Foreword
Honored Readers!
For me, based on the crystal clear speech by the Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the 51st Security
Conference in Munich, four questions need to be asked:
1.) Will Europe’s main Politician’s emancipate from
the USA and strip off their vassal status, come to
their senses and again become lord on their own continent?
2.) Will our representatives finally carry out a policy with
Russia and not against Russia?
3.) Will there finally be a reaction that the true villains
sit in Washington, the City of London and actually in Kiev,
and certainly not in Moscow?
4.) Will someone break out from the global NWO
agenda and when?
The hope dies last and comes from Russia:
„In Russia there comes the hope of the world,
not as that sometimes termed of the communistic,
or Bolshevik, no; but freedom, freedom! That each
man will live for his fellow man! The principle has
been born. It will take years for it to be crystallized,
but out of Russia comes again the hope of the world.”
(Edgar Cayce, 1944, No. 3976-29) Edgar Cayce, (1877-1945)
US-American Medium, „the sleeping prophet“
In Love
Jahn J Kassl
Here is a transcript of the speech and the Q&A
February 7, 2015
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation
Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus
Remarks and replies to media questions
by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Sergey Lavrov, during the discussion
at the 51st Munich Conference on
Security Policy, Munich, February 7
2015
Ladies and gentlemen,
Mr. Wolfgang Ischinger included in the agenda the topic of
"the collapse of world development". It is impossible not
to agree that the events unfolded not by the optimistic
scenario. But you cannot accept arguments of some of
our colleagues that a sudden, rapid collapse of the world
order, which existed for decades, had occurred.
On the contrary, the events of the past year have confirmed
the validity of our warnings regarding deep, systemic problems
in the organization of European security and international
relations in general. I would like to remind about the speech
by President Putin spoken here eight years ago.
The design of stability, based on the UN Charter and the
Helsinki principles was long ago undermined by the actions
of the US and its allies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, by NATO
expansion to the East, the creation of new lines of separation.
The project of building a "common European home" failed
because our partners in the West were guided not by the
interests of building an open architecture of security with
mutual respect for interests, but illusions and beliefs of
the winners in the "cold war".
Solemnly adopted in the framework of the OSCE and
the Council of the Russia-NATO obligation not to provide
own security at the expense of security of others, remained
on paper, but in practice was ignored.
The issue of missile defense is a stark evidence of the
powerful destructive impact of unilateral steps in the field
of military building, contrary to the legitimate interests of
other states. Our proposals for joint work on missile defense
issue were rejected. Instead we were advised to join the creation
of the US global missile defense system, strictly according to the
designs of Washington, which, as we've outlined and explained
factually, carries real risks for the Russian nuclear deterrence.
Any action that undermines strategic stability, inevitably
entails response measures. Thereby a long-term damage
is inflicted to the entire system of international treaties
in the field of arms control, the viability of which directly
depends on factors of missile defense.
We don't even understand, what could be the reason for
the American obsession of creating a global missile defense
system? The desire for unquestionable military superiority?
The faith in the possibility to technologically solve the
problems that are essentially political? Anyway, the
missile threats have not decreased, but in the Euro-Atlantic
area emerged a strong irritant, which will take a long time to
get rid of. But we are ready for it. Another destabilizing factor
was the refusal of the United States and other NATO members
to ratify the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which buried
this agreement. Each difficult situation, created by themselves,
our American colleagues are trying to blame on Russia.
Take the revived in recent conversations The Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Specialists are well aware of the actions
of the United States, contrary to the spirit and letter of this document.
For example, in the framework of the creation of a global missile
defense, Washington began a large-scale program of creating
missile-targets with characteristics similar to or close to the
forbidden ground-based ballistic missiles. Under a contractual
definition of ground-based medium-range cruise missiles fall
the widely used by the U.S. shock drones. Expressly prohibited
by the treaty are the anti-missile interceptors, which will soon
be deployed in Romania and Poland, as they can be used to
launch medium-range cruise missiles.
Refusing to acknowledge these facts, the American
colleagues claim they have some "reasonable" claims
towards Russia in relation to INF, but carefully avoid
specifics.
Taking into account these and many other factors,
to try to narrow this crisis to the events of the past
year, in our opinion, is to fall into a dangerous self-deception.
It is the culmination of the course of our Western colleagues
over the last quarter-century to capture by any means their
dominance in world affairs, to capture the geopolitical space
in Europe. The CIS countries, our closest neighbors, connected
with us by centuries of economic, humanitarian, historical,
cultural, and even family ties, are demanded to make a
choice - either with the West or against the West. Is a
logic of zero sum game, which everyone wanted to leave
in the past.
The strategic partnership between Russia and the European
Union could not stand the test of strength, because the EU
chose a confrontational path of development of the mechanisms
for mutually beneficial interaction. How can one not remember
the missed opportunity to implement nominated by the Chancellor
A. Merkel in June 2010 in Meseberg initiative to establish a
Committee of the Russia-EU Foreign and Security Policy at
the level of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Russia supported
this idea, but the EU rejected it. But such a mechanism of
permanent dialogue (if it was created) would allow to more
quickly and effectively solve problems and to remove mutual
concerns in advance.
As for the Ukraine, unfortunately, at each stage of the
development of the crisis our American colleagues, and
under their influence - the European Union, took steps
leading to escalation. This happened when the EU refused
to discuss with Russia the consequences of activating the
economic bloc of the association agreement with Ukraine,
and then directly supported the coup, and before that -
the anti-government riots. This happened when our Western
partners have repeatedly issued indulgences to Kiev authorities,
who instead of fulfilling the promises of starting a national
dialogue, began a large-scale military operation, declaring
their own citizens "terrorists" for disagreeing with the
unconstitutional change of government and a rampage
of ultra-nationalists.
It is very difficult to explain why, in the minds of many of
our colleagues, the universal principles of settlement of
internal conflicts do not apply to Ukraine, involving, primarily,
the inclusive political dialogue between the protagonists.
Why in cases such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen,
Mali, South Sudan, our partners urge the government to
negotiate with the opposition, the insurgents, in some
cases even with extremists, and in relation to the Ukrainian
crisis act differently, actually supporting the military operation
in Kiev, up to attempts to justify the use of cluster munitions.
Unfortunately, our Western colleagues are apt to close
their eyes to everything that is said and done by the Kiev
authorities, including inciting xenophobic sentiments.
Let me quote: "Ukrainian social-nationalism considers the
Ukrainian nation a blood-racial community". And further:
"The question of total Ukranization in the future social-nationalist
state will be resolved within three to six months with strict and
prudent state policy." The author is a deputy of the Ukrainian
Verkhovnaya Rada, Andrey Biletsky, the commander of the
regiment "Azov", which actively participates in the fighting
in Donbass. For ethnically pure Ukraine, the annihilation of
Russians and Jews was repeatedly publicly called by the other
figures, who broke into politics and power in Ukraine, including
Yarosh, Tiagnybok, and leaders of the Radical Party of Lyashko,
represented in Verkhovna Rada. These statements did not cause
any reaction in Western capitals. I do not think that today's
Europe can afford to ignore the danger of the spread of the
neo-Nazi virus.
The Ukrainian crisis cannot be resolved by military force.
This was confirmed last summer, when the situation on
the battlefield forced to sign the Minsk agreements.
It is confirmed now, when another attempt to win a
military victory is drowning. But despite this, in some
Western countries increasingly there are calls to strengthen
support for the course of the Kiev authorities for militarization
of society and the state, to "pump" Ukraine with deadly weapons
and pull it into NATO. The growing opposition in Europe to such
plans gives hope, as it may only exacerbate the tragedy of the
Ukrainian people.
Russia will continue to seek to establish peace.
We consistently advocate for the cessation of hostilities,
the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the beginning of direct
negotiations of Kiev with Donetsk and Lugansk about specific
ways to restore the common economic, social and political
space within the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This was the
subject of numerous initiatives of Vladimir Putin within the
"Normandy" format, which allowed to start the Minsk process,
our subsequent efforts for its development, including yesterday's
talks in the Kremlin by leaders of Russia, Germany and France.
As you know, these negotiations will continue.
We believe that there is every opportunity to achieve
results and to agree on recommendations that will
allow the parties to really untangle this conflict web.
It is important that everyone realizes the real extent of risks.
It's time to get rid of the habit to consider each issue separately,
not seeing "the forest behind the trees". It is time to assess the
situation comprehensively. The world today is on a steep fault
associated with changing of historical periods. "Birth pains"
of the new world order are manifested through the increase
of conflicts in international relations. If instead of strategic
global vision, prevail the tactical decisions made by politicians
with an eye on the coming elections at home, there is a danger
of a loss of control over the levers of global governance.
Let me remind you that at the initial stage of the Syrian
conflict, many in the West urged not to exaggerate the
threat of extremism and terrorism, claiming that it will
somehow dissolve on its own, and that the main thing
- is to bring about regime change in Damascus. We see
what happened. The vast territory in the Middle East,
Africa, the Afghanistan-Pakistan area became uncontrollable
by legitimate authorities. Extremism overflows to other regions,
including Europe, aggravating risks of proliferation of WMDs.
The situation in the Middle East settlement, in other areas
of regional conflicts is gaining an explosive nature. An
adequate strategy for containment of these challenges
is still not developed.
I would hope that today's and tomorrow's discussions
here in Munich will bring us closer to estimating the level
of the efforts to find collective answers to common threats.
The conversation, if you count on significant results, can
only be equal, without ultimatums and threats.
We remain convinced that the whole complex of
problems would be much easier to solve if the
major players have agreed on strategic orientations
of their relationship. Recently, the permanent Secretary
of the French Academy, Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, said
that "the real Europe may not exist without Russia".
We would like to understand if our partners share this
view, or do they plan to continue the course of deepening
the division of the European space and setting its fragments
against each another? If they want to create a security
architecture with Russia, without Russia or against Russia?
Of course, our American partners should answer this question.
We have long proposed to start building a common economic
and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, a space
based on the principles of equal and indivisible security,
which would include the members of integrated unions,
and other countries which are not part of those unions.
Of particular relevance is the establishment of robust
mechanisms for interaction between the Eurasian Economic
Union (EEU) and the EU. We welcome the emerging support
of this idea of responsible European leaders.
In the year of the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki
act and the 25th anniversary of the Paris Charter,
Russia would like to infuse these documents with
real life, to prevent replacing of the principles,
enshrined there, to ensure the stability and prosperity
throughout the entire Euro-Atlantic space on the basis
of genuine equality, mutual respect and consideration
of each other's interests. We wish success to the
"group of the wise", formed in the framework of
the OSCE, which must reach a consensus in their
recommendations.
Marking the 70th anniversary of the end of the
Second World War, we should be aware of
responsibility that rests on all of us.
Thank you for your attention.
Q&A
Question: I understand all the above-mentioned problems
in relation to the United States and missile defense.
Besides the fact that according to the INF, Russia
equates drones to cruise missiles, I would like to
note that the US President Obama had significantly
reduced European missile defense. If there are problems
in relation to the United States, why should Ukraine pay
for it? Referring to the annexation of Crimea and attempts
to divide Ukraine. What did the poor Ukrainians do that
you punish them for the sins of the Americans?
Lavrov: I understand that you have, of course, a twisted
perception. Don't confuse apples and oranges. Now they
say "we will resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and the whole
system of security and stability will start working on its
own." On the contrary. The crisis needs to be resolved,
it is the first priority, but we cannot ignore the fact that
all the agreements concluded by the end of the "cold
war" are not followed.
We have no desire to seek revenge, especially at someone
else's expense. We want to have normal relations with the
United States. It was not us, who destroyed the deployed
mechanisms which have been established in recent years
and which provided daily contact and mutual clearing of
concerns. It was not us who pulled out of the Missile
Defense Treaty. It was not us who refused to ratify
the adapted CFE Treaty. Now we need to collect bit
by bit what we still have left and somehow based on
the reconfirmation of the Helsinki principles to negotiate
a new security system, which would be comfortable for
everyone, including Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova - all,
whom our American colleagues had put before a choice:
to move towards the West and to reduce cooperation
with Russia. It is a fact.
I am aware that American ambassadors around the world
receive such instructions. I see here A. Vershbow, who
recently gave an interview, calling NATO "the most peaceful
bloc in the world" and "the hope of the European stability
and security." And who bombed Yugoslavia, Libya, in
violation of UN Security Council resolutions? The
achievements brought by unilateral actions we are
seeing now in the Middle East. We want NATO to
not be just an exemplary organization, which it is
presented as, but a participant in equal dialogue
for stability. What's wrong with that? Everyone
wants us to recognize a subordinate role of all
others in relation to the United States and NATO.
I don't think it is in the interests of world peace and stability.
With regard to the events in Ukraine, the U.S. President
Barack Obama recently said openly that the United States
was the broker in the process of transition (transit) of
power in Ukraine. Modest formulation, but we know
very well how it happened, who openly discussed on
the phone the composition of personalities that
should be represented in the new Ukrainian
government, and much more. We know what
happens now, who routinely monitored events
on Maidan. There were no our military specialists
and experts.
We want very much for the Ukrainian nation to regain
its unity, but it must be done on the basis of real national
dialogue. When the central government decided to celebrate
as national holidays the birthdays of Stephan Bandera and
Roman Shukhevych, the date of formation of the "Ukrainian
Insurgent Army", the question arises - how can these holidays
be celebrated in the East of Ukraine? There is no way. And
the West does not want to celebrate May 9th [Victory over
Hitler in the Great Patriotic War -tr.]. Without mentioning
other specific features of the Ukrainian society, just this
requires some political arrangements.
They are probably embarrassed to say to say it here,
but now Ukraine is undergoing mobilization, which is
running into serious difficulties. Representatives of the
Hungarian, Romanian minorities feel "positive" discrimination,
because they are called up in much larger proportions than
ethnic Ukrainians. Why not talk about it? Or that in Ukraine
reside not only Ukrainians and Russians, but there are other
nationalities which by fate ended up in this country and want
to live in it. Why not provide them with equal rights and take
into account their interests? During the elections to the
Verkhovnaya Rada the Hungarian minority asked to organize
constituencies in such a way that at least one ethnic Hungarian
would make it to the Rada. The constituencies were "sliced" so
that none of the Hungarians made it. All this suggests that there
is something to discuss. There are real problems that don't allow
the Ukrainian state to get out of this severe crisis, but they are
ignored in the West. I have talked to many, including those
sitting here, when they introduced a law on lustration.
One-on-one I was told that this is a terrible law, which
urgently needs to be cancelled. I asked why this is not
talked about publicly, and heard that there is an understanding
that it is necessary to support the Ukrainian government, and
not to criticize it. What else is there to say?
I hope that yesterday's efforts made by the presidents
of France, Russia and the Chancellor of Germany, will
produce a result that will be supported by the parties
of the conflict and will actually calm down the situation,
starting the much-needed national dialogue on ways to
solve all the problems - social, economic and political.
Question: Going Back to the results of yesterday's talks
in Moscow and the day before yesterday in Kiev, the good
news is that the Minsk agreement is still on the agenda,
but the bad news is that not all the signatories of these
agreements agree to comply with them. Meaning the
representatives from DPR and LPR are leading an offensive,
artillery fire, etc. The Russian Federation also signed the
Minsk agreement. Now there are attempts to revise the
line of contact. There is no pressure on the militia, although
Russia recognized that it can exert such pressure. Do you
actually plan to implement the Minsk agreement? What
guarantees of the implementation of all 12 points of the
Minsk agreements and pressure on DPR and LPR can you
give, as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation?
Lavrov: As soon as the main participants of the Minsk process
- the Ukrainian authorities and representatives of the proclaimed
republics of DPR and LPR - will reach an agreement on all practical
aspects of implementation of each of Minsk points, I am convinced
that Russia will be among those who will provide such guarantees
- whether in the OSCE, or in the UN Security Council. I am convinced
that Germany, France and other countries will also be able to provide
such guarantees. But you can guarantee only what has been done
and achieved. You have to agree directly. We should not pretend
that these people will obey [Russia] unequivocally. They live on
their own land and are fighting for it. When people say that they
would not be able to provide superiority on the battlefield, I will
say that theirs is a just cause. And Ukrainian soldiers don't
understand why they are thrown to battle. I repeat, direct
negotiations are needed.
Once the US Administration was criticized for the fact that it
actively maintained contacts with the Taliban via Doha (Qatar).
In response to criticism the administration asked, why criticize:
"Yes, they are enemies, but one does not negotiate with friends.
Negotiations are held with the enemies". If the Ukrainian
authorities consider their citizens - enemies, they will have
to negotiate in any case. Our Ukrainian colleagues should
not hope that the blind support, they receive from the
outside, will solve all the problems. Such support without
any critical analysis of the events is spinning some heads.
Just as in 2008, it spun the head of Mikhail Saakashvili.
Everyone knows what came of it.
Kristina Rus:
When Lavrov says, Russia supports the territorial integrity
of Ukraine, it doesn't mean that it wants Ukraine to remain
in it's current boundaries. What it means, is that it is not
up to Russia, but up to the citizens of Ukraine to decide,
whether to remain united or not. He also brings up the
differences in the mentality and culture of Eastern and
the Western Ukraine, which need to be addressed. "To
be addressed," does not mean "to be resolved",
especially when they are irreconcilable
_____________________________
NOW-Attack on Russia – JJK:
http://lichtweltverlag.blogspot.co.at/2014/03/ukraine-nwo-attack-on-russia-jjk.html 30 Reasons for Revolt – JJK:
The light world publishing and the author do not lead any
correspondence whatsoever
on the texts / messages
published on this website.
All extern hyperlinks are inactive because the light world
publishing refrains from any direct links. Please copy and
activate the links in order to access this page.
Foreword translated by Franz.
published on this website.
All extern hyperlinks are inactive because the light world
publishing refrains from any direct links. Please copy and
activate the links in order to access this page.
Foreword translated by Franz.
