Updated: Land for gas: secret German deal could end Ukraine crisis

[reorg]

Source: The Independent

Merkel and Putin negotiate to trade Crimea’s sovereignty for guarantees on energy security and trade

MARGARETA PAGANO Wednesday 30 July 2014

Germany and Russia have been working on a secret plan to broker a peaceful solution to end international tensions over the Ukraine. The Independent can reveal that the peace plan, being worked on by both Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin, hinges on two main ambitions: stabilising the borders of Ukraine and providing the financially troubled country with a strong economic boost, particularly a new energy agreement ensuring security of gas supplies.

More controversially, if Ms Merkel’s deal were to be acceptable to the Russians, the international community would need to recognise Crimea’s independence and its annexation by Russia, a move that some members of the United Nations might find difficult to stomach.

Sources close to the secret negotiations claim that the first part of the stabilisation plan requires Russia to withdraw its financial and military support for the various pro-separatist groups operating in eastern Ukraine. As part of any such agreement, the region would be allowed some devolved powers.

At the same time, the Ukrainian President would agree not to apply to join Nato. In return, President Putin would not seek to block or interfere with the Ukraine’s new trade relations with the European Union under a pact signed a few weeks ago.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/land-for-gas-secret-german-deal-could-end-ukraine-crisis-9638764.html

---

On July 31, the article was updated, excerpt:

... these attempts by Ms Merkel to act as a broker between President Putin and the Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko, were put on the back-burner following the shooting down of the MH17 plane in eastern Ukraine. But insiders who are party to the discussions said yesterday that the “German peace plan is still on the table and the only deal around. ...

http://is.gd/jVd9hD

[albino65]

1. I am sure

that this scenario was Putin's end game all along.

[cstanleytech]

2. Wait, didnt germany and russia try similar deals a few decades ago?

[reorg]

3. I see you have read the comments under the article

but in answer to your question: no.

[closeupready]

5. How is this not like the Sudetenland/Czech land-for-peace deal

Hitler made with Chamberlain? Seems quite similar.

[reorg]

7. those pushing for war are not the Russians

quite the contrary, in fact. That's why the comparison Germany-Russia / Ribbentrop-Molotow is completely off the mark. And yours is even more absurd: are you saying that Hitler wanted to keep his only deep sea port in the Sudetenland so as to protect Germany against the British stationing their rockets all around the country?

[KatyMan]

65. deep sea port in Sudetenland?

do you mean Gdansk/Danzig?

[Adrahil]

66. You do realize that Russia is the one who took Crimea and is making the Ukranian civil war possible?

I don't know what to make of you Kremlin apologists. You seem to have a unique version of rationality running in your heads.

[Enrique]

55. because Russia is on the defensive

its influence in Ukraine is declining.

[cstanleytech]

47. I suggest some new glasses then because I didnt read the comments under it at all. nt

[amandabeech]

11. Well, Germany attacked Poland, started WWII, and a few days later, the Soviet Union did so

from the other side. The two divvied up Poland for the nth time. Now, it's Ukraine with the Russians doing the first invasion.

[Of course, in the past, the Austro-Hungarian Empire participated in Great Power border redrawing. By 1939, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was defunct, Austria had been gobbled up by Germany, and I believe Hungary had followed with a reluctant alliance with Germany as well.]

If true, did either of these two autocrats bother to contact Poroshenko?

I'm guessing that many in Central Europe outside Ukraine are uncomfortable with any secret dealings between Russia and Germany involving third countries.

If true, this is appalling.

[dembotoz]

4. neville chamberlain would be proud

[happyslug]

10. The Man who Declared War on Germany and that was Neville Chamberlain.

People forget Chamberlain was Prime Minister when Britain went to War in 1939. His speech about "peace in our time" was a simple statement for the press, but in reality what France and Britain were doing was buying time, neither were ready for war in 1938, and in fact would NOT have been ready for war till 1941. Germany was much stronger then Britain and France in 1938, 1939 and can be seen in the French Campaign of 1940, still stronger in 1940. One ENGLISH observer made the point, that the Battle of Britain was won by the French holding out till the end of June, that gave Britain the time to have enough Spitfire and Hurricane Fighters AND to have their radar system installed so they could defeat the German Air Offensive of the Summer of 1940. In fact, Britain was about to admit defeat in the Battle of Britain for the British had decided to withdraw its remaining fighters to Northern England when the Germans decided to switch to bombing cities (The previous German Air Attacks were aimed at air bases and air planes to gain Air Superiority). That switch gave Britain more time, but it shows how close the Germans came to Victory, and the difference was the six weeks of Air Plane production provided by the French Army tying up the German Forces, thus delaying the Battle of Britain till Britain had that extra six weeks of fighter production.

The six weeks the French Army held out in 1940 after the battle of Dunkirk, was the six weeks of Fighter Production that permitted Britain to win the Battle of Britain. That air production was Chamberlain's baby, Churchill only became Prime Minister on May 10th, 1940, as German Tanks stormed into France. Churchill did NOT become the leader of the Conservative Party till November 1940 (When Chamberlain died).

The reason for the Switch is complicated, various stories have been told, the best and most logical was the Labor Party refused to work under Chamberlain do to Chamberlain's relationship with the Labor Party during the 1927 General Strike. In 1940, everyone wanted a coalition government of the three parties then in Parliament, but Labour was NOT about to work under Chamberlain do to Chamberlain's actions during the 1927 General Strike. Chamberlain could remain head of the single largest party in Parliament and be Prime Minister for the Conservative parties held over 1/2 of the seats in Parliament, but Labour would NOT work with him and it was decided that Labour had to be part of the Government, not in opposition. Thus Chamberlain had to go, NOT because of Munich, but the General Strike of 1927. Churchill had been almost supportive of Labor during the General Strike and thus acceptable to Labour as Prime Minister of a Government Labour was part of.

Please note, Churchill being made Prime Minster was not something applauded at the time, it was almost "Churchill? That is the best we can do?" The Conservative party actually OPPOSED Churchill's nomination, but when Chamberlain said he supported Churchill as Prime Minster the Conservative Party voted with their leader, which remain Chamberlain till in died in November 1940.

Please note, Churchill FIRST election as Prime Minster was in 1945, which Churchill LOST by more then 194 seats. Churchill lost again in 1950, but by only 33 seats but also by 1.7 million votes out of 28 million votes casted. Churchill did lead the Conservatives to Victory in 1951, but it was a case where the Conservatives won more seats, but the Labour ended up with over 200,000 more votes. Thus Churchill, when he was head of the Conservative party NEVER received more votes then Labour, the Conservatives managed to win more seats but NOT more votes.

Churchill has always been more popular in the US, then he was in Britain, but that is a problem with many foreign politicians.

[bemildred]

15. +1. nt

[Diclotican]

24. happyslug

happyslug

What you do not tell - is that Hitler was clearly warned - in 1938, when Sudetenland was occupied by Germany - by 1939 when the rest of Check was occupied - and Slovakia made a country controlled by Germany in all way of the world - and Germany - after been warned NO more land in Europe - started a war against Poland - and got the other powers in Europe to declare War against Germany...

On the note - neither of the powers in Europe in 1938 was ready for war - UK and France was buying their time with giving Hitler Austria - and then Sudetenland - and Checkia - who was one of the last Democratic country in the Central part of Europe in 1938 - But neither was Hitler - as his generals wrote in their diaries - and also told after the war - when they was arrested - and had to tell it all - at least what they was willing to tell the allied forces in 1945-46 - If France and UK had put a few divisions of armed forces on the border with Germany - and even treated to invade - Germany would had no other choice than to stop in their tracks - say sorry about it all to Tsjekkia or Poland - and then the regime of Hitler would have disbanded from the inside.. In fact - in 1937 they tried to force the case with Chekkiaslovakia and was showed the door - as the army of Checkiaslovaka was far more advanced than the german was - and if Germany had forced it to a military game - posible would have lost a war in 1937 - mostly becouse the germans was at least 5 year behind in the production of weapons - UK and France on the other side - was not interst in safeguard the Chekkoslovakia state - they belived for some reason if Hitler was given Sudetland with a german minority - he would not go forward against other nations - with german minorities - and even was willing to give Hitler Austria - who together with Checkiaslovakia was able to double - or triple the production of weapons productions in "The Reich" - It was a stupid move to let Hitler get his hand on all this industry - who under World War two gave Germany a lot of its industry production to the German Army or Airforce - One of the main reasons germans supported Hitler - untill the end in fact - was that he was a "political genius" who was able to take a chance - and win on it - he was a gambler who in the 1930s continued to gamble all the way up to the act of war against Poland in 1939... And he had no match in any of the other european leaders who still was stunned by the horrible action of World War One - Neither France and UK had the "will" to fight another horrible war like the one who had ended 19-20 year ago - whose soldiers still filled their street with their wheelchairs - and hospitals with people who had lost different limbs or eyes - or was in mental institutions because they still was disabled from what they had experienced in the trench warfare of Europe in 1914-1918.. Neither did the pepole of France or UK as they had been used as cannon fooder for the generals....

Chamberlain and the rest of the political leaders in Europe - by the time of the 1930s was never a match for Hitler - it was not untill the day when Churchill got into power - the conservatives hated his ass all the back to when Churchill was the Naval minister - and messed up things in Turkey - the battle of the Dardellene not excactly won him to mutch sympaty from the conservatives - but in the end they had no one else to go to - the other political leaders had no exactly any support from the Labour - or any other of the political system in UK - Churchill was maybe no ones first shoice - but he was at least not hated by everyone - and I would say he did a dam good job in World War two - and made it posible for UK, and the democratic countries to win the war - even if ti would take 6 years - and cost billions of dollars - not to say millions and millions of pepole who had not doing a thing to end up in a war...

Churchill got fired in 1945 - and it was logical - becouse Chamberlain had been a great leader in war time - he was not that good a prime minister in peacetime - he could be stubborn and less polite about how he wanted things - and after World War two - the whole world who he had lived in untill WW2 had died off - it was no more victorian values who was centerstage - in fact the world of Victoria with its old values traditions - and the fact that the working man/woman know his and her place in the world was dead - the labour movement had its golden age - in the world who was rebuild after World War two - where mutch of the old tradtions was shoved to the street - and told to died a peacefully dead...

Winston Spencer Churchill was popular many places in the world outside of US - at least he was respected - even by Stalin who was the leader of the new Superpower Soviet - who had rised from the ashed of World War two - and controlled half of the european continent to boot.. If not Churchill was popular or loved by the british he was at least respected as the leader who guied them true the War - and who gracefully stepped down when it was shown he was not wanted as the Prime Minister after the war...

Diclotican

[happyslug]

36. In 1936 Hitler had been told the French could drive him out of the Rhineland

Hitler went in anyway and the French did nothing. France was in the middle of a non shooting Civil War between the right and left in the mid 1930s, thus any improvements to the French Army had to wait till that non-Shooting Civil War was over to rearm and that was NOT the situation in France till 1938. That non-shooting Civil War almost did in France, and in many ways the reason France lost to Germany in 1940 was do to how that non-shooting war was "fought" and how the right saw itself losing to the left, even while the right ended up with everything it wanted.

Thus the Munich Agreement was essential for France. When Mobilized, France would call up one of every Eight Frenchmen, Britain would call up one out of 48 Englishmen. Population of France and Britain was about the same, thus the French commitment on land was larger AND as such required a longer time to upgrade then did the much smaller British Army. The above non-shooting Civil War delayed French Re-armaments somewhere between 3-5 years (Depending on the source) and thus France would NOT be ready for War before 1941. France needed 1938-1941 to rebuild its army and was willing to sacrifice Czechoslovakia to have the time to do it.

In 1936 the French Army was still stronger then the German Army, the problem is the French Army went into decline as that above non-shooting Civil war broke out. No new equipment, what was new was NOT put into production and even money for training was cut. By 1938 the French Army was NOT ready to take on Hitler, especially since Italy AND Spain were close allies of Germany (and German Troops were IN Spain). The French Army needed to be rebuilt and that would take a few years, thus the French did NOT plan on any offensive action till 1941. The French Plan for 1940 was defensive only and it was NOT good enough to stop the German Panzers.

Thus, while the German Army was weaker then the French Army till 1938, that position had reversed by 1938 and all sides knew it. It would take a couple of years to reverse the situation again, but for that to occur required something the allies were NOT willing to do in 1939, ally with the Soviet Union (When this was discussed with Poland in 1939, the Poles rejected it and opened Stalin to make a deal with Hitler, which they did sealing the doom of Poland and making France the sole area Germany need to have troops in after October 1939.

Side note: I know about the German Moves against Denmark and Norway in 1940, those were to achieve a flanking position against Britain. While important to Norway and Denmark, was a side war when compared to the Battle for France.

Side note: The First move by Hitler to annex Austria in 1934 was stopped by Mussolini who sent Italian troops to Austria Border prevent a German move into Austria. Italy later allied with Germany for Italy was force to find a new Source of Coal when Britain stopped shipping coal to Italy in the 1930s as the British Coal Mines peaked and went into terminal decline, coal exports went down first, then domestic coal usage, but domestic coal USE only declined after WWII). The decline in British Coal Exports forced Italy to look for other sources of Coal, and that is where Germany started to become a close ally of Italy.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/03/when-mussolini-scorned-hitler/

As to Hitler's Generals claims that Germany was not ready for war in 1939, that is true, but Germany was more ready then France was. The German Generals saw the German Military being ready for war by 1941, not sooner, but by then France and Britain would also be stronger. Thus between 1939 and 1940 was the time period when Germany was the strongest in relations to France and Britain as all three powers were re-arming. Germany had started earlier then Britain and France, Britain had modernized its army quickly (but the British Army was the smallest of the Army and would have the least affect in the 1940 Campaign in France). The problem was the small British Army, which the most mechanized army in the world, was also 1/6th the size of the French Army.

Britain had by 1940 become the first army to get away from the Horse, which in some ways would hurt Britain in the coming battles for Britain's drop of the horse had less to do with the horse being obsolete, but the lost of Ireland and its horses as a source of horses for the British Army. Trucks were NOT quite up to post WWII level in pre WWII days and in Italy, Malaysia, Greece and a few other places, the lack of horses came to be regretted. Fortuity the locals in Italy and Greece provided the horses and mules needed (And for that reason the US supplied Mules and horses to Greek and Italian farmers in the 1946-1948 period).

Thus the Allies were counting on the French Army to defeat Hitler in 1939, even Churchill stated that it would be the French Army that would decide the battles of 1940 (and it did by losing but holding out for many weeks as Britain produced more and more fighters for the upcoming battle of Britain).

One of the problems with relying on the reports of the German Generals, they all wanted to show how they opposed Hitler's plans of 1934-1939 while "in the dock" at Nuremberg.

Hitler had a window of opportunity and jumped right through it in 1938 and 1940. Only in that time period was the German Army stronger then the French and British Armies. The German Army of 1941 would have been stronger then the German Army of 1939, but so would be the French and British Armies of 1941. The problem is which would be STRONGER then the OTHER, and that for Germany was 1938-1940. Thus Hitler made his move and won till he attacked his oil source in June 1941.
When Hitler failed to conquer Russia by January 1942, Hitler was doomed, his window of opportunity was over and he had to negotiate a peace OR face ultimate defeat.

For more on the Popular Front 1936-1938, whose control of the French Government was so opposed by the Right wing of France that improvements in the Army was delayed as the right wing did all it could to defeat the Popular Front:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_(France)

[Javaman]

63. Great stuff! :) nt

[bemildred]

6. Well, that will freak some people out. nt

[amandabeech]

12. Well, count me as one of the freaked out.

I can't help but think that maybe whoever decided to tap into Angela's cell phone may have had some reasons (even though I would still disagree).

I just do not think that there is a place for secret agreements between two countries with respect to any "divvying-up" or politically limiting a third country. Not anymore.

[bemildred]

14. I don't think I believe it, yet, it smells of wishful thinking.

But we will see. And yes it would raise all sorts of issues.

[amandabeech]

16. I've canvassed the British papers, the Post, the NYT and Der Speigel (English)

and I see nothing except the Independent piece. CNN has Wolf Blitzer in Israel, as is usual for this time of day.

If this headline had come out on the 28th, it would have been just too much.

On edit: Nothing on RT.

[reorg]

25. well, it's probably reliable then

if it doesn't come from RT

[reorg]

23. no place for "divvying-up" - hilarious

The hole mess of unilateral US/Nato aggressions started with divvying up Yugoslavia, if you care to remember.

And you seem to miss there is a civil war already raging in Ukraine, a government with dubious legitimacy bombing the civilian population in those regions that are most threatened by the planned political shift to the West.

[amandabeech]

27. I could not agree with you less,

and since the arguments of some very persuasive DUers have failed to convince you of the problems with your arguments, I'm not going to waste my time in trying.

Thanks for posting, but good-day.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

29. Are you flat out accusing Obama of being willing to assassinate these two?

Yes or no.

[TwilightGardener]

30. DU is sadly turning into an anti-American, anti-Democrat site.

No wonder they launched Discussionist, they probably figured some conservatives couldn't possibly make a discussion board worse than this. I read shit like this and wonder how long I'm going to keep coming here.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

34. Haven't been here in a long time.

If they don't start to expel people like this, I won't be back.

[hack89]

31. "Boy" Is that really what you want to call the president? Nt

[TwilightGardener]

32. He's not an adult like Merkel and Putin are.

Ponder why that is.

[hack89]

33. He is black. Ponder that. Nt

[ballyhoo]

9. Is the West (US) involved in this in ANY way? It

sounds pretty good on the surface.

[amandabeech]

13. Sounds pretty good to whom? Ukraine?

Was Ukraine consulted before Germany decided to sell part of it to Russia?

Get real!

I just hope that this isn't true.

[ballyhoo]

17. Crimea is now part of Russia. Russia

can do what it wants with it. Putin and Merkel are both adults. How refreshing. And Poroshenko? Don't know. He'll have to ask his string-pullers.

[amandabeech]

18. Says Russia who invaded breaking just about every international law that applies.

Not that the rule of law seems to matter to you.

[ballyhoo]

19. There was a vote. Maybe you were gone for that. 96.8 %

voted to join Russia. Voting--that's where Rule of Law originates. Maybe Ukraine should have hired a lawyer rather than a guy that makes candy.

[amandabeech]

21. You've got to be kidding.

No time for you.

[Scootaloo]

38. 96.8% huh?

You couldn't get that many people to vote for free ice cream. This is why we all laughed at Iraq's "election results" during the Saddam years.

[freshwest]

44. IDK about that! After all, ice cream is so yummy!

There's even vegan ice cream:



Coffee Coconut Milk Ice Cream with Hot Fudge

http://clarapersis.com/2013/05/coffee-coconut-milk-ice-cream-hot-fudge-sundaes/

[NutmegYankee]

39. LOL, you must think North Koreans really vote 100% for their existing Parliament every time!

Holy crap dude, think!

[freshwest]

43. Of course they do! It's a landslide every time, I tell you! A landslide! Or a mudslide... nt

[Xolodno]

49. Actually...I think they do.

When you live in fear and have a gun pointed at your head.....

Pick one option:

Option 1. Vote for whacked out dictator.

Option 2. Watch your family die in front of you while they get attacked and eaten by hungry dogs...then you go to a labor camp for the rest of your life...and should you have a new family there...they will work there forever.

[reorg]

26. the precedent was set by NATO

against the most vocal protests from Russia at the time. US/Nato dispensed with international law. Now, as many have warned, this has become the new norm. Get used to what you have started.

[ballyhoo]

28. What troubles do you see for this going through?

[reorg]

48. it would appear to me

that the current government in Ukraine is pushing for the Endsieg, smash the entire infrastructure in the east and kill everybody connected to the resistance. Their supporters seem fine with this, but I have no idea if this can be the basis for developing the country afterwards in peace. Some gloomy predictions see a backlash coming and Ukrainians changing their minds as soon as the consequences of privatization, skyrocketing gas prices and IMF measures are starting to hit.

[ballyhoo]

60. I think exactly the same, with the push that direction by the West. Thanks.

dddddd

[NutmegYankee]

37. What treaty can you cite giving Crimea to Russia?

[happyslug]

20. So Merkel is a Politician who learned the lesson Stalin taught Hitler in WWII

DO NOT GET YOUR FUEL SUPPLY MAD AT YOU. Do NOT go to war with the place you are importing fuel from. Hard lessons, but I suspect Germany really does NOT want to go back to using Horses and bicycles, as the German Army had to do after 1941. Germany before 1941 imported its oil from Russia. Germany did get some from Romania, but the big source was Russia.

Do to the lost of access to Russian Oil, the German Army (and German People) had to cut back on oil uses. For example, a WWII German Army Infantry Division was restricted to just 10% of its pre war usage of fuel after 1941. Notice NOT what the Division used in Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and Russia (In regards to Russia we are talking June 1941 to January 1942) but what that same division used in PEACETIME Training. In WWII, you had three to four infantry divisions to each Armor Division. The cut back on fuel usage was to make sure the Tank Divisions AND German Luftwaffe had to fuel they needed to operate.

The Germans did this several ways:

1. One of the 12 Infantry Battalions in a Division was a bicycle battalion. The purpose of this battalion was a fast re-action group, to fill in any gap in the line being held by the division. The Swiss Army retain a Bicycle battalion for this same function till 1999. Most other armies had trucks to move such troops, but while Germany had the Trucks, it did not have the oil for those trucks, thus bicycles were used,

2. Horses were used to haul supplies. The Trucks in a US Infantry Division would be horse drawn wagons in a German Division, German Divisions did have some trucks, but for fuel consideration NOT sent to last mile to the troops, thus the trucks could stay on main roads and not use as much supplies.

3. Germany became more and more dependent on Rail transportation. During WWII, and until the 1970s, Bombing from Planes were NOT as accurate as claimed during WWII, thus railroad tracks and bridges were often bomb with most if not all of the bombs missing the tracks and the bridges. Thus you could rely on rail-heads as supply points much more then you could today. Since Germany was still using steam locomotives and Germany had plenty of coal, trains were a good option to get supplies to the troops (then to trucks, then to horse drawn wagons, but as the war went on trucks were replaced by more and more horse drawn wagons, wagons operated by Russians recruited by the Germans).

Just a comment that Merkel wants to secure fuel for Germany, she knows her history and does NOT want to attack her fuel source and end up like Hitler fighting a losing battle.

[ballyhoo]

22. Merkel is one smart lady.

[joshcryer]

41. The Germans miscalculated by dumping nuclear power.

They allowed wonks to convince them gas and renewables were the short term solution when keeping nuclear power alive while using renewables in the intrim was the better approach.

[reorg]

50. Merkel might agree with you here

but she wouldn't be chancellor if she said so. Anyway, the difference of interest is between German industry that wants to continue to sell and invest in Russia, and the American MIC that needs conflict regions to sell their shit.

Germans are not willing to return to nuclear power just because Lockheed wants to sell fighter planes and missiles.

And just like US citizens, they may see Russia as a "problem", but not an adversary:

[Xolodno]

52. I think you touched on something important there...

...how many awesome RCA and Zeniths TV's do you hear about?

With purchasing power declining in the US and heavy reliance on defense industries (thanks to our suicide pact with moneterrorism....I mean... monetarist economics)...the BRIC nations look like great trading partners. Plus, what nation really wants to be a merchant of death?

Question is, what does "A serious problem, but not an adversary" mean? Is it the US media view of a nation falling back on its old "Soviet ways"....or is it nation going through growing pains and trying to deal with its paranoia (but not without cause)...of being a target of Western Imperialism.

[joshcryer]

53. I don't like natural gas as a bridge energy source.

But the fossil fuel industry has effectively lobbied it as a source of energy. Ironically, Russia has gone to great strides to get fracking banned throughout EU while using fracking a lot through Exxon in Siberia. So get a nation addicted to natural gas, then get fracking banned, you got a lock on their energy source.

Now that EU is addicted to natural gas it's actually starting to look at fracking for itself, because they have some 40 years of unconventional shale gas at their disposal. Russia has made poor moves gambling with natural gas in that vein. Don't play with a countries energy source. Fracking will be a huge boon in the coming years. Poland in particular is willfully ignoring the bans, which has caused the big players (Exxon, etc) to bail.

[JDPriestly]

35. "Secret Deal to End Ukraine Crisis" (if this rumor is true), could stop the fighting in Ukraine

and endanger the Mediterranean area and the Middle East.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/07/ukraine-russia-crimea-naval-base-tatars-explainer

This would not be a smart move for Germany.

[amandabeech]

40. It's an old Soviet base--probably used by the Czars, too.

The Russians had a long term lease on the place and apparently there were no problems.

When Yushenko was replaced, Putin seemed to think that the new acting president would do something to negatively affect Russian operations at the base, and invaded Crimea to "secure" the bases there. There was no indication that the new Ukrainian government was going try to do anything other than collect rent. Personally, I think that Putin panicked and it has been all downhill ever since.

To me, it is not that Russia has a base on the Black Sea, it is that Putin invaded a sovereign nation, staged a completely bogus election for independence under Russian guns and then caused the Russian Duma to annex the land. And all that after Russia had signed an international agreement in the 1990s agreeing to accept Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons to Russia.

[BenFranklin99]

42. Why would anyone believe this?

I think this is almost certainly bogus.

[reorg]

46. It was reported elsewhere before

Merkel called for peace talks with participation of Ukraine, Russia, EU, "rebels" and OSCE representatives, said Tagesspiegel on July 16. Merkel had talked to Putin during the FIFA world cup in Rio. According to more recent reports by Tagesspiegel, Merkel was constantly on the phone with Putin, every day, until very recently.



Putin has always proposed an immediate ceasefire and peace talks between Ukrainian government and the resistance in the east. Here his latest statement:

"... in general, I would like to says that unfortunately, those who plan foreign policy actions in the United States - this is not a recent observation but one pertaining to the last 10-15 years - are conducting an aggressive foreign policy and, in my view, a rather unprofessional one, because whatever they do, there are problems everywhere. Just look: there are problems in Afghanistan; Iraq is falling apart; Libya is falling apart. ... They touched Ukraine, and there are problems there as well. It would be good if everyone understood that we must rely on the fundamental principles of international law and domestic law, and treat statehood and constitutionality with great care, particularly in nations that are just getting on their feet, where the politicial system is still fairly young and immature, and where the economy is still developing.

We need to treat state institutions with great care. There are grave consequences when they are regarded with disdain: disintegration and internal conflicts, as we are currently observing in Ukraine. The people who are pusing other countries toward such developments should never forget that the blood ofo the soldiers in the regular army, the blood ofo the fighters in the resistance, and the civilians, first and foremost, is on their hands, as are the tears of the mothers, widows and orphans - they are on their conscience, and they do not have any moral right to shrug off this responsibility onto anyone else's shoulders.

Here is what should be done jointly: calling on all sides in the conflict in Ukraine to immediately cease hostilities and start talks.

But unfortunately, we are not seeing this on the part of our partners, first and foremost our American partners who, on the contrary, it seems to me, are pushing Ukraine's current authorities toward continuing a fratricidal war and continuing retributive operations. ...

[Enrique]

56. I believe it

Europeans know how conflicts can get out of control, it's feasible that they would want to try to avoid that.

[Cali_Democrat]

45. And some were wondering why we have Germany under US surveillance

I'm sure Angela Merkel's phone is still tapped.

[Xolodno]

51. Not surprised.

The US government has lost all credibility.

Impeaching a President for a blow job.

Starting a war in Iraq while trying to strong arm Europe to go along.

Letting our economy go to shit because of ferocious and religious belief in "every man for themselves" economics.

A dysfunctional government that wouldn't even agree fart's stink if it came from Obama.

A significant political faction that wants Cold War 2.

Blanket support of Israel (not even so much as implying or suggesting aid would stop a little if they didn't work towards a peaceful solution to use some leverage).

Promising NATO would not advance beyond Germany.....then trying to push right on to Russia's borders.

Condemning nations for human rights violations....while turning a blind eye to others who are client states....excuse me...I mean "allies".

Spying on ...well...everyone.

..........................

Russia's immediate concern is its sphere of influence. Germany's concern is its sphere of influence. Hence side line the USA and deal directly with each other to end the problems on a nation that's going to need serious help for a long time (hence why they aren't asking what Ukraine wants....from their view...they are in no position to make demands).

The irony if this is true....or maybe it was planned? The promise that Ukraine would not join NATO....obviously, a number of nations in the EU who want this to end will recognize it....and so will China (as its issues with Tibet). But the US allied nations and the US will not...thus creating a territory dispute...hence...Ukraine can't join NATO.

[kiranon]

54. Russia won't keep its part of the agreement

and Merkel is making a mistake to think Putin will not continue to foment unrest in the Ukraine. He has nothing to lose by doing so. Agree with the poster above, it's no wonder Merkel was under surveillance.

[Enrique]

57. that's what people said about the Syria deal

and now the removal of chemical weapons has occurred ahead of schedule. Which has nothing to do with Assad being an angel, any more than this Russia deal is about Putin being an angel.

[davidpdx]

58. That's so nice they are making decisions for another country

Christ, they say the US is nosey. Double standard, hello?

[reorg]

59. proposing peace talks is "making decisions for another country"?

As Victoria Nuland boasted in Washington, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has spent five billion dollars to gain political influence in Ukraine (this is called “promoting democracy”). This investment is not “for oil”, or for any immediate economic advantage. The primary motives are geopolitical, because Ukraine is Russia’s Achilles’ heel, the territory with the greatest potential for causing trouble to Russia.

What called public attention to Victoria Nuland’s role in the Ukrainian crisis was her use of a naughty word, when she told the U.S. ambassador, “Fuck the EU”. But the fuss over her bad language veiled her bad intentions. The issue was who should take power away from the elected president Viktor Yanukovych. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party been promoting former boxer Vitaly Klitschko as its candidate. Nuland’s rude rebuff signified that the United States, not Germany or the EU, was to choose the next leader, and that was not Klitschko but “Yats”. And indeed it was Yats, Arseniy Yatsenyuk , a second-string US-sponsored technocrat known for his enthusiasm for IMF austerity policies and NATO membership, who got the job. This put a U.S. sponsored government, enforced in the streets by fascist militia with little electoral clout but plenty of armed meanness, in a position to manage the May 25 elections, from which the Russophone East was largely excluded.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/06/washingtons-iron-curtain-in-ukraine/

[davidpdx]

61. Yes, post about Nuland and her cookies

Sorry I'm not taking that shit for a source. Maybe you should try to pawn that off on someone who gives shit.

They are making decisions for a sovereign nation. The US was criticised for doing the same with other countries. I see that German is trying to help and appreciate Merkel's idea, the problem is the person she is dealing with. He is the one that started this with the invasion of Crimea and he continues to do so now.

The "rebels" he and his country support continue to obstruct an investigation into what happened to an airplane and made it difficult for the victim's families to recover their lost love one's bodies. That is just absolutely assine. It is disrespectful to the victims and families who were on that flight.

So as to him negotiating peace, I don't buy it for a minute.

[reorg]

62. I think you are not up to date regarding who

is obstructing an investigation of the crash site.

MH17: Dutch PM urges Ukraine to stop fighting near crash site
The call comes after Dutch and Australian experts were unable to leave Donetsk to visit the crash site for third day running because there is 'too much fighting', the Dutch justice ministry said

http://is.gd/5FzLvy

MH17 investigators 'sick and tired of being delayed,' official says

The latest setback came Monday, when a 45-person team of Dutch and Australian experts, accompanied by monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, abandoned their effort to reach the site after hearing explosions and being warned of heavy fighting in the area.

According to unconfirmed reports from pro-Russian rebels, Ukraine's military broke through to part of the crash site Monday and had stationed armored personnel carriers and dug trenches there.

"Safe work of experts and observers is impossible," Vladimir Antyufeev, the acting Prime Minister for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, said Monday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/28/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/

Ukraine fighting blocks international team access to MH17 crash site

International teams unable to begin their work as Ukraine and pro-Russian forces clash in area

Fighting around the site of the Malaysian airliner downed in Ukraine prevented a visit by international experts yesterday, although Malaysia said separatists had agreed to allow international police and investigators into the area.

Alexander Hug, deputy head for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) monitoring mission in Ukraine, said: "We heard indications there's fighting going on.

http://is.gd/EY3P06

Poroshenko has promised a ceasefire in the area, first he said 40 km, then 20, but the fact is that the "rebels" have lost control over the site due to constant attacks by the Ukrainian military.

Poroshenko orders ceasefire around MH17 crash site
DPA, Updated: July 21, 2014 16:41 IST

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has ordered the Army to abandon all military efforts around the crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, with immediate effect.

“I have ordered the military to cease its operations ... within a 40-kilometre radius of the site of the tragedy,” Mr. Poroshenko said in Kiev, adding that Russian investigators should take part in investigating the crash to ensure “maximum transparency.”

http://is.gd/0VnIZq

[jamzrockz]

64. In before

all the "if it is secrete, how did the papers know about it" comments