Medvedev: Syria, Ukraine and the economic crisis – an exclusive interview
Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: EuroNews
Syria
Isabelle Kumar: Many thanks for being with us on The Global Conversation. The issue of Syria is dominating the international agenda. But we feel we could be reaching the turning point yet it’s unclear which way it is going to go. What do you think?
Dmitri Medvedev: You know, as I was heading to this conference, I had a feeling that the situation in this area is very complex and challenging because we have yet to come to an agreement with our colleagues and partners on key issues, including the creation of a possible coalition and military cooperation.
All interactions in this respect have been episodic so far. That said, I note that here, in Munich, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with Secretary of State John Kerry, and other colleagues acting in various capacities later joined them. They agreed on what should be done in the short run. For this reason, I’m cautiously optimistic about the prospects for cooperation on this issue. Let me emphasize that this cooperation is critical, because unless we come together on this issue, there will be no end to the war in Syria, people will keep dying, the massive influx of refugees to Europe will continue, and Europe will have to deal with major challenges. Most importantly, we will be unable to overcome terrorism, which is a threat to the entire modern civilization.
Isabelle Kumar: What precise military actions and other, in that case, is Russia prepared to take to help in this de-escalation of the conflict in Syria?
Dmitri Medvedev: Let me remind you the reasons behind Russia’s involvement in Syria. The first reason that compelled Russia to take part in this campaign is the protection of national interests. There are many fighters in Syria who can go to Russia at any time and commit terrorist attacks there. There are thousands of them in Syria.
Second, there is a legal foundation in the form of the request by President al-Assad. We will therefore take these two factors into account in our military decisions and, obviously, the developments in the situation. What matters most at this point is to agree on launching the talks between all the parties to the Syrian conflict. Another important thing is to coordinate a list of terrorist groups, since this issue has been a matter of endless debates on who’s good and who’s bad. This is the first point I wanted to make.
My second point is the following. I learned that Secretary of State John Kerry said that if Russia and Iran do not help, the US will be ready to join other countries in carrying out a ground operation. These are futile words, he should not have said that for a simple reason: if all he wants is a protracted war, he can carry out ground operations and anything else. But don’t try to frighten anyone. Agreements should be reached along the same lines as Mr Kerry’s conversations with Mr Lavrov, instead of saying that if something goes wrong, other Arab countries and the US will carry out a ground operation.
I’ve answered this question only recently. But let me reiterate that no one is interested in a new war, and a ground operation is a full-fledged, long war. We must bear this in mind.
“We want sound, advanced relations both with the United States and the European Union”
Read more: http://www.euronews.com/2016/02/14/medvedev-syria-ukraine-and-the-economic-crisis-an-exclusive-interview/
Full Interview Transcript and video at EuroNews
= new reply since forum marked as read
It wasn't. But keep spreading the propaganda ........ have to hate the Russians now. It's a long, long list, isn't it?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016114130
German Sociologists on Crimea’s Choice
by Konstanin Kosaretsky / February 11th, 2015
In answer to the most important question: “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?” 82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% – “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% gave an unambiguously negative response, and another 2% offered a relatively negative assessment. Three percent did not specify their position.
We feel that this study fully validates the results of the referendum on reunification with Russia that was held on March 16, 2014. At that time 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support for reunification.
Ukrainians continue to question whether this was a credible outcome, but it is now backed up by the data obtained by the Germans. The 82% of the respondents who expressed their full confidence in the results of the Russian election make up the core of the electorate who turned up at the ballot boxes on March 16, 2014.
Full article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/02/german-sociologists-on-crimeas-choice/
"Who could be a more objective judge on this issue than the residents of the peninsula themselves?" Who indeed?
"Did they poll any Tartars?" - "Why yes, they did".
These figures are also relevant in terms of another important question. The former chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars, Mustafa Dzhemilev, has repeatedly stated that all Tatars on the peninsula are opposed to reunification with Russia. Dzhemilev’s statements have been widely quoted by the media, which present them as entirely authoritative and undisputed.
But let’s think about that – Crimean Tatars make up 12% of the Crimean population, yet only 4% of those polled conveyed disapproval of Crimea’s reunification with Russia. And that 4% very likely includes not only Tatars, but also Ukrainians and citizens of other ethnicities. There’s an inconsistency here. Of course, further study is needed on this issue, but the results obtained by GFK cast doubt on whether Mustafa Dzhemilev or the entire Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars is an accurate barometer of the feelings of the Crimean Tatar community.
Those few respondents who disapproved reunification were then asked “Why do you fully or mostly disapprove annexation?” Only 20% of them (i.e., less than 1% of the total sample) claimed that they preferred to live in the state of Ukraine. The most common response, offered by 55% of those who opposed reunification, was “Annexations was not fully legitimate, it should be brought into accord with the international law.” Which means that, in theory, they do not object to the idea of living in Russia, but rather question the legitimacy of the transition.
So. no, Crimea wasn't 'taken' by Russia.
The people voted, overwhelmingly to leave Ukraine. They were immediately threatened by the brutal coup-sponsored 'gov't' with the loss of their native language, what other fears do you think they might have had, a people predominantly of Russian culture suddenly confronted with that kind of hatred and threat???
The fascist right-wingers handed them to Russia on a silver platter ..... they went willingly.
There were picture after pictures of them lined up to vote, ordinary people wanting to get the hell of a place they were being treated as the enemy right from the start of the brutal coup.
?w=736&h=491&l=50&t=40
Two women hold flags reading "Crimea is with Russia" as people wait for the announcement of preliminary results of today's referendum on Lenin Square in the Crimean capital of SimferopolReuters
Crimea parliament has formally voted to declare independence from Ukraine following an overwhelming outcome from the referendum to secede from Kiev rule and join Russia, according to reports.
A formal application to join Russia was sent after 93% of Crimea residents reportedly voted in favour of the split, in a referendum that the US and the EU say violates the Ukrainian constitution and international law.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-crisis-crimea-votes-join-russia-eu-us-eye-sanctions-1440572
With Crimea's electorate composed mostly of ethnic Russians, the referendum was widely expected to support a split from Ukraine. While the Kiev government called the vote illegitimate and other countries saying they won't recognize the outcome, exit polls cited by officials reported that 93% of Crimean voters supported joining the Russian Federation. That number increased to 95% once half of the ballots were counted. As voting concluded, huge crowds gathered in the Crimean capital of Simferopol to celebrate the outcome.
Evgeny Feldman, a staff photographer for the Russian publication Novaya Gazeta, spent the day in Crimea's main cities, Simferopol and Sevastopol, as the vote progressed under the watchful eyes of masked soldiers aligned with Russia.
People celebrate in Lenin Square, in the Crimean capital of Simferopol, after a reported 95% of people voted to make the peninsula a part of Russia.
The crowd celebrates, waving Russian flags, in front of a statue of Lenin in Simferopol.
Local residents, including a police officer, show identification to get their ballots from election commission members in Simferopol.
A woman votes in Simferopol: Little tension could be seen in the voting booths, where most voters appeared to choose to make Crimea a part of Russia.
A Simferopol voter lets her son cast her ballot during the first hour of voting.
http://mashable.com/2014/03/16/crimea-votes-the-day-in-pictures/
by Joshua Tartakovsky, August 16, 2014
The Independent, a 90% turnout. If one is concerned with democracy, as Snyder claims to be, one would expect him to mention as well the popular referendum in which very large masses participated only a few days earlier. Snyder goes on to argue that in the presidential elections, the separatists’ "only hope to stop elections is intimidation" while not only failing to prove his accusations but also failing to mention that during the referendum in Donetsk and Luhansk, it was the National Guard of the Ukrainian Government that killed at least one civilian, in a crude attempt intimidate residents from voting. A video of the event makes leaves little room for doubt that random citizens were selected and fired at by Ukrainian forces in order to prevent the referendum from taking place.
One should expect at least a mention of these facts, especially when the article is concerned with democracy and the dangers of intimidation yet Snyder apparently deemed these events irrelevant. Snyder wrote that Ukrainian citizens must have elections that are not "imposed by violence" but apparently this does not apply to residents of East Ukraine.
With this in mind, it is not surprising that Snyder said that President Yanukovych "presided over the murder of protesters" while he also disingeniously referred to the Maidan coup as "weeks of peaceful protests". The Telegraph points to growing evidence that hired snipers fired on the protesters, and the violence undertaken by Right Sector at Maidan was raised by congressman Dana Rohrabacher in his questioning] of Victoria Nuland at the US Congress.
While Snyder claims that "Russian propaganda quite effectively shrouds the real issues by shunning political discussion in favor of fantastic stories about a fascist takeover in Kiev", the fact that extremist elements now form part of the Ukrainian Government, has been confirmed by respected voices such as Anatol Lieven.
http://original.antiwar.com/joshua_tartakovsky/2014/08/15/mass-killing-in-east-ukraine-and-the-failure-of-liberal-intellectuals/
The media reinterprets events. However, the first "little green men" were Crimean Militia. It was only after the militia first stood up and the Parliment of "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea" declared the overthrow in Kiev unconstitutional and asked Russia to help secure the border that Russia stood up their forces there.
Certainly Russia was only too glad to assist. No doubt about that. But it was the events in Kiev that led to the entire thing. It was also the replacement of a MAJORITY party in Kiev (80% of Crimea was "Party Of Regions"
was replaced by a government of MINORITY parties, most extreme or very extreme, that drove the people of Crimea to Russia.
34% is completely bullshit simply by common sense and knowing that the previous autonomy referendum was fully embraced and the polling (by US orgs) showed that the majority were happy with the results.
Yes there were likely some shenanigans. Clean elections are very difficult to enforce in all democracies. We have very severe issues with our own election honesty. But the Crimean referendum is backed by historical precident and party composition of the region.
I see these claims no different than I would if someone claimed that a solid blue state had some voting irregularities and that they had actually voted in a Republican President.
Ultimately the government knows that. President Carter talked about it as have other former Diplomats and Gorbachev.
The media in France is already cracking the narrative around these events. What happened in Crimea was a *response* brought on by the overthrow of a (yes corrupt, but representative in terms of party composition) government and replacing it with an extreme MINORITY government.
We pushed Crimea into the referendum just as the historical movement was cooling down.
What you do not hear in the news Crimea has fought for independence (from Ukraine) continually
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=246295
This is also a good piece to read to understand better what went on.
The Propaganda War Over Crimea's Break From Ukraine
By Roger Annis,
Truthout | News Analysis
Defence Ministers working session at the NATO summit in Wales. (Photo: NATO Summit Wales 2014)
In the propaganda campaign being waged by the NATO countries and the government of Ukraine against Russia and in support of Kiev's war in the east of the country, the events in Crimea of the past nine months occupy a pivotal place.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATO might be upsetting the entire military and political balance of Europe by continuing to push eastward today in Ukraine, but the drumbeat of Western government and media propaganda claims the heightened tensions of this past year are all Russia's fault. Russia's supposed annexation of Crimea in March is the example par excellence that a new "Russian aggression," harkening back to Soviet Union times, is afoot. It must be stopped at all costs before Ukraine falls, too.
In this made-up world, Kiev's murderous, illegal war against its own population disappears. The war is an "ongoing conflict" between "armed groups" in which the only actors with a purpose, it seems, are "pro-Russian separatists" and their purported backer in Moscow. An emerging subset of the theme of Crimea as victim of annexation is that it's also a land of disappearing human rights.
Given the very high stakes involved in all of this for the future of Europe, if not the world, it is time to step back and examine what is actually taking place in Crimea.
Fact From Fiction
Full story:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27891-the-propaganda-war-over-crimea-s-break-from-ukraine
