|
The MoA Week In Review – (Not Ukraine) OT 2023-115
Last week's post on Moon of Alabama:
asad abukhalil أسعد أبو خليل @asadabukhalil – 1:05 UTC · May 14, 2023
I was treated all week to fawning articles about Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu in all West media (just as I remember reading laudatory articles in WSJ and NYT about a Lebanese drug dealer because he was running against Hizbullah). Today I am flooded on twitter with pro-Kılıçdaroğlu tweets
—
Other issues:
Empire:
Propaganda:
Currencies:
Use as open (not Ukraine related) thread …
Lavrov’s presser was held with Belarus’s FM Sergey Aleinik after their joint meeting. Lavrov’s remarks prior to the Q&A were detailed as usual and although I don’t include them they shouldn’t be overlooked by any means. For example, “Following the talks, we have just signed a joint statement on the common foreign policy priorities of Russia and Belarus.” There’s this one highlight I’ll provide before posting the transcript that again shows Mr. Lavrov’s humor and wit:
“As for French President Emmanuel Macron’s statements about vassal and master, this is according to Freud. ‘Whoever has what hurts, he talks about it.'”
And we could add Zelensky to that too. And now the presser transcript:
Question: Russia and Belarus are under sanctions pressure from the West. The response to these sanctions was the strengthening of allied relations. The priority area is the development of industrial cooperation. Could you comment on this in more detail? What joint projects are especially in demand today?
Also in the plans for the next year is the creation of a single economic space from Minsk to Vladivostok. How will it work? What will be the benefits for our peoples?
Sergey Lavrov: I share these assessments and our commitment to developing integration processes in such a way that they do not depend on the illegitimate unilateral actions of the “collective West” led by the United States. This focus is reflected in the twenty-eight union programs that are being actively implemented. More than half of the activities have already been implemented. This work is ongoing. The main thing is to secure our ties in key areas on which the independent and progressive development of our countries depends in such areas as high technology, financial mechanisms, supply chains – everything on which the security of our countries and the Union State depends in the broadest sense: military-political, economic, technological, cultural and civilisation.
As for the recently announced creation of an economic space from Minsk to Vladivostok next year, this is an artificial reference. If we talk about geography, it should be from Brest to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk or Yuzhno-Kurilsk. It’s not about terms. For many years, since the signing of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State, we have been forming a common economic space. Twenty-eight union programs have become a milestone qualitative stage promoting this task. It is beneficial for the citizens of our countries that we will act on common economic principles, promote common norms in the field of social policy and, in general, equalize the rights of our citizens in all areas. Obviously, this work has made significant progress.
Question: All wars inevitably end in peace. Belarus is making every effort. Does Belarus have its own vision of future post-crisis security in the region? Have you discussed these issues with your Russian colleagues? Will the “voice of Minsk” be heard in the new Yalta or the new Potsdam?
Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Sergey Aleinik): Sergey Aleinik mentioned how, together with many other countries in the Euro-Atlantic region, we worked within the OSCE to consolidate the principle of equal and indivisible security. I would like to note that this principle was also enshrined in the documents on the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council. Equal and indivisible security was proclaimed in the OSCE. It was explicitly stated that no country, no organization in the Euro-Atlantic space has the right to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others and claim dominance in this geographical region. All this was trampled on by our Western colleagues when a course was taken for the reckless expansion of NATO. We have attempted to translate these solemn “incantations” to which the leaders of the Western world have subscribed into practical deeds. Let me remind you that since the late 2010s, we have been suggesting to our NATO colleagues to codify these principles and assume legal obligations not to strengthen themselves at the expense of others. These attempts were rejected. It was said that security guarantees of a legal nature are possible only in NATO. They will not allow anyone to prohibit any country from joining the North Atlantic Alliance. There was no clear answer to the argument that this directly contradicts the text signed by their presidents and prime ministers.
The last time we tried to put into practice these grandiloquent and pretentious promises in the field of indivisibility of security was at the end of 2021, when, on behalf of President Vladimir Putin, we handed over to both the Americans and NATO members draft treaties aimed at ensuring the security of all states in Europe without exception, including Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. Unfortunately, you know the result. The arrogance of NATO members, who said that no one can dictate to them what to do, was the cause of the deepest crisis in the field of European security that we are now witnessing.
Sergey Aleinik mentioned Helsinki-2 and San Francisco. If we talk about Helsinki-2, it is always associated with the OSCE, the role of Finland in promoting these positive constructive processes, at least in the context of political agreements. If, unfortunately, we cannot translate them into legal ones, then even political agreements created a more positive atmosphere.
But NATO’s reckless expansion not only to the east, but also to the north and in other geographical directions undermines the very prospect of further normal conversation about European security. With the accession of Finland and Sweden (this country, apparently, will also soon gain membership in the alliance) and the practical refusal of Switzerland from its neutral status, the part of Europe that professed military-political neutrality is narrowing. This was enshrined in the constitutions of the States concerned. They created space for finding a balance of interests, compromises between the NATO part of Europe and the Union State and the CSTO. With the absorption of almost all neutral states by the alliance (this process, unfortunately, we see with our own eyes), the opportunity for a constructive policy on the continent with the proactive role of “neutrals” disappears. It’s sad.
I agree that when and if the West “comes to its senses” and realizes that it will not be able to stop the objective historical process of the formation of a multipolar world, then a conversation will be required that is not limited only to Europe. The conference in San Francisco was devoted to global security. We cannot avoid talking about the fact that global security should be fair and equal.
Question: Former Chinese Ambassador to Russia and now China’s Special Representative for Eurasian Affairs Li Hui has begun his European tour. Among the planned points of the visit are Ukraine, Poland, France and Russia. The stated goal is to find solutions to the Ukrainian crisis.
The day before, French President Emmanuel Macron said that this should not be taken seriously, because Russia has “vassal” relations with China. In the same way, our European partners often talk about Belarus’ relations with China. How do you assess the prospects of China’s European tour and peace initiatives? How will they be perceived by Europe and the United States if they make such statements regarding Russia and Belarus?
Sergey Lavrov: As for French President Emmanuel Macron’s statements about vassal and master, this is according to Freud. “Whoever has what hurts, he talks about it.” Mr Emmanuel Macron is known for the fact that it is not the first year that he has been proclaiming a policy of ensuring the “strategic autonomy” of the European Union. It is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. It is perfectly clear to everyone that in practice, the United States will not allow any strategic or any other autonomy of the EU. Back in October 2022, the Minister of Economy, Finance, Industrial and Digital Sovereignty of France, Benjamin Le Maire, shook the air, complaining that due to the actions of the United States in the context of anti-Russian sanctions and the fact that the EU was forced to obediently follow this American illegitimate policy, the cost of energy for European business was four times more expensive than for business in the United States, which led to the deindustrialization of Europe, the transfer of business from the old continent to the ocean and much more. Long before the special military operation, completely regardless of what was happening there, the United States took a strategic course to reorient the entire European Union from cheap energy from Russia to expensive ones from the United States. They have achieved this.
The article in The Guardian newspaper, to which Sergey Aleynikov referred, is yet another confirmation of what objective analysts in the West have been acknowledging for a long time. If Emmanuel Macron is offended that all his calls for “strategic autonomy” in fact result in the EU’s complete subordination to the role of vassals of the United States, apparently he has such a psychology and, according to Freud, he is trying to transfer his “sores” to relations between those countries that retain self-respect, their independence and proceed from the need to promote exclusively equal cooperation, which is cooperation between Russia and China. between Russia and the Republic of Belarus. The EAEU has an intergovernmental agreement with China, everything is clearly spelled out there and, unlike relations between the United States and the European Union, is a document that fixes fair and mutually beneficial principles for the development of relations between countries and relevant organizations.
As for the plan (as it is commonly called) or the position of the PRC on the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. This is a follow-up to the answers that were given to the previous question about how to build a security architecture.
If you take a closer look at this 12-point Chinese position, you will see that the main provisions of this position are those that are systemic global in nature. This is the need to respect the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety, in an inseparable relationship without any double standards. There is also the need on a global scale to put into practice the very principle of indivisibility of security for all States, which we have just talked about. This also applies to the inadmissibility of unilateral sanctions that are not provided for by the UN Charter, as well as a number of other systemic things that clearly show the position of the PRC. It consists (as far as I can tell) in the understanding that what is happening in Ukraine is only a reflection of the crisis phenomena that are accumulating in world politics and economics as a result of the actions of the West to prevent the objective processes of the formation of a multipolar world. Until recently, the North Atlantic Alliance modestly stated that it was just a defensive organization engaged exclusively in ensuring the security of the territories of its member countries. But now NATO has been talking about its global responsibility for more than a year, that it must address the issues of crisis prevention in the Indo-Pacific region (as they call the Asia-Pacific region) and openly declare the idea of containing the PRC. The aggressiveness of this block manifests itself on a daily basis. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said about the Chinese initiative during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow that there are many provisions there that we are ready to take as a basis. They reflect the objective reality that in order to end such crises like the one that the West has created in Ukraine, it is necessary to agree on fundamental systemic things. First of all, this is the UN Charter, the sovereign equality of states, when no one will be guided by colonial instincts and try, as before, to exploit everyone else in every sense and live at the expense of others. Let’s see what Mr. Li Huiyu will say in the capitals where he went before he arrives in Moscow.
Sergey Aleinik mentioned that there are other initiatives (the Brazilian initiative and the South African President). In both cases, we responded to an appeal to us from our Latin American and African friends that we are ready to consider any of their proposals, dictated by a sincere desire to help stabilize the world order. But so far, unlike our Chinese neighbors, neither the Brazilians nor the Africans have seen anything on paper. We confirmed to them that we are ready for contacts when they are interested in this. It is in our interests to convey the logic, which is becoming more and more understandable to independent observers, to more of our partners on all continents.
Following the visit of the Chinese representative, we will inform the world community.
As for Europe’s attitude to the Chinese plan. She does not hide this attitude. It is the same as on the part of Washington, where everything is coordinated. The attitude is that if Russia said that this can be discussed, then it is not good. It is explicitly stated that Russia does not want to negotiate on Vladimir Zelensky’s terms. There can be no other basis for negotiations. The only plan that the West will promote is Vladimir Zelensky’s ten-point plan, which demands the surrender of the Russian Federation, its trial and the payment of reparations to Ukraine and someone else. Only after that, the leadership of the Kyiv regime will “favorably” agree to sign a “peace treaty”. The West says that this is the only plan that is now on the table and that it supports. Judge for yourself.
Vladimir Zelensky himself declares that “he has no one to talk to in Moscow.” The other day, he once again confirmed this. Not to mention the fact that in September 2022, he signed a decree prohibiting negotiations with the Russian Federation.
We hear “lamentations” from Washington, Brussels and London that Russia is “completely uninterested in peace initiatives.” I’m tired of commenting on this. It was said that they would accept only what would be acceptable to Vladimir Zelensky. It turns out that “the tail wags the dog,” as it was earlier in that American history.
Next, we have the Weekly Briefing by Maria Zakharova to look at.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 17 2023 21:29 utc | 161
The Weekly Briefing as usual is filled with interesting info, wit and remonstrations. And for a change, the Ukraine Update isn’t massively long. The situation in Moldova bears close watching as events in Ukraine are being replicated there and are what I’ll excerpt. These begin with this portion from the briefing:
On the election of the Governor of Gagauzia
On May 14 this year, the second round of elections for the Head of the Moldovan Autonomous Region of Gagauzia took place. The victory was won by the candidate from the Shor Party, E. Hutsul. The corresponding decision of the CEC of Gagauzia on the evening of May 16 this year was unanimously approved by the regional People’s Assembly.
The Russian side respects the results of the will of the inhabitants of the autonomy. Russia has close cooperation with Gagauzia in the cultural, humanitarian, trade, economic and other fields. We hope that the newly elected leadership of the autonomy will continue its policy of strengthening cooperation with our country and Russian regions. For our part, we reaffirm our readiness to further develop ties with Gagauzia, which is traditionally friendly to Russia.
Unfortunately, as in the first round of voting, which took place on April 30 of this year, Russian representatives were not allowed to observe the elections. At the same time, employees of the diplomatic missions of a number of other states, primarily the countries of the “collective West”, received such an opportunity.
We also see that the rejection of the Russophobic and neoliberal agenda, which is alien to them, demonstrated by the inhabitants of Gagauzia, caused undisguised disappointment in official Chisinau. There are calls for the annulment of election results, de-Russification and Romanization of autonomy. The leader of Moldova also “agreed”. And in Moldova itself, the word “Moldova” has not yet been canceled? Has Maia Sandu thought of this yet? She made absolutely incredible statements that the results of the elections in Gagauzia are like this, because everyone there speaks Russian language. And what language should it be in Gagauzia? In Romanian? In the same Romanian, which replaced the Moldovan language, because the head of the country, Moldova, has a Romanian passport and pursues the interests of another country in a sovereign state?
According to media reports, the Moldovan security forces are conducting searches in the CEC of Gagauzia, last night they seized election documentation.
The Moldovan authorities are obliged to respect the choice of the inhabitants of the autonomy, who said an unequivocal “no” to the course of severing ties with Russia. There is no politics or politicization here, but there is a real view of things, knowledge of history and understanding of realities, including in the context of the future.
We now move to the Q&A where two are proffered:
Question: The Moldovan government has initiated a review of the constitutionality of the Shor Party. Could you comment on this decision of the Moldovan authorities?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it has already been assessed by the Moldovans themselves, the citizens of this country.
As we can see from media reports, the demand of the Government of the country to ban the Shor Party, which is now being considered in the Constitutional Court, caused a wide negative response in the Moldovan society. This is not so much a question for us. You just need to state the fact that takes place. Moldovan citizens have already responded as they saw fit for such actions. I would like to remind you that we are talking about one of the opposition parties represented in the parliament of the republic. That is, it is a political force that has a mandate from a certain part of the country’s population.
Now it’s not about who likes whom, who belongs to which party. This is the political landscape of Moldova, formed over the years. All this took place through democratic procedures that did not raise any questions from anyone. Everything was not without “rough edges”. Any young democracy goes through different stages of its development. But it was a political process. Is “something” broken in Chisinau now? It seems to me that not “something”, but “someone”. Moreover, it broke down only in one direction – in favor of realizing the interests not of the people of their country, but of the ideas and policies of other states.
Obviously, if the person heading Moldova has a Romanian passport and turns the Moldovan language into Romanian at the snap of his fingers, then apparently he will not stop there and will go further in his “terminator” “attempts”.
People are outraged by another attempt by the authorities to suppress any dissent, to “push through” decisions that do not take into account the opinion of their own citizens. We have already seen this. Do you know where? I gave examples: the renaming of the Moldovan language into Romanian, the ban on broadcasting in Moldova of six Russian-language TV channels. Doesn’t it remind you of anything?
It reminds me that the same “experiments” were carried out on the territory of Ukraine by the American, NATO political elites. Everything is the same: a ban on the broadcasting of objectionable channels – first under the pretext that they are affiliated with Russia, then that they are Russian-speaking, and then they simply closed everything. If the current Moldovan media are “rubbing their hands” because they gain a competitive advantage in connection with the closure of a large number of television channels, then they should look at examples in neighboring countries, in particular, in Ukraine: first they closed it under the pretext that it was a Russian-language channel, and then they closed everything. Only one broadcasting “source” was left, which is being formed on Bankovaya. This is not the story of one country, but a systematic approach. As soon as the cleansing of the information and political space outside the law, logic, historical context and realities begins, then expect that it will only go on increasingly. It will be so there. I am absolutely sure of it.
Is it any wonder that the ratings of the ruling party fell during their time in power – they dropped from 38% to 24%? It is necessary to explain to yourself and to people such a degradation of popularity honestly. This is not because of “Russian propaganda”, not because Russian language is spoken in Gagauzia or Transnistria. And because steps and actions are being taken that run counter to the fundamental interests of the people of Moldova, who speak Moldovan, no matter how it is renamed, and in Russian languages, representing people of different ethnic and cultural groups. Everything that the Maia Sandu government is doing now runs counter to the fundamental interests of the people of Moldova.
And the second Q&A on Moldova:
Question: Moldova declares its desire to withdraw from the CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly. What consequences can this have both for Chisinau and for the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly?
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on the situation as a whole. This applies equally to such ideas, statements, and thought processes. Everything that meets the fundamental interests of the people of Moldova is simply being destroyed. That’s it.
It is impossible to imagine that in his right mind a head of state can rename the language spoken by people in his country to the language of a neighboring state. The most surprising thing is that when the election promises were made, they were of a completely different kind: to defend the sovereignty, independence, identity of Moldova, its citizens, various nationalities, to defend interests, etc. Not much time has passed since the elections. Everything happens exactly the opposite.
Such actions must be correlated with the interests of the country and the people. What will the people of Moldova get from the implementation of such an idea? Will there be bonuses? There will be none. First of all, the damage will be inflicted on the Republic of Moldova itself: its business representatives, operators, citizens, economic and financial structures.
Let me remind you what we are talking about. There are hundreds of agreements in the CIS that are objectively beneficial to Chisinau. They do not work for some lengthy organization or are preserved “on paper”. They are beneficial to Chisinau, respectively, and to the people of Moldova. These agreements were signed, developed, finalized over a long period in the interests of Moldova, among other things.
They reflect the multilateral trade, economic, social and humanitarian relations that bind all countries of the Commonwealth, including Moldova. Abandoning them will be detrimental, first of all, to the people of Moldova.
Why does M.G. Sandu need this? The answer is elementary. It does not act in the interests of its own people, but in the interests of those who stand behind it, who granted it Romanian citizenship, aimed it and this government at breaking regional relations with its historical neighbors.
There’s much more that I didn’t include, indeed the vast majority. I’ve been providing snippets of the Weekly Briefing for over a year now and hope that barflies have learned that it’s very important and not to be missed (although there are weeks when it doesn’t occur) as the information provided is well beyond that emitted by Media, Russian or otherwise. I have one more item to add in my next comment.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 17 2023 22:10 utc | 162
|
