|
The Buildup To War In Ukraine – Tuesday, February 22, 2022
To provide a legal framework for Russian military support to Donetsk and Luhansk the Russian President Vladimir Putin had signed executive orders to recognize the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lunhansk People's Republic as independent countries:
In this regard, I consider it necessary to take a long overdue decision and to immediately recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic.
I would like to ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this decision and then ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with both republics. These two documents will be prepared and signed shortly.
On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 the Federal Assembly held an extraordinary session and did as Putin had ask:
In a session held on Tuesday, the Duma, the lower house of Russia’s parliament, unanimously backed the deals, with 400 MPs voting in favor. Earlier that same day, the parliaments of the two regions simultaneously ratified the ‘Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Russian Federation.’
This was sufficient reason for the U.S. and EU to implement their long planned fireworks of sanctions against Russia:
The European Union agreed to new sanctions on Russia that will blacklist more politicians, lawmakers and officials, ban EU investors from trading in Russian state bonds, and target imports and exports with separatist entities.
…
Russia’s formal recognition of two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine was an unacceptable breach of Ukraine’s sovereignty, Borrell said.
“This package of sanctions that has been approved by unanimity by the member states will hurt Russia, and it will hurt a lot,” Borrell told a news conference alongside France’s foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian at a meeting in Paris.
Separately, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas told Reuters that further Russian aggression in Ukraine would result in more sanctions, in coordination with the United States.
The package of sanctions includes all members of the lower house of the Russian parliament who voted in favor of the recognition of the breakaway regions, freezing any assets they have in the EU and banning them from traveling to the bloc.
U.S. sanctions on Russia were imposed in a coordinated manner.
Germany halted the approval for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Later that day Putin signed the Federal Law On Ratifying the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance Between the Russian Federation and the Lugansk People’s Republic and a similar treaty with the Donetsk People’s Republic:
The Federal Law was adopted by the State Duma and approved by the Federation Council on February 22, 2022.
…
The Treaty provides for broad cooperation in the political, economic, social, military and humanitarian areas.
After recognizing the independence of the LPR/DNR Russia all three could claim a right of collective self-defense in analog to Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Sticking to the necessary legal formalities Putin then asked the Federal Council to authorize the use of Russian Armed Forces abroad:
On the basis of Paragraph “d”, Part 1, Article 102 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and under the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Donetsk People’s Republic, and the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Lugansk People’s Republic, I am submitting a proposal that the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation approve a resolution authorising the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation abroad on the basis of the generally accepted principles and norms of international law.
Putin then took media questions. He made some interesting points.
- Russia recognizes the republics in their constitutional borders, i.e. their original borders in Ukraine before the conflict there started.
- He compares Crimea, where a referendum was held and people voted to became part of Russia, with Kosovo, where only a parliament vote was held to declare itself independent.
- He lays out what the conditions for peace had been before: Recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, no NATO membership for Ukraine, fulfillment of the Minsk agreements and a certain extend of demilitarization of Ukraine.
- Being asked about Ukraine's intend to build and deploy nuclear weapons (as announced by Zelenski on Feb 19 in Munich) Putin responded that the Ukraine has the means to do that. This would be a strategic threat to Russia.
Last but not least he is asked about the length and extend of the potential military deployment:
Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper:
Mr President, do you think it is possible in today’s world to resolve problems with force and remain on the side of good? This is my first question.
The second one is more technical, if you will. In your view, how far might troops advance: up to the contact line, to the administrative borders of the DPR and LPR, or somewhere else?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: First, I did not say our troops would enter right away, after our meeting here. That is first. Second, it is absolutely impossible to predict the detailed path of possible actions. It depends on the concrete situation that is unfolding on the ground, as they say.
Regarding the question if all issues can and must be resolved by force or if it is possible to remain on the side of good. Well, why do you think that good must always be frail and helpless? I do not think that is true. I think good means being able to defend oneself. We will proceed from that.
The OSCE Special Observer Mission at the ceasefire line in southeast-Ukraine reported of Tuesday, February 22 2022.
In Donetsk region, the SMM recorded 528 ceasefire violations, including 345 explosions. In the previous reporting period, it recorded 703 ceasefire violations in the region.
In Luhansk region, the Mission recorded 1,182 ceasefire violations, including 1,075 explosions. In the previous reporting period, it recorded 1,224 ceasefire violations in the region.
The OSCE reported slightly less incidents than the day before.
bigger
Both sides moved further equipment towards the ceasefire line:
In violation of withdrawal lines, in government-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, the SMM saw 13 tanks near a residential area of Karlivka (25km north-west of Donetsk), eight towed howitzers, including four in a residential area of Novotroitske (36km south-west of Donetsk), as well as four surface-to-air missile systems and two towed anti-tank guns. In non-government-controlled areas of Donetsk region, the SMM saw two surface-to-air missile systems and eight towed howitzers, of which four were moving south on road T-0508 near Bessarabka (85km south of Donetsk), in a zone within which deployment of heavy armaments and military equipment is further proscribed according to Point 5 of the Memorandum of 19 September 2014.
…
The SMM saw five armoured combat vehicles in government-controlled areas of Donetsk region, including one in a residential area, and a self-propelled anti-aircraft system near a residential area, as well as eight armoured combat vehicles in non-government-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, including two near Novomykhailivka (52km south of Donetsk), in a zone within which deployment of heavy armaments and military equipment is proscribed according to Point 5 of the Memorandum of 19 September 2014.
The map shows ceasefire violations in yellow, orange to red colors. The most appear on the side of the Donbas republics. The source of most of the ceasefire violations, like noise of shooting or explosions recorded by cameras, drones or heard by the observers, is listed as 'undetermined'.
The map shows explosions, as small black dots, on both sides of the ceasefire line. While only a part of the hundreds of explosions were located and marked on the map a count of the black dots shows that a great majority of those happened on the side of the Donbas republics. I count 68 impacts marked on the Donbas side and 34 on the government controlled side of the ceasefire line.
This was no longer an artillery duel or exchange of harassment. From a military standpoint this looked like artillery preparations for an attack along roads that could then be used as future lines of attack for a mechanized force.
bigger
Posted by: Richard Whitney | Feb 22 2023 23:52 utc | 52
Replying the troll with the fake narrative of China debt trap.
In 2014, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) launched the China Africa Research Initiative (CARI), based in Washington, DC. In June 2020, SAIS-CARI published a report titled “Debt Relief with Chinese Characteristics.”
I would like to share of few lines from this report, which begins with:
“In December 2019, a Zambian economist commented: ‘Chinese debt can easily be renegotiated, restructured, or refinanced.’ Is this true?
…In this working paper, we draw on data from the China Africa Research Initiative (CARI) to review evidence on China’s debt cancellation and restructuring in Africa, in comparative and historical perspective. Cases from Sri Lanka, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Angola, and the Republic of Congo, among others, point to debt relief patterns with distinctly Chinese characteristics. In nearly all cases, China has only offered debt write-offs for zero-interest loans. Our study found that between 2000 and 2019, China has cancelled at least US$3.4 billion of debt in Africa. There is no ‘China, Inc’…We found that China has restructured or refinanced approximately US$ 15 billion of debt in Africa between 2000 and 2019. We found no ‘asset seizures’ and despite contract clauses requiring arbitration, no evidence of the use of courts to enforce payments, or application of penalty interest rates.”
It continues:
“During the debt crisis of the late 20th century, we saw that many sovereign borrowers simply did not service the interest-free loans lent by the Chinese government. Because the interest-free loan program was diplomatic in nature, a core part of China’s foreign aid, pressing hard for loan repayment was simply not done. As of 2019, with a much wider variety of loans in play—many commercial–rescheduling is no longer so easy, although it is happening. Beijing’s main tool to press for payments when a country goes into arrears is to suspend disbursements on projects currently being implemented (which slows their completion but also hurts Chinese contractors), and to withhold approval of new loans.
… A committee led by China’s Ministry of Finance (which has overall authority for debt relief), with delegates from MOFCOM, China’s Exim Bank, and China Development Bank will approve or reject the debt cancellation request. ‘The Chinese government will see how the money was used. They will consider this thoughtfully. They will refuse applications from some whose economy is doing well…’ a Chinese official told one of the authors.”
The SAIS-CARI report concludes:
“Chinese debt relief for Africa has been going on for many decades, following the ups and downs Africa’s economic recessions, recoveries, and booms… As Zhou Yuyuan, a researcher with the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, noted in a recent article: ‘the cost for violating the contract is actually quite low for the borrowers.’ Furthermore, Beijing is concerned with its international reputation and its long term political and diplomatic relationship with individual countries. In addition, Chinese contractors, who usually advance their own money to get a project launched before being reimbursed through Chinese bank disbursements, suffer from project suspensions. Although loan contracts provide for arbitration in case of default, there is no evidence that Chinese banks have ever used this option, or that a judgment could actually be enforced, were it to be in their favor. We also see no evidence of penalty interest rates.
…We started this paper with a quote from a Zambian economist. A fuller version of that quote is:
‘It’s the US$ 3 billion worth of eurobonds that are the problem, not the Chinese loans…with eurobonds, you don’t play around when the payments are due. Chinese debt can easily be renegotiated, restructured or refinanced’.”
According to the Jubilee Debt Campaign in 2017, China owned 24%, the IMF and World Bank owned 20%, the Paris Club 10%, the private sector 32%, and other multilateral institutions 15% of Africa’s debt.
The Center for International Policy’s “Africa Program,” based in Washington DC, tracks and analyzes U.S. foreign policy toward the nations of Africa. Interestingly they conclude:
“As a debt crisis looms, there has been a growing demand from various advocacy groups for debt cancellation and the issuance of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) from the IMF. According to the Advocacy Network for Africa (AdNA), the SDRs are the IMF’s reserve currency that could ‘enable countries to boost reserves and stabilize economies, helping minimize other economic losses, without any cost to the U.S. government.’ Although SDRs offer African countries a lifeline, the U.S. has yet to support the initiative, adding yet another hurdle in their attempt to break free from their debt trap. In addition to advocating for SDRs, organizations like the Jubilee Debt Campaign (JDC) are also urging the IMF to sell its stockpile of gold to cancel the debt of the poorest countries. According to JDC, the profit from selling less than 7% of IMF’s gold (worth $11.8 billion), ‘would be enough to pay for cancelling all debt payments by the 73 countries eligible for the G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative for the next 15 months’ and ‘would still leave the IMF with $26 billion more gold than the institution held at the start of 2020.’
The efforts of debt-cancellation advocates seem to continue to fall on deaf ears, as the IMF and the World bank refuse to make any move towards cancelling the debt of African countries. The Bank’s hypocrisy is observed in the fact that it continues to pressure China, Africa’s largest creditor, to cancel its debt to poor countries while itself has yet to cancel the debt it is owed.”
China is Africa’s largest creditor, it is also Africa’s largest debt canceller and is the most flexible in its renegotiation of debt and does not penalise through interest rates as we saw with the Johns Hopkins report. As the Center for International Policy confirms, it is in fact the IMF and World Bank loans, who refuse to be flexible in repayment of these debts. It is they who refuse to make any significant cancellation of debt owed to them by Africa, and who maintain these loans at exorbitant interest rates, which are behind the debt problem in Africa.
Sri Lanka
Let us look at another example. What about Sri Lanka’s debt crisis, surely China is to blame like we have all been told repeatedly?
This is a graph included within an article by the German news press DW. As we can see, China owns only 10% of Sri Lanka’s debt. The Asian Development Bank owns 13% but don’t be fooled by its name, it is modeled off of the World Bank and has only held Japanese presidents on its board. Japan is beholden to the west’s diktat in all of its foreign financial affairs.
So, who owns this 47% market borrowings share of Sri Lanka’s foreign debt? Well, according to NIKKEI Asia, the world’s largest financial newspaper based in Tokyo, Japan:
“By the end of 2020, a year into Gotabaya’s term, the country’s foreign debt was $38.6 billion, accounting for 47.6% of the central government’s total debt, according to the IMF. International sovereign bonds made up the largest share, at $14 billion, followed by $8.8 billion in loans from multilateral lenders and $6.2 billion in bilateral debts. The top 20 ISB [International Sovereign Bonds] holders included BlackRock, Allianz, UBS, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase and Prudential, according to Advocata Institute, a Colombo-based think tank.”
It is here that we start to see the truth behind such graphs that hide behind vague titles such as the “private sector,” “other multilateral institutions” or “market borrowings”. These are predominantly British and American banks and investment firms who are extending loans at exorbitant interest rates. Why are the names of these institutions not even mentioned, conveniently hidden behind such generic and seemingly benign labels?
We also see the outright slander and lying that is occurring against China in being blamed for Sri Lanka’s debt crisis. How can such an accusation be justified if China owns only 10% of Sri Lanka’s debt?!
Once again, we see, it is not China that is responsible for the economic mayhem that is occurring today in Sri Lanka (formerly the British colony Ceylon, and who was a significant organiser of the Bandung Conference). In fact, there is great reason to believe that the National Endowment for Democracy is behind much of the chaos in Sri Lanka (refer here for more).
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.squarespace.com%2Fstatic%2F5652847de4b033f56d2bdc29%2Ft%2F60353345259d4448e01a37d8%2F1614099270470%2FWP%2B39%2B-%2BAcker%252C%2BBrautigam%252C%2BHuang%2B-%2BDebt%2BRelief.pdf&data=05%7C01%7C%7C06fbfe5172794058303408da74dd2cfa%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637950790545188294%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SC0z3H%2Bx00HOurbnxo93F9l5vYJnYyneSmx5PYeZt7E%3D&reserved=0
Posted by: Surferket | Feb 23 2023 2:10 utc | 66
|
