max Blumenthal is looking at the historic background of the Nazi groups in the Ukraine and there relation with Ukrainian exile groups in the United States. The connections are deeper than one might have thought:

Is the U.S. Backing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine? - Exposing troubling ties in the U.S. to overt Nazi and fascist protesters in Ukraine.

Many surviving OUN-B members fled to Western Europe and the United States – occasionally with CIA help – where they quietly forged political alliances with right-wing elements. “You have to understand, we are an underground organization. We have spent years quietly penetrating positions of influence,” one member told journalist Russ Bellant, who documented the group’s resurgence in the United States in his 1988 book, “Old Nazis, New Right, and the Republican Party.”

In Washington, the OUN-B reconstituted under the banner of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), an umbrella organization comprised of “complete OUN-B fronts,” according to Bellant. By the mid-1980’s, the Reagan administration was honeycombed with UCCA members, with the group’s chairman Lev Dobriansky, serving as ambassador to the Bahamas, and his daughter, Paula, sitting on the National Security Council. Reagan personally welcomed Stetsko, the Banderist leader who oversaw the massacre of 7000 Jews in Lviv, into the White House in 1983.

Paula Dobriansky was on of the neo-cons in the Bush administration:

According to her State Department biography, Dobriansky's background includes having "lectured and published articles, book chapters, and op-ed pieces on foreign affairs-related topics, ranging from U.S. human rights policy to East European foreign and defense policies, public diplomacy, democracy promotion strategies, Russia, and Ukraine.

The current lead on Eastern Europe in the State Department is "fuck the EU" neo-con Victoria Nuland. The coup in Kiev was a neo-con project.

Also this comment by markfromireland at Ian Welsh's blog:

To eliminate Russia as a threat to American hegemony you need to hive of The Ukraine and use it as a forward post against Russian resurgence.

This is why the Americans have been exerting massive pressure on the European Commission and on European governments to bring the Ukraine into the North American/North Western European economic sphere. With the UKraine in the “Western” camp they can stymie Russian efforts to drag the Baltic Republics back into orbit around Russia. Without it that becomes far more difficult.

There are allegations in the following piece that parts of the neo-nazis that attacked the police in Kiev have been trained in NATO countries. I have not verified this but it seems plausible: Ukraine: Neo-Nazi Criminal State Looming In Centre Of Europe – Analysis

A number of NATO-sponsored training centers for the Ukrainian ultranationalist militants were opened on the territory of the Baltic states immediately after they joined NATO in 2004. The detailed photo report on a Ukrainian group taking a course of subversive activities at a NATO training center in Estonia in 2006 is available here (texts in Russian).

Abundant financial and human resources were directed to bolster the paramilitary units of the radical UNA-UNSO, Svoboda and other ultranationalist organizations in the Ukraine. Since 1990s these thugs were participating in the Chechen and Balkan wars on the side of radical Wahhabi (!) militants and committing war crimes against captured Russian and Serbian soldiers and civilian population. One of the notorious guerilla fighters of the Ukrainian origin in Chechnya, Olexander Muzychko (aka criminal leader Sasha Biliy) today is heading a brigade of “Pravyi Sector”, the radical militant driving force of the ongoing coup d’état in Kiev.

There have been reports, also mentioned in the above, from Russian sources that, allegedly, Israeli special forces were involved with the anti-semitic neo-Nazis in the Ukraine. That may sound implausible until you recognize that Israeli state policy is to move as many Jews as possible to Israel. To frighten those who still want to stay in their native country by promoting anti-semitic forces makes sense withing this (in itself anti-semitic) policy frame:

For the life of me, I don’t understand the Jews living in France. I don’t understand the Jews living in Poland. I don’t understand the one Jew living in Afghanistan (nor the one living in Eritrea) and I can’t believe there are still 100 Jews in Egypt, Algeria, Iraq or Botswana. I don’t understand the Jews living in the Ukraine and, to be honest, I don’t much understand the Jews living in America either.
...
But seriously — if you are a Jew living in the Ukraine today, why aren’t you packing your bags? If you are a Jew living in France, do you really expect it to get better? And, if you are a Jew living in the US, do you expect your grandchildren to still be Jewish?

Chinahand aka Peter Lee explains how the U.S., by threatening sanctions on one oligarch, managed to change the majority in the Ukrainian parliament against Yanukovich: Looks Like US Played Hardball in the Ukraine...and Against the EU:

So, by a less-than-generous view, it might be suspected that the United States encouraged demonstrators to break the truce, with the expectation that violence would occur and Yanukovich’s equivocal fat cat backers, such as Akhmetov, would jump ship because the US had already informed them that their assets in the West would be at risk under US and EU sanctions.

If this is the case, the EU perhaps has additional reason to feel sore and resentful at the US. By blowing up the truce and the transition deal, Nuland got Yanukovich out and “Yats”—the preferred US proxy, Arseniy Yatsenyuk—in, but at the cost of terminally alienating the Ukraine’s pro-Russian segment—a segment, it might be pointed out, was actually able to elect Yanukovich in a free and fair election a while back.

I do not expect any Russian move on the Ukraine. Putin will now sit back and let the "west" squabble about who will throw tons of money into the bottomless pit that Ukraine is going to become. No politician in Kiev who wants to be re-elected will dare to sign an IMF agreement that will send a generation of the Ukrainian people into deep poverty. Unless there are nazi-progroms in Russian affiliated parts of the Ukraine Putin now just has to wait for the apple to fall from the tree.

Posted by b on February 25, 2014 at 15:50 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

@17
"So other than fascist attacks on ethnic Russians, or any attempt to dislodge Russia from Crimea, there is no need for any military action." That's what I fear.
Some neocons and sectors in Ukraine would love to have a new Afghanistan exhausting Russia at his door. Also who's got the real power? the disparition of the dumb ass Yanuk is very strange!Yanuk signs EU supervised agreement with opposition that basically makes oppo looks like bunch of fools as he will be president till December. Sikorski says to three opposition leaders that if it won't be signed Yanuk will declare martial law and move paratroopers in Kiev. This is reinforced by documents wihch were found after Yanuk ouster and were full of orders from new COS.
Few hours later Berkut disappears from Maidan and Yanuk goes AWOL during the night. What we know is that he quickly ran to his villa, tried to destroy as many documents as possible and than GTFO from Kiev to unknown location. MoI also is saw burning documents.

What happened between those two events? Yanuk had no reason to do this, he consolidated political power with the deal and already had military power. Yet from one hour to another everything changes he runs so quickly as no one did in Europe in past many decades.
Only thing that comes into my mind is that someone powerfull called him and made it clear that unless he does so, he will die. Not imprisoned, but flat out dead. It wasn't Russians. It wasn't EU. It wasn't political opposition and Maidan militia would never scare him so.

Only thing that comes into mind are oligarchs. Chief among them Akhmetov.

Just a speculation on my part but this seems weird.

Posted by: André | Feb 26 2014 18:57 utc | 101

..."Shoigu said the list includes Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Seychelles, Singapore and several other countries."...

Probably now 'Obersturmbannführer' ZuSSan Rice will be 'disgusted' about the idea of Russian military bases around the world , really sickening.

And hopefully also very soon a closer military cooperation with the Quds Forces of the IRGC and Hisbollah , they have good experience how to kick asses of Takfiri heart-eating terrorists and other rabble like the riff-raff in Kiev.

Posted by: Sufi | Feb 26 2014 18:59 utc | 102

@100
'The Shamir link at ruralito's #86 comment includes a link to an article about Gene Sharp, who is quoted as saying that he realizes his techniques can be used by "goodies and baddies," but sees their use that way as better than violence and war.'

so far the only ones using genes techniques(really Gandhis, lifted by Gene) are the baddies!

Posted by: brian | Feb 26 2014 22:05 utc | 103

Sufi (102)

But then, frankly, who cares a batshit about the blabbering of rice bitch, obama not white not black and probably even not a zamerican bla bla and other delusionists?

The way I see it, there is more, way more, behind Russia choosing the "we are not scared by zusa nor by their threats" rather than the hoped for (by zusa) "O.K., we'll play dialogue games".

To name one that would nicely fit brilliant Putin:

Not all european zato members are happy siblings or even members by their own free will. In particular, Germany as an occupied country has simply be forced into it (and generally into blind obedience to zusa). I mention Germany because it *does* have a special position by also being Russias most natural partner.
Somewhat simplifying, europe always had good peaceful times when Russia and Germany cooperated and were partners.
And Russia does want Germany as partner, even up to the point of repeatedly eating insults and impertinence by the zusa-obedient puppets in Germany government.
At the same time Germany urgently needs Russia as a partner. Being strongly export driven, quite technologically advanced but poor in natural resources, Russia is pretty exactly what Germany needs as a partner.

This, of course, is unconditionally and strictly verboten to even think about; after all Germany is not even a souvereign state that is forced into zusas sphere, no, it is merely a completely controlled colony.

Now with Russia extending and more openly showing its power and even provoking zusa a rather interesting situation is created.
Either zusa somehow suppresses Russias moves, which it can't afford financially or militarily and such loses face and credibility or it accepts Russias power projections, probably trying to talk them small through their presstitutes, which again leads to zusa losing face and credibility.

Add to this other challenges to zusas - not any more existence of - superpower status like what has been shown regarding Syria or, worst case for zusa, in an open war between China and japan.

With zusa losing its face more and more and being demasked as no more than a loud mouthed brawler but not a potent protector (and at the same time enforcer of its own interests) zeu will fall apart and Germany might be "forced" to open itself more and more to a partnership with Russia which again will very soon convince its citizens as it benefits very much both countries.

Losing control over Europe and not able to easily control at least Latin-America zusa will quite rapidly fall back in significance. This will be brutally enhanced by zusa losing world-currency status for their dollar.

In the end, no matter how much they blabber, the facts are stacked up against zusa/zeu.

Russia and China (and some others) clearly are stronger than and leading the world in financial, economic and military power.
Being at that, let me clean up another grave misunderstanding, namely that Chinas economy would break down without zusa as customer. Plain wrong. Truth is that zusa in their greed has outsourced the largest part of its production, much of it to China. zusa simply can not produce what it needs; it's dependent on imports - for which it doesn't pay but in increasingly worthless bonds.

So, Chinas exports to zusa might decrease somewhat, yes, but in the end Chinas income wouldn't; losing worthless bonds isn't that grave a danger and it would be more than made up for by zusa being forced to pay in something with a value. Furthermore, cleaning out enforced zusa econmic interests in zeu would create a major market to take up the China products zusa can't afford anymore.

No matter how much noise western "media" make, no matter how many lies they spread, the truth is simple: zusa is basically done and finished in all but name. And Russia and China *do have* what zusa doesn't have - and urgently needs.

zusa only chance is what obama seems to be trying, namely to break free from israel. Doing that and leaving israel to all the enemies they created that is, to look away when israel is completely annihilated, is what zusa vitally needs and what israel wants to avoid at any price - and what the current real dynamics in washington is all about.
As it looks right now, aipac and the gazillion of other israel blackmailing and corruption seem to have somehow kept the upper hand.
Hence Russia more threatening military position and Chinas overt playing with the idea of attacking zusa ally japan.

As I've said many times:the question isn't will zusa and izrael fall or not; the question is how deep, brutal, and final their fall will be. It seems that neither of them was capable to accept and implement the dignity option offered by Russia and China.


Ceterum censeo israel americanamque vehementer delenda esse!

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Feb 26 2014 23:06 utc | 104

In my opinion, the leaked recordings of US and EU diplomats raise two important questions.

Firstly, if they were recorded by Russian intelligence as is widely claimed, wouldn't releasing them alert US and EU authorities to the fact that their communication channels are being monitored, making sure Washington and Brussels will do everything within their capabilities to regain communication integrity? It seems that for relatively little gain, as the whole Fcuk the EU saga was seemingly like water off a duck's back, Russia could lose a crucial window into US and EU scheming.

Secondly, if indeed the Russian services were/are able to listen to US and EU conversations, wouldn't they have known well in advance what was planned and now has been implemented in the Ukraine?

Which in turn means Putin knew what was coming down the pike but pretended to be surprised as events unfolded. In other words he was quite happy for things to have played out the way they did, presumably coz in his calculations it will be in Russia's favor.

It obviously depends on how the cookie will crumble, but should the country break up with Eastern Ukraine joining its Russian neighbor, I would argue that rather than the EU and NATO having expanded to the east, Russia has expanded towards the west.

Eastern Ukraine was always going to spell trouble for Russia, right wingers with hardly a penny ready to stab anyone so one day they can latch onto the EU udder. Let them go and Russia hits two birds with one stone. A, the West grows weaker with yet another millstone around their financial necks and b, if no coup would have happened Ukraine would have possibly defaulted on their foreign debts, causing shock waves in the Russian banking world. But this way the huge Ukrainian debts to Russia will be guaranteed and paid off with western money, US, EU, IMF etc.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Putin and his team have used the time wisely and set up their own operation Gladio in Eastern Ukraine, making the place a Trojan horse of a different kind. From Russia with Love.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Feb 27 2014 0:26 utc | 105

Ooops, correction @105

[...] Eastern Western Ukraine was always going to spell trouble for Russia, [...]

[...] set up their own operation Gladio in Eastern Western Ukraine [...]

Posted by: Juan Moment | Feb 27 2014 0:37 utc | 106

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Feb 27 2014 0:42 utc | 107

101/105) There were two leaks. One was telling the EU what they knew, that the "Americans" where making the rounds telling everybody that they were not doing enough and they should sanction. The other was telling them what they presumably also knew that the US wishes a certain line up. They were done by Kyiv Post which is presumably sponsored by an Ukrainian pro West actor.
Yanoukovich fled because the Ukrainian oligarchy stopped hedging ie. supporting both sides to supporting one side, i.e. buying parliamentarians so that the majority in the parliament switched. They did this to avoid the sanctions as they could not be sure the EU approach would prevail.
He also fled because he presumably was informed that security forces would melt away from Kyiv. Someone high up must have taken that decision and presumably that person was bribed, too.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 1:15 utc | 108

#107 Pirouz, they were put on alert to prepare for tests of combat readiness. These are routine for any army but given the threat from a blow-up in the Ukraine they are absolutely essential for Russian security. It is dilemma for the Russians; their official policy is non-intervention in Ukraine's internal affairs but they need to make sure their army is ready in case worse comes to worse. They knew the Western press would interpret this as a provocation, but it is a price they seem to be willing to pay.

Posted by: ToivoS | Feb 27 2014 1:32 utc | 109

I've been watching the situation trying to keep my head cool.
Finally came up with what I think.
Split I was thinking before is clearly impossible today.

IMO Russia should just military liberate that failed state to provide them an option to live a normal life.

Split like Crimea goes away will suck.
*Any* split like East&South goes away will suck - we'll get a US-funded terrorist state then right next to our border.

Personally, I won't get anything from that liberation but I know what I *lose* if not:

1) NATO Kharkov means 2-5 mins strike time. This will realize 1st doctrine the US *will* use. The only response then will come limited - from North Fleet subs - ~100 millions dead in the US [the *best case*, zero the worst case] while destroying Russia completely. As we know too good - they *will* use such an option.

2) If NATO doesn't feel like ready to suck internally, they won't accept Ukraine. But even spending zero $ and keeping Ukraine in orbit will mean cultural fail for Russia, the fail Russia didn't take from ChingizKhan 700 years ago. Cultural fail is smth that matters. Really.

I'd go for Ukraine risking for WWIII. The problem is that Putin looks too old to risk now.

Posted by: Sergey | Feb 27 2014 2:40 utc | 110

I was thinking on subj for some time and finally I see no other reasonable option for Russia than to intervene directly.

I won't get anything from that even if success but I know smth I'll get to lose.

1) NATO Kharkov means 2-5 mins strike time, realizing 1st strike doctrine. As we know too good NATO *will* use this option. That would mean complete elimination of Russia while suffering only limited losses from response [~100m in the US the best case (all subs and some mobile ICBMs), zero the worst].

2) Non-NATO Kharkov under control of the US-sponsored terrorist-state means Russian cultural failure. Slow but efficient.

Too bad Putin is too old for any risk. It worth WWIII.

Posted by: Sergey | Feb 27 2014 2:58 utc | 111

Sergei writes: Any* split like East&South goes away will suck - we'll get a US-funded terrorist state then right next to our border.

I have been arguing for some time that this is exactly the reason the Putin would not like to see Ukraine split. Unfortunately, what you suggest -- Russian military intervention to force a united Ukraine -- will not work. It would provoke a terrible war in the Western provinces that the US and EU would generously pour in arms. I agree with b that the Russians are playing a waiting game right now, but if the US and EU begin to push NATO onto the Ukraine the Russians will be left with little choice but to accept half the pie and learn to live with a terrorist Western Ukraine neighbor. That is the price they might have to pay given that they are no longer a superpower and the US has graduated up to the world's single hyperpower.

Directly confronting that reality may well lead to WWIII which would not benefit anyone (even the 1% that profit so handsomely from manageable war).

Posted by: ToivoS | Feb 27 2014 2:59 utc | 112

@ 111

I don't think it would matter @ military scale - Ukraine western provinces are know for been inferior in terms of any fight. Don't think massive funding could change it.

IMHO the problem would be purely in diplomatic stage then.

Posted by: Sergey | Feb 27 2014 3:12 utc | 113

@ 111

I don't think it would matter @ military scale - Ukraine western provinces are know for been inferior in terms of any fight. Don't think massive funding could change it.

The problem would be purely in diplomatic stage then.

Posted by: Sergey | Feb 27 2014 3:25 utc | 114

110) or too wise.

But you are right, the cold war is back on.

"The West" is not going to bail out Ukrainians. If they pay, they bail out their own speculators like Templeton that bet on the future IMF EU bailout buying high yield Ukrainian bonds.

Ukraine did not need fresh IMF money up to now because they could find speculators to sell their bonds to.

All Russia has to do is wait for a default like Argentina and then help Ukraine restructure their debt.

It makes me wonder if Russia and western banks share the interest to talk up the cold war.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 3:32 utc | 115

@111

> That is the price they might have to pay given that they are no longer a superpower

And then again. What is "superpower"? I hate to mention it but military that "souperpower" would not sustain even the strike from China. More to come. Mb it's dumb to mention but it was clearly shown in '60s there's no limit for the power of [good old] nukes.

Personally, I don't agree to give a single square meter of Ukrainian territory to NATO. Would you accept a nuke instead?

Posted by: Sergey | Feb 27 2014 3:34 utc | 116

@108

They were done by Kyiv Post which is presumably sponsored by an Ukrainian pro West actor.
Somebody, are you suggesting it was the Kiev Post newspaper which tapped the supposedly secure state department phone lines? And why, if they are sponsored by a pro-West actor would they release recordings which show the West as being schemers meddling in a foreign country's affairs?

Posted by: Juan Moment | Feb 27 2014 3:37 utc | 117

115) Because the leak was a message to Ukrainian oligarchs that they could not rely on the EU to keep them from being sanctioned.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 3:54 utc | 118

Okay, so according to your estimate the Kiev Post hacking secure US and EU diplomatic phone lines and then releasing the leaks via an anonymous youtube channel was a Ukrainian pro western oligarch communicating with his fellow Ukrainian oligarchs? Are you serious?

Posted by: Juan Moment | Feb 27 2014 4:02 utc | 119

I'm bewildered by Sergeys post because he seems to seriously believe in zusas power fairy tale.

For a starter zusa missiles maybe(!) going to be installed are anti-air missiles so mentioning strike or reaction times of minutes just doesn't make sense. If zusa tried to install nuclear missiles then a) Europe would tremble in fear and strongly object and b) Russia would be forced to go full-scale war against zusa and to annihilate zusa.
Also the northern fleet subs make little sense because Russia has enough nuclear capacity on land, too. In particular the assumption that zusa might completely destroy or incapacitate Russia by sending some nuclear missiles from ukraine is, Pardon me, just absurd.

That whole perspective sounds just western to me.

In fact, it is zusa that has to avoid going nuclear because it's position is so much worse than Russia, bot actively and passively.

Also the assumption that ukraine is utmost important to Russia is, pardon me, unrealistic. To put it bluntly: Whether zusa has missiles or whatever in ukraine is virtually irrelevant. Whatever zusa puts closer than ca. 450 km to the Russian border will, whenever Russia pleases to do so, simply be annihilated by Iskander.

So, just for the sake of a mindgame, what realistic way does zusa have to attack Russia (excluding nuclear ICBM which would for the large part be intercepted by Russia and lead to a devastating response by Russia)?

For a starter zusa would be in a very bad position no matter what they tried because their attack needed to be naval based so as to bring their jets, cruise missiles, troups, whatever, into an attack position. Russia would notice a zusa attacks days in advance. Simply because to attack an opponent like Russia zusa couldn't even try with just two or three carrier groups. Bringing major parts of their navy close, however, could hardly stay unnoticed.
But O.K. just for the sake of fun let's stupidly assume, zusa did the miracle and had 5 carrier groups right in front of Russias coast, then what?

Does anyone of those zusa fans ever calculate based on some realistic data? zusa jets can't go farther than about 1.000, maybe 1.200 km from their carriers. And they would have to fly that distance through an vast array of high tech, precise and well proven air-defense.

Now, let me switch to the Russian high command, O.K. Using jachont missiles those 5 zusa carrier groups would be sunk before my admirals and generals had breakfast. Simple as that.
And I didn't even play the funnier things like shooting zusa blind by killing their satellites and such crushing their whole Command & Communication system.

There is only 1 scenario where zusa could win against Russia and that would be Russia attacking zusa proper. Which Russia won't do. Their whole military is designed and streamlined to defend Russia and to occasionally attack some small or mid-size opponents outside Russias medium abroad (say Zaudi Arabia). Russias offensive capability is quite limited to near abroad opponents; the reason being that this offensive capability is in fact a forward defense (like, e.g. incapacitating uk, a highly probable zusa attack position).

In short, there are many things Russia must worry about. Like fighting corruption or shifting their income away from mainly natural resources toward a considerably larger industrial part. A zamerican attack on Russia, however, is not a serious concern. Yes, probably some zusa politicians have occasional phantasies about attacking Russia but they get educated and put back on solid ground rather quickly by their generals.

Talking of problems of Russia, I'll tell you one: To *peacefully* break Europe free from zusa's powergrip. It would be quite easy for Russia to crush Europe militarily but it would also not fit Russias character and it wouldn't create partners in Europe. Russia is simply not interested in simply taking over zusas role in Europe (and the world).

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Feb 27 2014 5:10 utc | 120

118 - mr p - it is not only sergey.. see toivos 111 quote "That is the price they might have to pay given that they are no longer a superpower and the US has graduated up to the world's single hyperpower."

frankly, a superpower that is no longer a superpower, or having a serious problem hanging onto sp position would be acting like the usa.. that is how i see it.. i think the usa is on the outs and feeling more threatened by russia forming some type of alliance with europe which would make sense given the proximity.. then there is russia and china together representing a real threat to the usa.. i think usa's superpower status has been on the wane for quite some time.. they may still be top dog, but they are long in the tooth.

Posted by: james | Feb 27 2014 5:41 utc | 121

117) We know that the NSA hack everything. The US obviously was playing a different game from the EU whilst this - officially - were EU negotiations.

See also Moon of Alabama - here

Whilst the EU was trying to negotiate an "inclusive" unity government and power share, the US was driving for a confrontational opposition government that would rubberstamp US plans by the barrel of the gun.

There are now plans floated to make the oligarchy pay for Ukraine's debt by confiscating their funds in Europe to make sure they do not defend their Ukrainian industries. Legal prosecution in Ukraine serves similar goals.

They now have the choice to either go the way of Russian oligarchy, i.e. get their funds the hell out of Europe and ask for Russian protection or trust Europe/the US.

What would you do and where is Yanukovich.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 6:58 utc | 122

So wait, the evil neo-con Americans are colluding with "the Jews" AND "the Nazis" to overthrow the saintly and not-corrupt Ukrainian government?

Posted by: bob dole | Feb 27 2014 8:01 utc | 123

120) This by the way is Kyiv Post from 2010 on the restructuring of Ukranian Steel industries - how much of it is owned by Russian companies close to the Russian government?

Ah - this here is the "competitor" Acelor Mittal

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn

Save
OctDecFebAprJunAug20.0025.0030.0035.00* Price chart for ARCELORMITTAL. Click flags for important stories. MT:NA22.9210/06/1022.92Oct 5

ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steelmaker, said a legal challenge that may see it stripped of its $4.8 billion plant in Ukraine threatens future investment in the country.

“If you make an agreement and then the process is not followed by the government, it’s a big problem,” Christophe Cornier, ArcelorMittal Group management board member, said today by telephone. “All investors will have to think about it.”

ArcelorMittal, which bought the VAT ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih unit in 2005, is being challenged by the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office after delaying investments at the plant in 2009. ArcelorMittal said it agreed with the State Property Fund to alter its purchase agreement and postpone investments after declaring force majeure during the global financial crisis.

An Oct. 1 court hearing on the case “demonstrated a biased approach and total neglect for the existing legislation,” the company said in a statement. The purchase agreement states that all disputes be settled by the International Commercial Court of Arbitration, it said. The case will return to court in Ukraine on Oct. 12.

“We have in the pipe a lot of other ideas for Ukraine in the mining sector, which of course could be a lot of money if we proceed,” Cornier said. “It is very clear that if I go to Mr. Mittal to spend $1 billion on a coal mine, I’m not sure it will be welcome” if that mine is in Ukraine, he said.
...
ArcelorMittal won a state auction in 2005 for 93 percent of VAT ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih, or Kryvorizhstal as it was then called, after former President Viktor Yushchenko’s government annulled a previous auction, won by the billionaire son-in-law of former President Leonid Kuchma with an $800 million bid.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 8:04 utc | 124

And this is China

Ukraine became the fourth-largest arms exporter in 2012, after the United States, Russia and China, according to global security expert Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Ukraine has played a key role in engine production, and the maintenance of China's fighter jets and other aircraft. In fact, China's first aircraft carrier, Liaoning, was built in Ukraine.

China has also co-operated with Ukraine over gas turbines in the Chinese Aegis destroyer, and the diesel engine for the Al-Khalid tank developed for Pakistan, according to Taiwan-based Want China Times.

Kiev and Beijing were brought closer earlier this year by a security agreement. The treaty signed by President Xi Jinping and Yanukovych in January says Beijing will guarantee Ukraine security if the nation is under threat of a nuclear invasion.

Economically, China has also been stepping up its trade with Ukraine. In December, Yanukovych said he had secured US$8 billion in Chinese investments for his ailing economy after talks with President Xi Jinping in Beijing.

But Yang Cheng, the deputy director of the Centre for Russian Studies at East China Normal University in Shanghai, said the situation in Ukraine would remain chaotic no matter which power - the EU or Russia - Kiev ended up choosing.

"The change of government in Ukraine will definitely create uncertainty on whether the momentum for trade co-operation between Kiev and Beijing will remain as strong as it has been", Yang said.

But he said Ukraine, no matter its political choices, would still welcome Chinese investment because economic co-operation with either the EU or Russia alone would not be enough to bail out its battered economy.

Zhang Shengjun, deputy dean of the Institute of Political Science and International Studies at Beijing Normal University, said China would rely less on Ukraine for military development but would continue pouring in investment to maintain its influence.

I am amazed Yanoukovich survived as long as he did.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 8:10 utc | 125

The Russian flag flies above administrative buildings in Crimea.
The Corsicans are getting jalous!

Posted by: Mina | Feb 27 2014 8:26 utc | 126

somebody @120, I am confused. Are you now saying it was the NSA that hacked Nuland's Fu.k the EU call, passed it on to the Kiev Post so they can release it on youtube, because the US wanted to let Ukrainian oligarchs know that the EU would not be able to stop sanctions? The story gets better with every reply of yours. But hey, may I suggest we leave it there, this is leading nowhere.

bob dole @121, to answer your highly intelligent question. Either yes, because God works in mysterious ways, or no, because in reality the saintly and not-corrupt neo-con Americans are colluding with the evil Ukrainian government to overthrow "the Jews" AND "the Nazis". Or no, sorry, scratch that, its Jewish Americans overthrowing a Nazi Ukraine. Yeah, that's it.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Feb 27 2014 11:27 utc | 127

125) Whatever, one part of oligarchs buying it from Ukrainian corrupt Secret Services.

The leak did not tell either the EU or the US anything they did not know before. Either it was meant to counter Western media narrative (probable) or the information was on something else. Or simply a message we know what you are doing.

Fact is, Eastern Ukrainian oligarchs seem to have either switched sides in Kiev or beaten a tactical retreat.

The Russians waited for a long time, and for lots of anti-Russian legislation in the Ukrainian parliament, till they came out in support of Yanukovich.

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 11:52 utc | 128

Le Monde has 2 correspondents in Simferopol
http://www.lemonde.fr/popup/live/4374731/

Posted by: Mina | Feb 27 2014 12:03 utc | 129

This here is the story of Hyde Park One

The fall of the Soviet Union, in 1989, and the vast, corrupt post-Soviet privatizations, brought the biggest, most reckless wave of foreign buyers London had ever seen, with often questionable money sluicing in via the secretive British-linked stepping-stone tax havens of Cyprus and Gibraltar. “There is no real accountability of these guys coming in—the cops don’t really investigate them,” says Mark Hollingsworth, co-author of Londongrad, a 2009 book about the Russian invasion. “They see the capital as the most secure, fairest, most honest place to park their cash, and the judges here would never extradite them.”

Nick Candy himself summarized the attractions neatly: “This is the top city in the world, and the best tax haven in the world for some.”

...

It seems to be that every big trading disaster happens in London,” U.S. congresswoman Carolyn Maloney observed last June. “And I would like to know why.” The disasters she was referring to were the ones that bankrupted Lehman Brothers and nearly bankrupted some other American firms, such as A.I.G. and MF Global, as well as causing JPMorgan Chase’s $6 billion loss at the hands of the trader popularly known as “the London Whale”—all of these happened to a high degree in the London branches of those firms and have cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars.

To answer her question and to understand why so much of the world’s money goes to London in the first place, you need to go back hundreds of years, to the emergence of what must be the most peculiar, the oldest, the least understood, and perhaps one of the most important institutions in the menagerie of global finance: the City of London Corporation. It is the local authority for “the Square Mile,” the pocket of prime financial real estate centered on the Bank of England and located about three miles to the east of Knightsbridge, along the Thames River. But the corporation is also much more, its identity embedded in—and slightly apart from—the British nation-state. The corporation has its own constitution, “rooted in the ancient rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens before the Norman Conquest, in 1066,” and its own lord mayor of London—not to be confused with the mayor of London, who runs the Greater London metropolis, with its eight million inhabitants. One sign of the City of London’s distinct identity is the fact that the Queen, on official visits there, will stop at the boundary of the Square Mile, where she is met by the lord mayor, who engages her in a short, colorful ritual, before she may proceed. Most Brits see this merely as a relic from a bygone age, a show for the tourists. They are wrong.

The lord mayor’s principal official role, his Web site says, is to be “ambassador for all UK-based financial and professional services.” He lobbies far afield, with offices in Brussels, China, and India, among other places, the better to “expound the values of liberalization” far and wide. The City Corporation and closely linked think tanks issue streams of publications explaining why finance should be less tethered by taxes and regulation. The corporation also has its own official lobbyist, with the delightfully medieval-sounding name of The Remembrancer (currently one Paul Double), lodged permanently in Britain’s Parliament. Local elections in the City are unlike any other in Britain: multi-national corporations vote alongside and vastly outnumber the tiny borough’s 7,400 human residents.

Over the centuries the City has thrived, thanks to a simple advantage: it has had money to lend when governments or monarchs needed it. So the City has been granted special privileges, allowing it to remain a political fortress withstanding the tides of history that have transformed the rest of the British nation-state. It has nurtured a British tradition of welcoming foreign money, with few questions asked, and so has for centuries attracted the world’s wealthiest citizens. “There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian transact together,” Voltaire wrote in 1733, “as though they all professed the same religion, and give the name of infidel to none but bankrupts.”

When the British Empire crumbled in the mid-1950s, London replaced the cozy embrace of gunboats and imperial trading preferences with a new model: tempting the world’s hot money through lax regulation and lax enforcement. There was always a subtle balance, involving dependable British legal bedrock fiercely upholding U.K. domestic rules and laws while turning a blind eye to foreign law-breaking. It was a classic offshore-tax-haven offering that tells foreign financiers, “We won’t steal your money, but we won’t make a fuss if you steal other people’s.”

The term “tax haven” is something of a misnomer, because tax havens offer escape routes not just from taxes but potentially from any of the rules, laws, and responsibilities of other jurisdictions—whether those be taxes, criminal laws, disclosure rules, or financial regulation. Tax havens are usually about parking your money “elsewhere,” in jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, beyond the reach of your home country’s regulators and taxmen. Or you park it in London: which is why some investment bankers have called it the Guantánamo Bay of finance. “The British think they do finance well,” says Lee Sheppard, a tax and banking specialist at the U.S. trade publication TaxAnalysts. “No. They do the legal stuff well. Most of the big investment banks there are branches of foreign operations. . . . They go there because there is no regulation whatsoever.”
...
James Henry, a former McKinsey chief economist, watched at close quarters the recycling of petrodollar wealth into Third World loans via London’s unregulated Euro-markets, which among other things enabled Wall Street to avoid New Deal-era banking regulations. Henry saw a global private-banking network emerge, following the money, “helping Third World elites abscond with hundreds of billions in diverted loans, illicit commissions, and corrupt privatizations, and park it in London and other tax havens.”

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 12:21 utc | 130

And this here is the EU deciding on sanctions after the "sniper incident"

The EU has agreed to impose sanctions on Ukrainian officials "responsible for violence and excessive force" after the bloodiest day of clashes in Kiev.

In a statement, EU foreign ministers said targeted sanctions including asset freezes and visa bans would be introduced "as a matter of urgency".

Dozens of anti-government protesters died in Kiev on Thursday. Many were reportedly killed by snipers.

In all, 75 people - including policemen - have been killed since Tuesday

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 12:25 utc | 131

Link for 128

Posted by: somebody | Feb 27 2014 12:26 utc | 132

somebody at 108 wrote:

Yanoukovich fled because the Ukrainian oligarchy stopped hedging ie. supporting both sides to supporting one side, i.e. buying parliamentarians so that the majority in the parliament switched.

Yes... (not that i agree with the whole post.)

One very important factor that is not mentioned as far as I can see, is that the MSM media owners, mostly ‘private’ - so called ‘oligarchic’ switched sides a while ago.

Some of the vid + pictures we have seen coming out of Ukr. would never have been published if they supported the Yanukovitch power structure.

The MSM is tremendously powerful, but serve only, ever, their own narrow interests.

Some kind of overview (best i could find):

The most widely circulated publications in Ukraine are gender-oriented leisure magazines and news magazines. International investors enter mostly into the entertainment or infotainment (information-based media content or programming that also includes entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with audiences and consumers) media. General audience newspapers, news magazines and similar general-audience mass media are predominantly owned by groups affiliated with various political bodies.

(...) Note: International investors, pol. bodies.

Most radio stations belong to large media holdings.

(...)

The main TV channels are holdings of big financial groups. The group 1+1 is the exception; its controlling stake belongs to Cyprus Holding Limited.

> see who owns that.. see link.

(...)

http://ejc.net/media_landscapes/ukraine

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 27 2014 16:57 utc | 133

Ad "asset freezing"

Yes, this is a danger and yes, some ukraine might think twice before risking to lose all the money the brought into zeu.

But there is a very serious danger zeu bureaucrats seem to not be aware of. The groups with whose money they play with are well organized, large, rich, and they have lots of former special forces people working for them who are ready to do pretty anything for their bosses.

In other words: merkel, van rompuy and accomplices can not possibly have enough bodyguards to save them from the bullets assigned to them once the "shadow powers" are enough pissed off. And rest assured that they don't care the least for german or other police or courts. Those people are trained to, used to, and ready for levels of violence zeu officers will simply feel to be in a horror movie.

And there is another danger. Rich entrepreneurs have a very high sensibilty concerning their money and the trustworthyness of their bankers. If zeu countries or zusa dared to freeze the assets of ukraine oligarchs they might just push the level of trust lost in them to a point that would be extremely unhealthy - and all that in a zeu with quite a rotten and volatile banking situation anyway.


Ad "zusa considers financial help":

Oh wow! 1 billion dollars! Generous and mighty zusa is considering (in other words vane blabbering) to help ukraine with 1 bln$. That's akin to throwing a little rubber duck to someone drowning inmidst the Atlantic.


Ad "Russia no more a superpower":

Well, first that depends on what you call a superpower. Russia is vastly larger than zusa and Europe combined. Russia has not the same but actually way more nuclear deterrent capabilities than zusa, france and zuk combined. zusa navy is considerably bigger and probably in a better average shape than Russias; that doesn't matter though because Russia doesn't want the means to aggressively dominate the whole world. And Russia has way better weapon systems on their ships, weapon system that can take out whole carrier groups without them capable doing much more than cursing before sinking.
zusa *had* far better industrialization than Russia; today, however, pretty all of it is outsourced, much of it to zusa potential enemies.

One could go on for pages. In the end it comes to a simple thing. Russia is centered around defense, zusa is centered around offense. Russia is a (re-) growing power, zusa is a sharply declining power, they are both militarily very strong and neither of them is capable of destroying and conquering the others homeland; difference being that Russia never wanted to conquer zusa but zusa insanely wants to conquer and or subdue Russia, and difference being that zusa can't cripple Russia but Russia can cripple zusa (simply because Russias mil. power is inside and around its homeland while zusa mil. power is very low in zusa proper and mostly spread around the globe).

So, they are both superpowers but zusa is the Ex-superpower. And in fact Russia is proof of zusas not-anymore-superpower status because zusa *was* inmidst of Moscow and they *did* everything they could to destroy Russia when it was weakest, namely right after the Sovjet break down and the traitors gorbachev and yelzin (may they be tormented 1 billion years in hells hottest spot!!) basically gave away Russias bowels. And still Russias core were too strong for the zamerican and jewish scum. They simply could not completely break Russia. And, importantly, out of that Russian core came a man called Putin, a man who knew about Russias quality and that of her people and who succeeded to first bring Russia back to health and then to power.

I tell you a simple thing: If zusa could create and have a man like Putin instead of being run by obamas, bushes, and trainloads of "dual citizenship" israeli scum then it might be a superpower.
That's another lesson, self-explaining for Russian and unreachable for zamericans. It's the people that make a country, it's the people who form a countries core, not machines and not high-tech and even less it's money.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Feb 27 2014 17:02 utc | 134

The Chechen President is going to Crimea to help his fellow Russians:

Putin’s “secret weapon” is ready to suppress putsch in Ukraine

http://abc.az/eng/news/main/79698.html

Posted by: Meezer | Feb 27 2014 21:40 utc | 135


crimean tartar leaders asy they dont support the coup regime...onlty some wahhabis do

Татарская община Крыма перешла на сторону России
27 февраля 2014 2 комментария
Пророссийские силы поддерживает Татарская община Крыма. Об этом в интервью информационному агентству «IslamNews» известный крымский общественный деятель, заместитель председателя Совета представителей крымско-татарского народа ( СПКТН) при Президенте Украины Васви Абдураимов. По его словам, на данный момент бандеровцев и майдан поддерживает лишь немногочисленная ваххабитская группа внутри татарского сообщества Крыма.

«Крым отчаянно бьется с бандеровской нечистью. Слово за Россией. Если РФ не хочет окончательно и бесповоротно потерять братскую Украину как дружественную страну, если она хочет получить границу НАТО у себя под Смоленском, пусть сидит и смотрит, как крымчане пытаются сами смести эту бандеровскую нечисть, которая полностью финансируется и вооружается холодными прагматиками из Вашингтона и Брюсселя. Но наших ресурсов недостаточно», — сказал он.

Crimean Tatar community sided with the Russian
February 27, 2014 2 comments
Support pro-Russian forces Tatar community of Crimea. In an interview with news agency «IslamNews» Crimean known public figure, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar people (SPKTN) under the President of Ukraine Vasvi Abduraimov. According to him, at the moment Banderivtsy maidan and support by just a few Wahhabi group within the community Tatar Crimea.

"Crimea desperately fights the evil spirits Bandera. Word for Russia. If Russia does not want to finally and irrevocably lose brotherly Ukraine as a friendly country, if she wants to get at the NATO border near Smolensk, let sits and watches the Crimeans themselves trying to sweep away this evil Bandera, which is fully funded and armed with cold pragmatists from Washington and Brussels . But our resources are not enough, "- he said.
http://maloros.ru/new/news_2014-02-27/tatarskaya-obshhina-kryma-pereshla-na-storonu-rossii.xhtml

Posted by: brian | Feb 28 2014 1:12 utc | 136

I meant this here:

Washington's Man Yatsenyuk Setting Ukraine Up For Ruin... which is precisely the plan, of course.

“Yatsenyuk was saying that what the Greeks did to themselves we are going to do ourselves, he wants to follow the Greek economic model..."

...Yatsenyuk promised to implement “very unpopular measures” to stabilize the country’s finances. ... His language in a news report broadcast by Bloomberg today indicates he is heading toward a potentially destabilizing austerity campaign:

“The treasury is empty. We will do everything not to default. If we get the financial support from the IMF, the U.S., we will do it. I’m going to be the most unpopular prime minister in the history of my country,” he said. “But this is the only solution. I would never promise any kind of huge achievements....”

...

It is unclear the kind of measures Yatsenyuk will tolerate, but it appears austerity is the path forward. That includes a regimen of tax increases, interest rate hikes and further currency devaluation.

Yanukovych resisted the International Monetary Fund’s demand to raise taxes and devalue the currency. Yatsenyuk doesn’t mind. For economists who think austerity is a disaster, Ukraine is on a path to ruin.

“We saw this in the 90s and what the IMF did to Russia with Yeltsin. They’ll do that to Ukraine,” said Signorelli. Remember Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia? After the IMF finished with Yugoslavia it was only a matter of time before the separatist movements gained traction,” he said. “I think things in Ukraine can get really really bad.”

A real man of the people, this scumbag. The fact that the parliament voted him in 400-1 says all you need to know about who fascism works for.

These people are insane.

Posted by: guest77 | Feb 28 2014 2:00 utc | 137

Behind-kiev-snipers-it-was-somebody-new-coaltion-stunning-new-Ashton phone leak-reveals-truth

Posted by: Mikhail | Mar 5 2014 17:09 utc | 138

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.