Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, signed in Kiev on 31 May 1997

UNITED NATIONS A General Assembly Distr. GENERAL A/52/174 9 June 1997 ENGLISH ORIGINAL: RUSSIAN Fifty-second session Items 38 and 81 of the preliminary list* SUPPORT BY THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM OF THE EFFORTS OF GOVERNMENTS TO PROMOTE AND CONSOLIDATE NEW OR RESTORED DEMOCRACIES MAINTENANCE OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 

Letter dated 6 June 1997 from the Permanent Representatives of the Russian Federation and the Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General We have the honour to transmit the texts of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership (annex I), a Russian-Ukrainian declaration 

(annex II) and a joint statement by the Russian Federation and Ukraine (annex III), signed on 31 May 1997 in Kiev by the President of the Russian Federation, Mr. Boris N. Yeltsin, and the President of Ukraine, Mr. Leonid D. Kuchma. We should be grateful if you would have this letter and its annexes circulated as a document of the General Assembly under items 38 and 81 of the preliminary list. (Signed) S. LAVROV Ambassador Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations (Signed) A. ZLENKO Ambassador Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations ________________________ * A/52/50. 97-15547 (E) 230697 250697 /...A/52/174 English Page 2 ANNEX I Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, signed in Kiev on 31 May 1997 The Russian Federation and Ukraine, hereinafter referred to as the "High Contracting Parties", Guided by the historically close ties and relations of friendship and cooperation between the peoples of Russia and Ukraine, Noting that the Treaty between the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of 19 November 1990 has contributed to the development of good-neighbourly relations between the two States, Reaffirming their obligations under the provisions of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the further development of inter-State relations, signed at Dagomys on 23 June 1992, Considering that the strengthening of friendly relations, good- neighbourliness and mutually advantageous cooperation is in keeping with the basic interests of their peoples and serves the cause of peace and international security, Desiring to improve the quality of these relations and strengthen their legal basis, Determined to ensure the irreversibility and further progress of the democratic processes taking place in the two States, Having regard to the agreements concluded within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Reaffirming their commitment to the norms of international law, first and foremost the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and complying with their obligations as members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Have agreed as follows: Article 1 The High Contracting Parties, as friendly, equal and sovereign States, shall base their relations on mutual respect and confidence, strategic partnership and cooperation. /...A/52/174 English Page 3 Article 2 The High Contracting Parties, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and their obligations under the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, shall respect each other's territorial integrity and confirm the inviolability of their common borders. Article 3 The High Contracting Parties shall base their relations with each other on the principles of mutual respect, sovereign equality, territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the non-use of force or threat of force, including economic and other means of pressure, the right of peoples to control their own destiny, non-interference in internal affairs, observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, cooperation among States, and conscientious fulfilment of international obligations and other universally recognized norms of international law. Article 4 The High Contracting Parties believe that good-neighbourliness and cooperation between them are important factors in improving stability and security in Europe and the whole world. They shall engage in close cooperation with a view to strengthening international peace and security. They shall take the necessary measures to promote general disarmament, the creation and consolidation of a system of collective security in Europe, and the strengthening of the peacekeeping role of the United Nations and the improvement of the effectiveness of regional security mechanisms. The Parties shall endeavour to ensure that all controversial issues are settled exclusively by peaceful means and shall cooperate in preventing and settling conflicts and situations that affect their interests. Article 5 The High Contracting Parties shall hold regular consultations with a view to further deepening their bilateral relations and exchanging views on multilateral problems of mutual interest. When necessary, they shall coordinate their positions in order to carry out concerted action. To this end, regular summit meetings shall be held by agreement between the Parties. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Parties shall meet at least twice a year. Working meetings between representatives of other ministries and departments of the Parties shall be held as necessary to discuss questions of mutual interest. /...A/52/174 English Page 4 The Parties may establish, on a permanent or temporary basis, joint commissions with a view to solving individual problems in diverse areas. Article 6 Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party. Article 7 If a situation arises which, in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties, poses a threat to peace, violates the peace or affects the interests of its national security, sovereignty or territorial integrity, it may propose to the other High Contracting Party that consultations on the subject be held without delay. The States shall exchange relevant information and, if necessary, carry out coordinated or joint measures with a view to overcoming the situation. Article 8 The High Contracting Parties shall develop their relations in the field of military and military-technical cooperation and State security, as well as cooperation on border questions, and customs, export and immigration control, on the basis of separate agreements. Article 9 The High Contracting Parties, affirming their determination to reduce their armed forces and weapons, shall promote the disarmament process and cooperate in the strict implementation of agreements on the reduction of armed forces and weapons, including nuclear weapons. Article 10 Each High Contracting Party shall guarantee nationals of the other Party rights and freedoms on the same basis and to the same extent as their own citizens, except as established by the national legislation of the Parties or their international treaties. Each Party shall protect, according to established procedure, the rights of their nationals residing in the territory of the other Party, in accordance with their obligations under instruments of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and with other universally recognized principles and norms /...A/52/174 English Page 5 of international law, and agreements concluded within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States, to which they are parties. Article 11 The High Contracting Parties shall, in their territory, take the necessary measures, including the adoption of appropriate legislative acts, to prevent and suppress any activities that constitute an incitement to violence or violence against individuals or groups of citizens, based on national, racial, ethnic or religious intolerance. Article 12 The High Contracting Parties shall protect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity of ethnic minorities in their territory and shall create conditions that encourage such diversity. Each High Contracting Party shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, individually or together with other persons belonging to ethnic minorities, freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious diversity and promote and develop their culture without being subjected to any attempts to assimilate them against their will. The High Contracting Parties shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to ethnic minorities to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms fully and effectively and enjoy them without any discrimination whatsoever and in full equality before the law. The High Contracting Parties shall promote equal opportunities and conditions for the study of the Russian language in Ukraine and of the Ukrainian language in the Russian Federation, and for the training of teachers to provide instruction in these languages in educational institutions and, to this end, shall provide the same degree of State support. The High Contracting Parties shall conclude cooperation agreements on these questions. Article 13 The High Contracting Parties shall develop equal and mutually advantageous economic cooperation and shall refrain from any actions that might cause economic damage to the other Party. To this end, recognizing the need for the gradual formation and development of a common economic area through the creation of conditions for the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, the Parties shall take effective measures to coordinate a strategy for carrying out economic reforms, deepening economic integration on the basis of mutual advantage and harmonizing their economic legislation. /...A/52/174 English Page 6 The High Contracting Parties shall ensure the broad exchange of economic information and ensure that enterprises, entrepreneurs and scholars of the two Parties have access to such information. The Parties shall endeavour to coordinate their financial, monetary and credit, budget, currency, investment, price, taxation, trade and economic and customs policies and to create equal opportunities and guarantees for economic agents; they shall promote the formation and development of direct economic and trade relations at all levels, specialization and cooperation among technologically related industries, enterprises, associations, corporations, banks, producers and consumers. The High Contracting Parties shall promote the maintenance and development, on the basis of mutual advantage, of cooperation in the fields of production and science and technology among industrial enterprises in the development and production of modern, scientifically advanced production, including production for defence purposes. Article 14 The High Contacting Parties shall ensure favourable conditions for direct trade and other economic relations and cooperation at the level of administrative and territorial units in accordance with national legislation currently in force, devoting special attention to the development of economic ties between border regions. Article 15 The High Contracting Parties shall ensure favourable economic, financial and legal conditions for the entrepreneurial and other economic activities of enterprises and organizations of the other Party, including the encouragement and reciprocal protection of their investments. The Parties shall encourage diverse forms of cooperation and direct ties between economic agents of the two States, irrespective of the forms of ownership. Article 16 The High Contracting Parties shall cooperate in the United Nations and other international organizations, including economic and financial organizations, and shall support each other in gaining admission to international organizations and acceding to agreements and conventions to which one of the Parties is not a party. Article 17 The High Contracting Parties shall expand cooperation in the field of transport and guarantee the freedom of transit of persons, goods and means of transport through each other's territory in accordance with the universally recognized norms of international law. /...A/52/174 English Page 7 The carriage of goods and passengers by rail, air, sea, river and road between the two Parties and transit through their territory, including through sea, river and airports and by rail and road networks and also lines of communication, main pipeline and electrical networks situated in the territory of the other Party, shall be effected in accordance with the procedure and conditions specified in separate agreements. Article 18 The High Contracting Parties shall cooperate in search and rescue activities, and in the investigation of transport accidents. Article 19 The High Contracting Parties shall ensure the observance of a legal regime of State property and of property of juridical persons and nationals of one High Contracting Party, situated in the territory of the other High Contracting Party, in accordance with the legislation of that Party, unless otherwise agreed between the Parties. The Parties take it that questions of property relations that affect their interests shall be settled on the basis of separate agreements. Article 20 The High Contracting Parties shall devote special attention to the development of cooperation with a view to ensuring the operation of national fuel and energy industries, transport systems and communications and data- processing systems, promoting the maintenance, rational use and development of industries and individual systems in these fields. Article 21 The High Contracting Parties shall, on the basis of separate agreements, cooperate in the exploration and use of outer space, and the joint production and development of space-flight technology, observing the principles of equality and mutual advantage and in accordance with international law. The High Contracting Parties shall promote the maintenance and development of ties of cooperation among enterprises of the space-flight industry. Article 22 The High Contracting Parties shall assist each other in the elimination of accidents resulting from emergency situations in communications lines, main pipelines, energy systems, transport networks and other facilities of mutual interest to the two Parties. /...A/52/174 English Page 8 The procedure for cooperation in emergency repairs and restoration work shall be specified in separate agreements. Article 23 The High Contracting Parties shall cooperate in the fields of education, science and technology and in the development of research activities, encouraging direct ties between their research organizations and the implementation of joint programmes and projects, particularly in the area of advanced technologies. Questions relating to the use of the results of joint research, obtained in the course of cooperation, shall be dealt with on a case- by-case basis through the conclusion of separate agreements. The Parties shall cooperate in the training of personnel and shall encourage the exchange of specialists, scholars, graduates, trainees and students. They shall reciprocally recognize the equivalence of diplomas, higher degrees and scholarly titles, and shall conclude a separate agreement on this question. The Parties shall exchange scientific and technical information and shall cooperate in the protection of copyright and related rights, and other forms of intellectual property in accordance with the national legislation and the international obligations of their countries in this field. Article 24 The High Contracting Parties shall develop cooperation in the fields of culture, literature, art, the media, tourism and sport. The Parties shall cooperate in the preservation, restoration and use of their historical and cultural heritage. The Parties shall in every way promote the strengthening and expansion of creative exchanges and interaction among groups, organizations and associations of persons in their countries who are active in the fields of literature and art, cinematography, book publishing and archives; the observance of traditional days of their national cultures; the holding of artistic festivals and exhibitions; guest performances of ensembles and soloists; the exchange of delegations of prominent cultural figures and specialists at the State, regional and local levels; and the establishment of national cultural centres in the territory of their States. The Parties shall provide State support in the elaboration and conduct of joint programmes for the revitalization and development of the tourist industry, the exploration of new potential recreational areas, the preservation, restoration and effective use of cultural and historical and religious monuments and buildings. They shall in every way encourage the strengthening of contacts between sports organizations and clubs, and the joint conduct of inter-State sporting events. /...A/52/174 English Page 9 The Parties shall jointly develop and implement mutually advantageous programmes for developing a material and technical base for television and radio, including satellite broadcasting, and shall organize, on a parity basis, television and radio broadcasts in Ukrainian in the Russian Federation and in Russian in Ukraine. The Parties shall promote contacts between people, political parties and social movements, trade unions, religious organizations and associations, and health, sports, tourist and other associations and unions. The whole range of questions covered in this article shall be dealt with in separate agreements. Article 25 The High Contracting Parties shall cooperate in the protection and improvement of the environment, the prevention of transboundary pollution, the rational and resource-conserving utilization of the natural environment, the elimination of the consequences of natural and technogenic emergencies and shall promote coordinated action in this area at the regional and global levels with a view to creating a comprehensive system of international environmental safety. The Parties take it that questions relating to environmental protection and environmental safety, including the protection and use of the ecosystems and resources of the Dnieper river and other transboundary watercourses, and action in response to environmental emergencies, shall be dealt with in separate agreements. Article 26 The High Contracting Parties shall cooperate in the elimination of the consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and shall conclude a separate agreement on this question. Article 27 The High Contracting Parties shall develop cooperation in the field of social protection, including the social security of their citizens. They shall conclude separate agreements with a view to solving questions of labour relations, job placement, social protection, compensation for losses involving physical injury or other impairment of health resulting from industrial accidents, the social security of citizens of one Party who are employed or who are working as trainees in the territory of the other Party, and on other questions in this field that require coordinated solutions. The Parties shall ensure the unimpeded and timely transfer of pensions, allowances, alimony, monetary compensation for losses involving physical injury or other impairment of health, and other socially significant payments to /...A/52/174 English Page 10 citizens of one Party residing permanently or temporarily in the territory of the other Party. Article 28 The High Contracting Parties shall cooperate in the restoration of the rights of deported peoples in accordance with bilateral and multilateral agreements concluded within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Article 29 The High Contracting Parties, as Black Sea States, are prepared to continue to develop all-round cooperation in order to save and preserve the natural environment of the Azov-Black Sea basin, conducting marine and climatological research, utilizing the recreational potential and natural resources of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, developing navigation and operating sea routes, ports and installations. Article 30 The High Contracting Parties recognize the importance for the Russian Federation and Ukraine of maintaining a technologically unified system for the collection, processing, dissemination and use of hydrometeorological information and data on the state of the environment in order to safeguard the interests of the population and the national economy, and shall contribute in every way possible to the development of cooperation in the field of hydrometeorology and environmental monitoring. Article 31 The High Contracting Parties shall devote special attention to the development of mutually advantageous cooperation in the field of health protection and the improvement of the sanitary and epidemiological situation, the production of medicines and medical equipment, and the training of highly qualified personnel for the medical facilities of the Parties. Article 32 The High Contracting Parties shall cooperate in solving questions relating to the regulation of migration processes, including measures to prevent and prohibit illegal migration from third countries, for which they shall conclude a separate agreement. /...A/52/174 English Page 11 Article 33 The High Contracting Parties shall cooperate in combating crime, especially organized crime, terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including criminal acts directed against the safety of maritime navigation, civil aviation and other forms of transport, illegal trafficking in radioactive materials, weapons, narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and contraband, including the illegal transfer across the border of objects of cultural, historical or artistic value. Article 34 The High Contracting Parties shall cooperate in the legal sphere on the basis of separate agreements. Article 35 The High Contracting Parties shall promote the development of contacts and cooperation between the parliaments and parliamentarians of the two States. Article 36 This Treaty shall not affect the rights and obligations of the High Contracting Parties arising from other international treaties to which they are parties. Article 37 Disputes regarding the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Treaty shall be settled through consultations and negotiations between the High Contracting Parties. Article 38 The High Contracting Parties shall conclude with one another other agreements necessary for the implementation of the provisions of this Treaty, as well as agreements in fields of mutual interest. Article 39 This Treaty is subject to ratification and shall enter into force on the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification. On the day this Treaty enters into force, the Treaty between the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of 19 November 1990 shall cease to have effect. /...A/52/174 English Page 12 Article 40 This Treaty is concluded for a period of 10 years. It shall subsequently be extended automatically for further 10-year periods unless one of the High Contracting Parties notifies the other High Contracting Party in writing of its desire to terminate it at least six months before the expiry of the current 10-year period. Article 41 This Treaty shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations. DONE at Kiev on 31 May 1997 in duplicate in the Russian and Ukrainian languages, both texts being equally authentic. For the Russian Federation:For Ukraine: (Signed) B. YELTSIN(Signed) L. KUCHMA /...A/52/174 English Page 13 ANNEX II Russian-Ukrainian declaration signed in Kiev on 31 May 1997 In the course of a State visit to Ukraine on 30 and 31 May 1997, the President of the Russian Federation, Mr. Boris N. Yeltsin, and the President of Ukraine, Mr. Leonid D. Kuchma, held a detailed discussion of the state of, and prospects for developing, Russian-Ukrainian cooperation in diverse areas, as well as a broad range of international issues. The negotiations between the Presidents took place in an atmosphere of cordiality, goodwill and mutual respect. 1. The Presidents stressed that relations between the Russian Federation and Ukraine are based on the principles of equality, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the two States and are conducted in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the basic instruments of international law, the Helsinki Final Act and subsequent instruments of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). They noted the major role that the Russian-Ukrainian Treaty of 19 November 1990 and the Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the further development of their inter-State relations of 23 June 1992 played in the development of new relations between the two countries, while preserving the centuries-old traditions of friendship, kinship and spiritual affinity between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. Experience convincingly shows that good-neighbourliness and mutually advantageous cooperation between the Russian Federation and Ukraine is in keeping with their basic national interests and are an important factor in strengthening global and regional stability. The Russian Federation welcomed Ukraine's acquisition of non-nuclear status and reaffirmed its commitment to the Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of the Russian Federation, the United States of America and Ukraine of 14 January 1994 and the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed in Budapest on 5 December 1994. The Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, signed in Kiev on 31 May 1997, begins a new era in Russian-Ukrainian relations and constitutes a solid basis for the further development of mutually advantageous cooperation. The heads of State welcome the completion of negotiations to settle the question of the Black Sea fleet. The agreements that have been signed create conditions for the normal operation of the Russian Black Sea fleet and its lease of the main base in Sevastopol for 20 years. The agreements will help strengthen security and stability in the region. /...A/52/174 English Page 14 The Presidents agree that the peoples of the Russian Federation and Ukraine shall continue to live and work in peace and harmony, supporting each other at a crucial stage in their history, when they are carrying out, in their independent sovereign States, large-scale reforms with a view to establishing a democratic society and a State based on rule of law, with a socially oriented market economy. 2. In their consideration of international issues, the Presidents noted that historical changes are currently taking place in the world arena, which mark the transition of mankind from global bloc confrontation to a multipolar world in which the diversity of political, economic and cultural development is becoming firmly established. These transformations have become possible, first of all, as a result of the rejection of confrontational thought and politics. The heads of the two States emphasized the need to strengthen the United Nations as the mainstay of the global system of international security, and they expressed their support for further improving the effectiveness of the Organization by adapting it to the new challenges of the modern world. The Russian Federation and Ukraine are in favour of creating a model of general and comprehensive security for Europe in the twenty-first century, in which the interests of all countries would be taken into account. In this regard, they attach great importance to the decision of the Lisbon Summit of OSCE on developing a Charter on European Security. They expressed the conviction that OSCE has a special role to play in building a secure, stable, united and free community of States from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The further strengthening of OSCE is in keeping with the interests of the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Presidents consider that the instruments on relations between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and between the Ukraine and NATO safeguard the national interests of their countries and contribute to the strengthening of security and stability in European and Atlantic region. Mr. Boris N. Yeltsin and Mr. Leonid D. Kuchma noted the importance of the admission of the Russian Federation and Ukraine into the Council of Europe in order to consolidate high standards in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Presidents reaffirmed the desire of their States for the further progressive development of relations with the European Union in the context of all-European economic integration. The heads of State are in favour of the comprehensive development of political, economic and humanitarian relations among the States members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and of improving the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's activities. 3. The Presidents devoted priority attention to the dynamic development of bilateral relations, the political basis for which is the Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership. A /...A/52/174 English Page 15 solid legal and contractual basis is being established for Russian-Ukrainian interaction in the political, economic, scientific and technological and humanitarian fields. Contacts between bodies of the legislative and executive authorities of the Russian Federation and Ukraine are expanding. In the field of trade and economy, in spite of a number of difficulties, the volume of mutual trade in 1996 amounted to $17.8 billion. Military and technical cooperation is being developed. Measures are being taken to ensure conditions for unimpeded communication between nationals of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, who every year make more than 20 million trips between the two countries. The Presidents reached agreement on the main tasks for further developing and deepening Russian-Ukrainian ties, and stated that the paramount task was to ensure the practical implementation of the provisions of the new general political Treaty signed during the visit. The Presidents agreed to conclude a treaty on the Russian-Ukrainian State border, including its delimitation, and agreed to step up negotiations on these questions. The Russian Federation and Ukraine will continue their concerted efforts to counteract criminal elements, contraband and illegal migration. Mr. Boris Yeltsin and Mr. Leonid D. Kuchma expressed their support for the continued growth of mutual trade, the harmonization of economic relations, the creation of the necessary conditions for establishing mutually advantageous cooperation between economic agents, the settlement of existing disputes in the area of mutual trade, and the speedy removal of artificial trade barriers. The Presidents reaffirmed the importance of observing a regime of free trade between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The placing of economic ties on a long-term, stable basis is a matter of urgency. The planned improvement of the mechanism of trade and economic relations must provide for the creation of the necessary conditions for developing market-based cooperation, broader access of Russian and Ukrainian capital to each other's markets, the development of joint investment projects, the formation of transnational financial and industrial groups and the creation of intergovernmental special-purpose programmes. The ensuring of guaranteed and stable deliveries of sources of energy and the mutually acceptable solution of questions relating to the transit of goods through each other's territory on the basis of appropriate agreements are of strategic importance to the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Presidents consider it necessary to deepen industrial and scientific and technical cooperation in fields of priority interest to the Russian Federation and Ukraine: the exploration of outer space, the aircraft industry, atomic energy, the fuel and energy sector, electronics, metallurgy and the production of agricultural equipment. The implementation of such joint projects as Morskoy start ("Sea Start") and the production of AN-70 aircraft and new agricultural machinery will help maintain and develop existing potential, create new jobs and provide access to the markets of third countries. /...A/52/174 English Page 16 The national academies of sciences should play an important role in the deepening of scientific cooperation. The Presidents stressed the need for unconditional respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the preservation and development, in accordance with universally recognized norms, of the ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of all peoples living in the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Guided by the interests of tens of millions of people living in the Russian Federation and Ukraine who are linked by diverse ties, including ties of kinship, the States shall promote contacts among people and public bodies, encourage cooperation in the fields of education, science, culture and the media and promote the study of the Russian language in Ukraine and the Ukrainian language in the Russian Federation. An agreement was reached on the opening of information and cultural centres of the Russian Federation in Kiev and of Ukraine in Moscow. The Presidents expressed their support for cooperation between border areas and between regions in all spheres. Mr. Boris N. Yeltsin and Mr. Leonid D. Kuchma consider the strengthening of relations between the Russian Federation and Ukraine a matter of paramount importance in their activities, and successful cooperation as priorities of the two States and peoples. To this end, they recognized the need to continue an active political dialogue, including dialogue at the highest level, improve the effectiveness of the Russian-Ukrainian Joint Commission on Cooperation and promote the development of businesslike relations between economic agents and entrepreneurial circles of the two States. * * * The President of the Russian Federation, Mr. Boris N. Yeltsin, invited the President of Ukraine, Mr. Leonid D. Kuchma, to make a State visit to the Russian Federation. The invitation was gratefully accepted. The date of the visit will be set later. (Signed) B. YELTSIN President of the Russian Federation (Signed) L. KUCHMA President of Ukraine /...A/52/174 English Page 17 ANNEX III Joint statement by the Russian Federation and Ukraine, signed in Kiev on 31 May 1997 The Presidents of the Russian Federation and Ukraine welcome the recent signing in Kiev of Russian-Ukrainian agreements settling the issue of the Black Sea fleet. A problem that has complicated Russian-Ukrainian cooperation for some years has been solved. The agreements concluded mark a new chapter in the more than 200-year history of the Hero-City Sevastopol and the Black Sea fleet, and are an important milestone in the fraternal relations between two great peoples - the Russian and Ukrainian peoples - and have paved the way for the signing of a new general political Treaty that lays the foundation for relations of friendship, cooperation and partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. These agreements will help strengthen a spirit of mutual understanding and confidence between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and will become a major stabilizing factor in the entire system of relations between our States. The status of the Russian Black Sea fleet, the terms and duration of its presence in hospitable Ukraine have now been clearly defined. The main base of the Russian Black Sea fleet shall be in Sevastopol. In a solemn ceremony, the St. Andrew flag shall be raised on Russian ships, and the flags of the Ukrainian navy on Ukrainian ships. The Russian Black Sea fleet and the Ukrainian navy are gaining broad opportunities for further deepening cooperation between the two States in the naval sphere on the Black Sea, and they will cooperate in safeguarding the southern borders of our two countries. As we note the significance of the agreements that were reached, we recall the heroic pages of the history of Sevastopol. The legendary defence during the Crimean War made the name of this city a synonym of heroism and patriotism throughout the world. During the Great Patriotic War, the sailors, soldiers and inhabitants of the city covered themselves with unfading glory. Sevastopol was and forever shall remain in our memories a city of military glory, military valour, a symbol of our comradeship in arms and the personification of friendship between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. The city's sites of military glory and its museums and memorials will continue to be objects of attention and veneration of our compatriots and by people of all generations. With particular warmth, we today address the war and labour veterans of Sevastopol, whose deeds shall never be forgotten either in the Russian Federation or Ukraine. These people fully deserve a secure and dignified old age. The Governments of the two States shall cooperate to this end, carrying out joint economic, scientific and technical, transport and cultural projects. We assure the workers of the city, by whose efforts the good name and glorious traditions of the Hero-City are upheld and preserved, that everything will be done to ensure the prosperity of Sevastopol, in the name of friendship and solidarity among people. /...A/52/174 English Page 18 In the spirit of the agreements that have been signed - in today's difficult economic circumstances - the necessary measures shall continue to be taken to improve the life of the people of Sevastopol, strengthen its economic potential and solve the social problems of servicemen and members of their families and of all the city's inhabitants. We sincerely wish all inhabitants of Sevastopol, Russians and Ukrainians, servicemen and civilians, good health, well-being and happiness. (Signed) B. YELTSIN President of the Russian Federation ----- (Signed) L. KUCHMA President of Ukraine

All things Russia.

 To the best of my abilities, this is the best information I could find that make sense of it all 

My blog post; https://mustnt-grumble.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-ottomans-and-uncle-bertie-draft.html 

"Constantinople in the Quran
in Ākhir Al-Zamān (i.e., the End-Time) by Imram Hosien ( a notable Islamic Scholar)
    Quote “ This book offers an insight into the emergence of modern western civilization in the drama which attended 

CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE QUR ’ ĀN”

    The birth of a child to a virgin mother, when part of the Israelite people accepted Jesus ‫السلام‬ ‫عليه‬ as the Messiah, and another part rejected him and slandered him and his mother. All the Israelite people—both those who accepted Jesus ‫السلام‬ ‫عليه‬ , as well as those who rejected him—were then expelled from the Holy Land after he had departed this world, and they were banned from returning until Gog and Magog were released into the world and the had subsequently spread out in all directions. Gog and Magog would then use their indestructible power to establish the world-order of Gog and Magog, and they would be the ones who would bring the Israelite ( not Israelis which is feminine if I remember correctly. My insertion ) people back to the Holy Land to reclaim it as their own. Those who accepted Jesus ‫السلام‬ ‫عليه‬ , and who came to be known as Christians (i.e., Nasārah in the Qur’ān), were then blessed by Allah Most High to gain a home in Constantinople, where they proceeded to establish a Holy Christian State; but when they were tested concerning observance of the Law of the Sabbath in which all Christians were supposed to refrain from work (and hence fishing as well), some of them continued to obey the sacred law sent down in the Torah and remained the faithful followers of Jesus.
      The Qur’ān described them as Ahl al-Injīl, or the people of the Gospel. Others, however, they abandoned the Law of the Sabbath and eventually split from Constantinople to become western Christianity.  

    Their abandonment of the Law has now led them to shameful end where a man can marry another man and get a marriage certificate. They were cursed by Allah Most High to be ‘Apes despised’. It is from this part of the Christian world that modern Western Civilization emerged.”  End quote from CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE QUR ’ ĀN”. 

So in my opinion, we have 4 distinct groups appearing in the vicinity. Those who kept the sabbath, those who didn't , those who accepted   Jesus ‫السلام‬ ‫عليه‬ and those who didn't. lets call them Orthodox Christians, Rome, Muslims and Jews. 

Later the text; Two Hundred Years Together  a two-volume historical essay by Nobel Prize winning author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn dealing with the Russian-Jewish
relations from 1795, leading up to the Communist revolution (Vol. 1) and then
through to 1995 (Vol. 2).

Quoting from said text; we drop back in time to gaze upon history which has become very relevant in today's turbulent times;  

" One could say that the paths of Russians and Jews first crossed in the wars between the Kiev Rus and the Khazars [Ancient people of the Turkish race
established in the region of the Low Volga since long. In the 6th century they
founded a vast empire stretching from the Ural to Dniepr, which fell in the
10th century after their defeat by the prince of Kiev, Sviatoslav (966)], but that
isn’t completely right, since only the upper class of the Khazars were of Hebraic
descent, the tribe itself consisted of Turks who converted to Judaism

If one follows the presentation of J.D. Bruzkus, respected Jewish author of
the mid-20th century, a certain part of the Jews from Persia moved across the
Derbent Pass to lower Volga where Atil on the west coast of Caspian on the
Volga delta, the capital city of the Khazarian Khanate , rose up starting 724 AD.
The tribal princes of the Turkish Khazars (at the time still idol-worshippers), did
not want to accept the Muslim faith, lest they should be subordinated to the
caliph of Baghdad, nor Christianity, lest they come under vassalage to the
Byzantine emperor; and so the clan went over to the Jewish faith in 732.
But there was also a Jewish colony in the Bosporan Kingdom  on the
Taman Peninsula at east end of the Crimea, separating the Black Sea from the
Sea of Azov, to which Hadrian had Jewish captives brought in 137, after the
victory over Bar-Kokhba [Founded in 480BC by the greek, conquered by
Mithridate in 107BC, remained under Roman protectorate until the 4th century]”.

One can see that the histories of two peoples are very much intertwined, and the history of the moral fibre of said people will come very much to the fore front in 2023, again in my humble opinion. 

Before we proceed lets look at why the area of the Ukraine and is surroundings is important, why is it worth making a fuss over.   

 Spice, from the The barren planet Arrakis; The Spice Melange is a spice found in the sands of the planet Arrakis that can be inhaled or ingested by humans. Added to food, it can provide medicinal benefits, like extending people’s lives or enhancing their senses. When inhaled, it can inspire psychedelic episodes for certain susceptible minds. The moment that you inhale a cloud of spice coincides with the moment that your sight awakens and you begin seeing future events and hearing voices with more clarity. That is you become “ One” who can bridge space and time with his mind. All thanks to the Spice!  

 Unfortunately our spice comes from the forbidden east and just makes the  missus's cooking vaguely palatable.  Rendering it rather profitable, if it wasn't stolen by the Khazarian Mafia!  whom gave Mos Eisley spaceport. a run for its money.    A place where you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. 

So;

As of March 25, 2022, analysis of the situation confirms the observations and conclusions made in mid-March.

The offensive launched on February 24 is articulated in two lines of effort, in accordance with Russian operational doctrine:

1) A main effort directed toward the south of the country, in the Donbass region, and along the Azov Sea coast. As the doctrine states, the main objectives are—the neutralization of the Ukrainian

armed forces (the objective of “demilitarization”), and the neutralization of ultra-nationalist, paramilitary militias in the cities of Kharkov and Mariupol (the objective of “denazifcation“). This

primary push is being led by a coalition of forces: through Kharkov and Crimea are Russian forces from the Southern Military District; in the center are militia forces from the Donetsk and Lugansk republics; the Chechen National Guard is contributing with engagement in the urban area of Mariupol;

2) A secondary effort on Kiev, aimed at “pinning down” Ukrainian (and Western) forces, so as to prevent them from carrying out operations against the main thrust or even taking Russian coalition

forces from the rear.This offensive follows, to the letter, the objectives defined by Vladimir Putin on February 24. But, listening only to their own bias, Western “experts” and politicians have gotten it into their heads that Russia’s objective is to take over the Ukraine and overthrow its government.

Henry Abramson

[This article originally appeared in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine,

vol. 5 (1993).]

Zionist movement. A Jewish political movement formed in the last quarter of the 19th century for the purpose of bringing Jews back to Zion (ie, Jerusalem, the land of Israel). Zionism was

born in Ukraine and flourished there despite Soviet persecution.

The first Jewish organization intent on systematic settlement of Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, was established in Kharkiv in the wake of the pogroms that followed the assassination of Alexander II. A group of students created BILU (the Hebrew acronym of Isaiah 2:5, ‘House of Jacob, Let us Go’) and in the summer of 1882 sent a band of settlers to Palestine, where the newcomers founded Rishon L'Tzion and G'dera.

Another movement, known as Hibbat Zion (Love of Zion), also became popular in Ukraine. Odesa was a center of Zionist activity. Important early Zionists in Ukraine include L. Pinsker, an

Odesa physician who wrote the classic Autoemancipation, and Ahad Ha'am (Hebrew for ‘One of the People,’ pseud of A.Ginsberg), the founder of Cultural Zionism. Ukrainian Zionists played a decisive role in defeating the so-called Uganda scheme, a plan to settle East Africa instead of Palestine. M.Ussishkin organized a conference in Kharkiv in 1903 to protest the Uganda plan.

Under T. Herzl's leadership Zionism soon became popular in Western Europe. A wide range of Zionist ideologies were represented in Ukraine. After the fall of the tsar several world

Zionist parties flourished in Ukraine, and Zionism was the most popular ideology of the politically conscious elements of Ukrainian Jewry. Besides the so-called General Zionists, Ukrainian Jews supported Mizrachi (‘East,’ a religious Zionist party), Zeire Zion (‘Young Zion,’ a socialist-oriented Zionist party), and Poale Zion (‘Workers of Zion’). During the Ukrainian struggle for independence (1917–20) the Zionists participated in the Central Rada, yet their bitter conflict with Jewish socialist

parties precluded their involvement in higher levels of government. The left-leaning Poale Zion co-operated with the Jewish socialists, however, and several Jews from that party (Solomon Goldelman, Abraham Revusky) were influential in the Ukrainian National Republic.

Under the Soviets Zionism was mercilessly attacked as a ‘tool of British imperialism’ and decried as Jewish bourgeois nationalism. According to Soviet nationality policy Soviet Jews

were not part of world Jewry and could have no desire to emigrate to a non-Soviet Jewish land. Futhermore, their immigration represented a security risk for the Soviet Union. To divert the Zionist aspirations of Ukrainian Jewry a Jewish autonomous region (Birobidzhan) was carved out of the RSFSR in the Far East, and Soviet Jews were encouraged to settle there. In the terror of 1937–8 Zionists and reputed Zionists were increasingly isolated and persecuted.

Except for a brief respite in 1948–9, when the Soviet Union officially supported the establishment of the state of Israel, Zionism continued to be suppressed. Jews who expressed Zionist sympathies were discriminated against, particularly the so-called Refuseniks (Jews who had been refused exit visas to emigrate to Israel). In 1982 there were an estimated 2,574 Refuseniks in Ukraine.

During the 1980s Ukrainian Jews continued to press for permission to emigrate to Israel and other countries and achieved increasing success. In late 1989 and early 1990 relaxed emigration laws allowed an unprecedented number of Jews to leave Ukraine for Israel.

Volodymyr Zelensky was elected on the promise he would make peace with Russia, which I think is a noble objective. The problem is that no Western country, nor the European Union managed to help him realize this objective. After the Maidan revolution, the emerging force in the political landscape was the far-right movement. I do not like to call it “neo-Nazi” because “Nazism” was a clearly defined political doctrine, while in Ukraine, we are talking about a variety of movements that combine all the features of Nazism (such as antisemitism, extreme nationalism, violence, etc.), without being unified into a single doctrine. They are more like a gathering of fanatics. After 2014, Ukrainian armed forces’ command & control was extremely poor and was the cause of their inability to handle the rebellion in Donbass. Suicide, alcohol incidents, and murder surged, pushing young soldiers to defect. Even the British government noted that young male individuals preferred to emigrate rather than to join the armed forces. As a result, Ukraine started to recruit volunteers to enforce Kiev’s authority in the Russian speaking part of the country. These volunteers were (and

still are) recruited among European far-right extremists. According to Reuters, their number amounts to 102,000. They have become a sizeable and influential political force in the country.

The problem here is that these far-right fanatics threatened to kill Zelensky were he to try to make peace with Russia. As a result, Zelensky found himself sitting between his promises and the

violent opposition of an increasingly powerful far-right movement. In May 2019, on the Ukrainian media Obozrevatel, Dmytro Yarosh, head of the “Pravy Sektor” militia and adviser to the Army Commander in Chief, openly threatened Zelensky with death, if he came to an agreement with Russia. In other words, Zelensky appears to be blackmailed by forces he is probably not in

full control of.

In October 2021, the Jerusalem Post published a disturbing report on the training of Ukrainian far-right militias by American, British, French and Canadian armed forces. So, despite his probable willingness to achieve a political settlement for the crisis with Russia, Zelensky is not allowed to do

so. Just after he indicated his readiness to talk with Russia, on 25 February, the European Union decided two days later to provide €450M in arms to Ukraine. The same happened in March. As soon as Zelensky indicated he wanted to have talks with Vladimir Putin on 21 March, the European Union decided to double its military aid to €1 billion on 23 March. End of March, Zelensky made an interesting offer that was retracted shortly after.

Apparently, Zelensky is trying to navigate between Western pressure and his far right on the one hand and his concern to find a solution on the other, and is forced into a ” back-and-forth,”

which discourages the Russian negotiators.

In fact, I think Zelensky is in an extreme uncomfortable position, which reminds me of Soviet Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky’s during WWII. Rokossovsky had been imprisoned in 1937 for

treason and sentenced to death by Stalin. In 1941, he got out of prison on Stalin’s orders and was given a command. He was eventually promoted to Marshall of the Soviet Union in 1944, but

his death sentence was not lifted until 1956.

Today, Zelensky must lead his country under the sword of Damocles, with the blessing of Western politicians and unethical media.

Whether or not Putin is a “dictator” Is a matter of discussion; but it is worth noting that his approval rate in Russia never fell below 59 % in the last 20 years. I take my figures from the Levada Center, which is labeled as “foreign agent” in Russia, and hence

doesn’t reflect the Kremlin’s views. It is also interesting to see that in France, some of the most influential so-called “experts” on Russia are in fact working for the British MI-6’s “Integrity

Initiative.”

With the end of the Cold War, Russia expected being able to develop closer relations with its Western neighbors. It even considered joining NATO. But the US resisted every attempt of

rapprochement. NATO structure does not allow for the coexistence of two nuclear superpowers. The US wanted to keep its supremacy. In fact, Crimea became the main “evidence” of Russian “intervention.” Of course, Western historians ignore superbly that Crimea was separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1991, six months before Ukrainian independence and

under Soviet rule.

Since 2014 sanctions severely affected east-west relations. After the signature of the Minsk Agreements in September 2014 and

February 2015, the West—namely France, Germany as guarantors for Ukraine, and the US—made no effort whatsoever to make Kiev comply, despite repeated requests from Moscow.

Russia’s perception is that whatever it will do, it will face an irrational response from the West. This is why, in February 2022, Vladimir Putin realized he would gain nothing in doing nothing. If you take into account his mounting approval rate in the country, the resilience of the Russian economy after the sanctions, the loss of trust in the US dollar, the threatening inflation in the West, the

consolidation of the Moscow-Beijing axis with the support of India (which the US has failed to keep in the “Quad”), Putin’s calculation was unfortunately not wrong.

Why is Putin hated so much by the Western elite?

JB: Putin became Western elite’s “bête noire” in 2007 with his famous speech in Munich. Until then, Russia had only moderately reacted to NATO expansion. But as the US withdrew from the

ABM Treaty in 2002 and started negotiations with some East European countries to deploy anti-ballistic missiles, Russia felt the heat and Putin virulently criticized the US and NATO.

This was the start of a relentless effort to demonize Vladimir Putin and to weaken Russia. The problem was definitely not human rights or democracy, but the fact that Putin dared to challenge the western approach. ( the frankfurt school garbage) The Russians have in common with the Swiss the fact that they are very legalistic. They try to strictly follow the rules of international law. They tend to follow “law-based International order.” Henry Kissinger said in the Washington Post: “For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the

absence of one.” This is why I felt we need to have a more factual approach to this conflict.

I think everything started in the early 2000s. I am not sure the objective was a regime change in Moscow, but it was certainly to contain Russia. This is what we have witnessed since then. The

2014 events in Kiev have boosted US efforts.

These were clearly defined in 2019, in two publications of the RAND Corporation [ James Dobbins, Raphael S. Cohen, Nathan Chandler, Bryan Frederick, Edward Geist, Paul DeLuca, Forrest E.

Morgan, Howard J. Shatz, Brent Williams, “Extending Russia :

Competing from Advantageous Ground,” RAND Corporation,

2019; James Dobbins & al., “Overextending and Unbalancing

Russia,” RAND Corporation, (Doc Nr. RB-10014-A), 2019]. .

This has nothing to do with the rule of law, democracy or human rights, but only with maintaining US supremacy in the world.

You have much experience within NATO. What do you think

is the primary role of NATO now?

This is an essential question. In fact, NATO hasn’t really evolved since the end of the Cold War. This is interesting because in 1969, there was the “Harmel Report” that was ahead of its time

and could be the fundament of a new definition of NATO’s role.

Instead, NATO tried to find new missions, such as in Afghanistan, for which the Alliance was not prepared, neither intellectually, nor doctrinally, nor from a strategic point of view.

Having a collective defense system in Europe is necessary, but the nuclear dimension of NATO tends to restrict its ability to engage a conventional conflict with a nuclear power. This is the problem we are witnessing in Ukraine. This is why Russia strives having a “glacis” between NATO and its territory. This would probably not prevent conflicts but would help keep them as long as possible in a conventional phase. This is why I think a non-nuclear European defense organization would be a good solution.

NATO’s Nazi Beginnings: How the

West implemented Hitler's goals, by

Robert S. Rodvik

Robert S. Rodvik, Voltaire Network

Welcome to Munich: the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, during a controversial visit to Germany, are greeted by Hitler in the city in 1937.

Many writers have documented how British and American elites bankrolled Hitler’s rise to power and not until he turned his forces westward did they begin to mount defensive actions against the Third Reich. In Britain, elite members of The Right Club, often with government collusion, secretly supported Hitler’s actions against the Jews and against communists and socialists. The Duke of Wellington was a noted anti-semite and a member of the Right Club. Edward the VIII, known as "the Traitor King" was close friends with Adolf Hitler and was forced to give up his throne, not because of Wallis Simpson, but because it was discovered that he was passing British war operations documents to the Nazis. The aristocracy, after all, have never submitted to sharing the wealth with the lesser classes and Adolf was equally amenable to those ends, the destruction of the untermenschen being foremost in Plan A of his conquest strategy for Europe and Russia.

Until 1977 the BIS headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, hid itself from the world. Bankers told visitors to go to Frey’s Chocolate Shop and enter the unmarked entrance of the former hotel next door.

The Bank for International Settlements was a joint creation in the 1930’s of the western world’s central banks, including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Montagu Norman, governor

of the Bank of England was a wholehearted supporter of Hitler and, when the Nazis marched into Austria in 1938 most of the country’s gold was packed and loaded into vaults controlled by

the Bank for International Settlements - the main central bank for the western world. One day later the Nazis marched into Prague, took the directors of the Czech National Bank as hostages and demanded they cede control of the country’s gold reserves representing some $48 million. Informed that the gold had already been transferred to London’s vaults, efforts were made to contact Montagu Norman - who immediately transferred the money to the Germans to outfit their war machine. Friends indeed.

The United States of America had not yet arrived at the position of world’s leading imperialist power, but many of its elites were aligned with British elite sentiments. One of the leading lights in

furthering the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party was none other than Prescott Bush, father to George Herbert Walker Bush and grandfather to G.W. Bush, both future presidents and G.W.

H. Bush as head of the CIA. These war criminals have maintained their popularity among right-wing Americans mostly due to a compliant media that has obscured their Nazi-loving history from the populace at large.

In their book George Bush:The Unauthorized Biography,

Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin write the following: In October 1942...Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were

being conducted by Prescott Bush. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.’s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland "Bunny" Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.

Tarpley and Chaitkin add the following: President Bush’s family had already played a central role in

financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany...By deciding that Prescott Bush and the other directors of the Union Banking Corp. were legally front men for the Nazis, the government avoided the more important historical issue: In what way were Hitler’s Nazis themselves hired, armed and instructed by the New York and London clique of which Prescott Bush was an executive manager? Among those supporting the rise to power of Adolf Hitler was industrialist Henry Ford, a noted Jew hater. Among his other crimes, Ford..."refused to build aircraft engines for England and instead built supplies of the 5-ton military trucks that were the backbone of German army transportation." The list of US industrialists linked to the Nazis is too long to recount here but can be accessed in Charles Higham’s excellent book, Trading

With The Enemy: the Nazi-american plot 1933 - 1949.

Clearly the west’s leading financiers were in Hitler’s camp, busy supplying funds for his military buildup and not till he betrayed them by attacking England did the Allies unite to defeat the Nazi

forces. In this effort an unholy alliance was formed; that of the western powers and of the Soviet Union, the major force in defeating Hitler’s legions. Yet long before the war ended the

Brits and Americans were plotting to redirect their energy against the Soviets, a déjà vu of the 1918 invasion that the west mounted against the Bolsheviks and certainly the most unknown major event of modern history. To this end the British and US rescued the most murderous Nazi war criminals being sought by investigators of the same governments and mingled them into British and USapparatus of terror. As Michael McClintock writes:

It was immediately after the creation of the United Nations that American leaders found it necessary—as a matter of interest—to break the new rules they publicly lauded. In doing so, they developed new systems by which to evade accountability for lawbreaking–including an enormous apparatus for covert intervention–and, by means of extraordinary effort, to present the United States’ actions, whatever their nature, as in accord with international law. At the same time as the west was planning its covert actions against its WWII ally, it also created the formation of the terror club known as NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Almost in its entirety it was a Nazi enterprise. Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, for example, who had headed the Russia Desk in the Oberkommando der Wermacht (OKW - Hitler’s

Supreme Headquarters) and a consultant on the Final Solution, was secretly brought to the United States where he would deliver his vast storehouse of previously hidden files on the Soviet Union and then set up the Russia Desk for the soon-to- be-formed CIA.

Gehlen would then be returned to postwar Germany where he was put in position as head of Germany’s new Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the German Secret Intelligence Service. In essence, two Russia desks (at least) now functioned instead of just one; both with the same ultimate

aim: destroy the Soviet Union and communism.

Hundreds if not thousands of old Nazis found new life working for the US, Britain, and Canada as the Cold War was cranked up and now the mass murderers were brought into policy making for the same Lords of the Manor who had supported Hitler to begin with. And, with the same old Nazis back in charge, every foul means was employed against the Soviets to prevent any challenge of global capital’s right to dictate the terms of enslavement.

West Germany, now being run by ex-Nazis under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, joined NATO in 1954 and Gehlen liaised with his pro-Nazi mentor Allen Dulles who would become head of the

CIA, with brother John Foster as Secretary of State. Soon NATO began appointing the old tried and true Nazis into high positions within the organization.

General Hans Speidel, for example, became commander-in-chief in 1957 of AFCENT (Allied Forces Central Europe). Nazi Admiral Friedrich Guggenberger joined the highly important

NATO military committee in Washington and General Adolf Heusinger (Gehlen’s old chief at Hitler’s OKW), became its chairman. At Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE), Gehlen managed to install several Nazi collaborators into vital positions . Amongst these was Col. Hennig Strumpell, who became deputy to British Maj. Gen. Charles Traver, the Assistant Chief of Staff (Intelligence) at SHAPE. Col. Heinz Koller-Kraus was made head of logistics at Speidel’s

AFCENT. Many other Gehlen men would soon join NATO to define its policies. With the same Nazis well integrated into NATO and the CIA becoming an extension of Gehlen’s old Nazi intelligence agency, the Nieue World Ordnung was essentially relocated from the Reichstag in Berlin and dropped into the Pentagon and CIA Langley, Virginia. Added to the anti-Soviet battle plans, US elites recognized the value of Goebbel’s Ministry of Truth and turned the lessons

learned into the world’s most sophisticated propaganda network ever created. All western wars would now be given illusionary titles, such as: "wars for democracy", "wars for peace", "wars for

justice", "wars for humanitarianism" and on and on. The corporate funded elites that run the UK and Canada were quick to adopt the same essential elements.

Two of those components of the propaganda wars for the US/UK/Nazi Nieue World Ordnung was the creation of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty - both staffed with Gehlen’s old Nazis and funded by the CIA.

These Nazi mass murderers set up an Hungarian Desk,provided arms and assistance to underground pro-Nazi elements in Hungary and together with the CIA, instigated the Hungarian uprising - which the Soviets brutally put down . The prime use of this episode however, had little to do with the

dead and dying, rather it was the propaganda value which portrayed an "Evil Empire" that had to be destroyed. Dr. Eberhardt Taubert joined the Nazi party in 1931 and was soon promoted to the rank of Sturmführer, following Goebbels to the Ministry of Propaganda. After the war Taubert slid down to South Africa where he found comfort among the neo-Nazis in power in Johannesburg busy designing the apartheid system. In 1950 he returned to Germany and joined his old Nazi pal

Reinhard Gehlen, becoming a member of the BND. In his new BND/CIA post, Taubert became chairman of the CIA-backed "National Association for Peace and Freedom" becoming also

an adviser to German Minister of Defense, ex-Nazi Franz Josef Strauss and was then assigned by Strauss to NATO as adviser to the "Psychological Warfare Department". Goebbel’s Ministry

of Truth being recirculated to feed the Christian fundamentalists some newly constructed, yet old and familiar Tales from the Dark, only having different packaging. [12]

"NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe" by Daniele Ganser, Contemporary Security Studies, February 2005.

NATO has also been closely linked to a series of terrorist bombings in Italy in the 1980s in order to create a "Strategy of Tension" designed to allow the fascist right wing into power and thereby bring "stability" to the country. This program made use of numerous far right terrorists like Stefano Delle Chiaie of Ordine Nuovo and other demented souls who planted bombs in public places that killed hundreds, aided in implementation by Gehlen’s NATO/Nazi terrorists. Though well covered in Europe, thanks to media complicity, the story barely made a blip here.

In essence these and their followers are the people that run NATO, presently killing its way around the world thanks to the likes of Barack Obama, Steve Harper, and the rest of the West’s

puppet satraps; while posing as defenders of humanity. It’s all too much to embrace without losing one’s dinner over and over again.

2022 Ukrainian Conflict

1. The Outbreak Of War

Since November 2021, the Americans have been constantly threatening a Russian invasion of the Ukraine. However, the Ukrainians did not seem to agree. Why not?

We have to go back to March 24, 2021. On that day, Volodymyr Zelensky issued a decree for the recapture of the Crimea, and began to deploy his forces to the south of the country. At the same time, several NATO exercises were conducted between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, accompanied by a significant increase in reconnaissance flights along the Russian border. Russia then conducted several exercises to test the operational readiness of its troops and to show that it was following the evolution of the situation.

Things calmed down until October-November with the end of the ZAPAD 21 exercises, whose troop movements were interpreted as a reinforcement for an offensive against the Ukraine. However, even the Ukrainian authorities refuted the idea of Russian preparations for a war, and Oleksiy Reznikov, Ukrainian Minister of Defense, states that there had been no change on its border since the spring.

In violation of the Minsk Agreements, the Ukraine was conducting air operations in Donbass using drones, including at least one strike against a fuel depot in Donetsk in October 2021. The

American press noted this, but not the Europeans; and no one condemned these violations.

In February 2022, events were precipitated. On February 7, during his visit to Moscow, Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed to Vladimir Putin his commitment to the Minsk Agreements, a commitment he would repeat after his meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky the next day. But on February 11, in Berlin, after nine hours of work, the meeting of political advisors of the leaders of the “Normandy format” ended, without any concrete result: the Ukrainians still refused to apply the Minsk Agreements, apparently under pressure from the United States. Vladimir Putin noted that Macron had made empty promises and that the West was not ready to enforce the agreements, as it had been doing for eight years.

Ukrainian preparations in the contact zone continued. The Russian Parliament became alarmed; and on February 15 asked Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the Republics, which he

refused to do.

On 11th February, President Joe Biden announced that Russia would attack the Ukraine in the next few days. How did he know this? It is a mystery. But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the population of Donbass increased dramatically, as the daily reports of the OSCE observers show. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacts or intervenes. It will be said later that this is Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries have deliberately kept silent about the massacre of the Donbass population, knowing that this would provoke a Russian intervention.

At the same time, there were reports of sabotage in the Donbass.

On 18 January, Donbass fighters intercepted saboteurs, who spoke Polish and were equipped with Western equipment and who were seeking to create chemical incidents in Gorlivka. They could have been CIA mercenaries, led or “advised” by Americans and composed of Ukrainian or European �ghters, to carry out sabotage actions in the Donbass Republics.

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knew that the Ukrainians had begun shelling the civilian population of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass

militarily and create an international problem, or to stand by and watch the Russian-speaking people of Donbass being crushed.

If he decided to intervene, Putin could invoke the international obligation of “Responsibility To Protect” (R2P). But he knew that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention would trigger a storm of sanctions. Therefore, whether Russian intervention were limited to the Donbass or went further to put pressure on the West for the status of the Ukraine, the price to pay would be the same. This is what he explained in his speech on February 21.

On that day, he agreed to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Donbass Republics and, at the same time, he signed friendship and assistance treaties with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on 23 February, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On 24 February, Vladimir Putin

invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately hid the fact that the war actually started on February 16. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as some Russian and European intelligence services were well aware. Jurists will judge.

In his speech of February 24, Vladimir Putin stated the two objectives of his operation: “demilitarize” and “denazify” the Ukraine. So, it is not a question of taking over the Ukraine, nor

even, presumably, of occupying it; and certainly not of destroying it. From then on, our visibility on the course of the operation is limited: the Russians have an excellent security of operations

(OPSEC) and the details of their planning are not known. But fairly quickly, the course of the operation allows us to understand how the strategic objectives were translated on the operational level.

Demilitarization:

• ground destruction of Ukrainian aviation, air defense systems

and reconnaissance assets;

• neutralization of command and intelligence structures (C3I), as

well as the main logistical routes in the depth of the territory;

• encirclement of the bulk of the Ukrainian army massed in the

southeast of the country.

Denazification:

• destruction or neutralization of volunteer battalions operating in

the cities of Odessa, Kharkov, and Mariupol, as well as in various

facilities in the territory.

2. Demilitarization

The Russian offensive was carried out in a very “classic” manner. Initially—as the Israelis had done in 1967—with the destruction on the ground of the air force in the very first hours. Then, we

witnessed a simultaneous progression along several axes according to the principle of “flowing water”: advance everywhere where resistance was weak and leave the cities (very demanding in terms of troops) for later. In the north, the Chernobyl power plant was occupied immediately to prevent acts of sabotage. The images of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers guarding the plant together are of course not shown.

The idea that Russia is trying to take over Kiev, the capital, to eliminate Zelensky, comes typically from the West—that is what they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and what they wanted to do in

Syria with the help of the Islamic State. But Vladimir Putin never intended to shoot or topple Zelensky. Instead, Russia seeks to keep him in power by pushing him to negotiate, by surrounding Kiev.

Up till now, Zelensky had refused to implement the Minsk Agreements but now the Russians want to obtain the neutrality of the Ukraine.

Many Western commentators were surprised that the Russians continued to seek a negotiated solution while conducting military operations. The explanation lies in the Russian strategic outlook

since the Soviet era. For the West, war begins when politics ends.

However, the Russian approach follows a Clausewitzian (Carl Philipp Gottfried (or Gottlieb) von Clausewitz ; 1 July 1780 – 16 November 1831)[1] was a Prussian general and military theorist who stressed the "moral" (meaning, in modern terms, psychological) and political aspects of war. His most notable work, Vom Kriege (On War), was unfinished at his death. ) inspiration: war is the continuity of politics and one can move fluidly from one to the other, even during combat. This allows one to create pressure on the adversary and push him to negotiate.

From an operational point of view, the Russian offensive was an example of its kind: in six days, the Russians seized a territory as large as the United Kingdom, with a speed of advance greater than

what the Wehrmacht had achieved in 1940.

The bulk of the Ukrainian army was deployed in the south of the country in preparation for a major operation against the Donbass.

This is why Russian forces were able to encircle it from the beginning of March in the “cauldron” between Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and Severodonetsk, with a thrust from the East through Kharkov and another from the South from Crimea.

Troops from the Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) Republics are complementing the Russian forces with a push from the East.

At this stage, Russian forces are slowly tightening the noose, but are no longer under time pressure. Their demilitarization goal is all but achieved and the remaining Ukrainian forces no longer

have an operational and strategic command structure.

The “slowdown” that our “experts” attribute to poor logistics is only the consequence of having achieved their objectives. Russia does not seem to want to engage in an occupation of the entire

Ukrainian territory. In fact, it seems that Russia is trying to limit its advance to the linguistic border of the country.

Our media speak of indiscriminate bombardments against the civilian population, especially in Kharkov, and Dantean images are broadcast in a loop. However, Gonzalo Lira, a Latin American who lives there, presents us with a calm city on March 10 and March 11.

It is true that it is a large city and we do not see everything—but this seems to indicate that we are not in the total war that we are served continuously on our screens.

As for the Donbass Republics, they have “liberated” their own territories and are fighting in the city of Mariupol. ( Azov has now surrendered)

3. Denazification

In cities like Kharkov, Mariupol and Odessa, the defense is provided by paramilitary militias. They know that the objective of “denazification” is aimed primarily at them.

For an attacker in an urbanized area, civilians are a problem. This is why Russia is seeking to create humanitarian corridors to empty cities of civilians and leave only the militias, to fight them more

easily.

Conversely, these militias seek to keep civilians in the cities in order to dissuade the Russian army from fighting there. This is why they are reluctant to implement these corridors and do everything to ensure that Russian efforts are unsuccessful—they can use the civilian population as “human shields. Videos showing civilians trying to leave Mariupol and beaten up by fighters of the

Azov regiment are of course carefully censored here.

On Facebook, the Azov group was considered in the same category as the Islamic State and subject to the platform’s “policy on dangerous individuals and organizations.” It was therefore forbidden to glorify it, and “posts” that were favorable to it were systematically banned. But on February 24, Facebook changed its policy and allowed posts favorable to the militia. ( I was still banned though) In the same spirit,in March, the platform authorized, in the former Eastern countries, calls for the murder of Russian soldiers and leaders. So much for the values that inspire our leaders, as we shall see.

Our media propagate a romantic image of popular resistance. It is this image that led the European Union to Finance the distribution of arms to the civilian population. This is a criminal act. In my

capacity as head of peacekeeping doctrine at the UN, I worked on the issue of civilian protection. We found that violence against civilians occurred in very specific contexts. In particular, when

weapons are abundant and there are no command structures.

These command structures are the essence of armies: their function is to channel the use of force towards an objective. By arming citizens in a haphazard manner, as is currently the case, the

EU is turning them into combatants, with the consequential effect of making them potential targets. Moreover, without command, without operational goals, the distribution of arms leads inevitably

to settling of scores, banditry and actions that are more deadly than effective. War becomes a matter of emotions. Force becomes violence. This is what happened in Tawarga (Libya) from 11 to 13

August 2011, where 30,000 black Africans were massacred with weapons parachuted (illegally) by France. By the way, the British Royal Institute for Strategic Studies (RUSI) does not see any added

value in these arms deliveries.

Moreover, by delivering arms to a country at war, one exposes oneself to being considered a belligerent. The Russian strikes of March 13, 2022, against the Mykolayev air base follow Russian

warnings that arms shipments would be treated as hostile targets.

The EU is repeating the disastrous experience of the Third Reich in the final hours of the Battle of Berlin. War must be left to the military and when one side has lost, it must be admitted. And if there is to be resistance, it must be led and structured. But we are doing exactly the opposite—we are pushing citizens to go and fight and at the same time, Facebook authorizes calls for the murder of

Russian soldiers and leaders. So much for the values that inspire us.

Some intelligence services see this irresponsible decision as a way to use the Ukrainian population as cannon fodder to fight Vladimir Putin’s Russia. This kind of murderous decision should have been left to the colleagues of Ursula von der Leyen’s grandfather.( Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen (German: [ˈʊʁzula ˈɡeːɐ̯tʁuːt fɔn dɐ ˈlaɪən] ( listen); née Albrecht; born 8 October 1958) is a German and European Union politician who has been president of the European Commission since 1 December 2019.) It would have been better to engage in negotiations and thus obtain

guarantees for the civilian population than to add fuel to the fire. It is easy to be combative with the blood of others.

4. The Maternity Hospital At Mariupol

It is important to understand beforehand that it is not the Ukrainian army that is defending Marioupol, but the Azov militia, composed of foreign mercenaries.

In its March 7, 2022 summary of the situation, the Russian UN mission in New York stated that “Residents report that Ukrainian armed forces expelled staff from the Mariupol city birth hospital

No. 1 and set up a firing post inside the facility.” On March 8, the independent Russian media Lenta.ru, published the testimony of civilians from Marioupol who told that the maternity hospital was taken over by the militia of the Azov regiment, and who drove out the civilian occupants by threatening them with their weapons. They confirmed the statements of the Russian ambassador a few hours earlier. The hospital in Mariupol occupies a dominant position, perfectly suited for the installation of anti-tank weapons and for observation. On 9 March, Russian forces struck the building.

According to CNN, 17 people were wounded, but the images do not show any casualties in the building and there is no evidence that the victims mentioned are related to this strike. There is talk of children, but in reality, there is nothing. This may be true, but it may not be true. This does not prevent the leaders of the EU from seeing this as a war crime. And this allows Zelensky to call for a no- fly zone over Ukraine.

In reality, we do not know exactly what happened. But the sequence of events tends to confirm that Russian forces struck a position of the Azov regiment and that the maternity ward was then free of civilians.

The problem is that the paramilitary militias that defend the cities are encouraged by the international community not to respect the customs of war. It seems that the Ukrainians have replayed the scenario of the Kuwait City maternity hospital in 1990, which was totally staged by the from Hill & Knowlton ( I used to work for them !)for $10.7 million in order to convince the United Nations Security Council to intervene in Iraq for Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

Western politicians have accepted civilian strikes in the Donbass for eight years, without adopting any sanctions against the Ukrainian government. We have long since entered a dynamic

where Western politicians have agreed to sacrifice international law towards their goal of weakening Russia.

Part Three: Conclusions

As an ex-intelligence professional, the first thing that strikes me is the total absence of Western intelligence services in the representation of the situation over the past year. In Switzerland,

the services have been criticized for not having provided a correct

picture of the situation. In fact, it seems that throughout the Western world, intelligence services have been overwhelmed by the politicians. The problem is that it is the politicians who

decide—the best intelligence service in the world is useless if the decision-maker does not listen. This is what happened during this crisis.

That said, while some intelligence services had a very accurate and rational picture of the situation, others clearly had the same picture as that propagated by our media. In this crisis, the services

of the countries of the “new Europe” played an important role.

The problem is that, from experience, I have found them to be extremely bad at the analytical level—doctrinaire, they lack the intellectual and political independence necessary to assess a situation with military “quality.” It is better to have them as enemies than as friends.

Second, it seems that in some European countries, politicians have deliberately ignored their services in order to respond ideologically to the situation. That is why this crisis has been

irrational from the beginning. It should be noted that all the documents that were presented to the public during this crisis were presented by politicians based on commercial sources.

Some Western politicians obviously wanted there to be a conflict.

In the United States, the attack scenarios presented by Anthony Blinken to the Security Council were only the product of the imagination of a Tiger Team working for him—he did exactly as

Donald Rumsfeld did in 2002, who had thus “bypassed” the CIA and other intelligence services that were much less assertive about Iraqi chemical weapons.

The dramatic developments we are witnessing today have causes that we knew about but refused to see:

• on the strategic level, the expansion of NATO (which we have not dealt with here);

• on the political level, the Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements;

• and operationally, the continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.

In other words, we can naturally deplore and condemn the Russian attack. But WE (that is: the United States, France and the European Union in the lead) have created the conditions for a conflict to break out. We show compassion for the Ukrainian people and the two million refugees. That is fine. But if we had had a modicum of compassion for the same number of refugees from the Ukrainian populations of Donbass massacred by their own government and who sought refuge in Russia for eight years, none of this would probably have happened.

As we can see, more than 80% of the victims in Donbass were the result of the Ukrainian army’s shelling. For years, the West remained silent about the massacre of Russian-speaking Ukrainians by the government of Kiev, without ever trying to bring pressure on Kiev. It is this silence that forced

the Russian side to act. [Source: “Conflict-related civilian casualties,“ United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine.]

A January 28 demonstration, in Kiev, by 600 members of the so-called

Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem | Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commen...

“National Militia,” a newly-formed ultranationalist group that vows “to use force to establish order,” illustrates this threat. While the group’s Kiev launch was peaceful, National Militia members in balaclavas stormed a city council meeting in the central Ukrainian town of Cherkasy the following day, skirmishing with deputies and forcing them to pass a new budget.

Many of the National Militia's members come from the Azov movement, one of the 30-odd privately-funded “volunteer battalions” that, in the early days of the war, helped the regular army to defend Ukrainian territory against Russia's separatist proxies. Although Azov uses Nazi-era symbolism and recruits neo-Nazis into its ranks,

C14 = Fourteen Words (also abbreviated 14 or 14/88) is a reference to two slogans originating with David Eden Lane, one of nine founding members of the defunct white separatist insurrectionist group The Order. The slogans have served as a rallying cry for militant white nationalists internationally. The primary slogan in the Fourteen Words is "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children",followed by the secondary slogan "Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the Earth".

The Order, also known as the Brüder Schweigen (German for Brothers Keep Silent or Brothers' Silence), Silent Brotherhood or less commonly known as the "Aryan Resistance Movement",was a white supremacist terrorist organization active in the United States between September 1983 and December 1984. The group raised funds via armed robbery. Ten members were tried and convicted for racketeering, and two for their role in the 1984 murder of radio talk show host Alan Berg.

Motto: "Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms" (Jeremiah 51:20, KJV)
Formation	September 1983; 38 years ago
Dissolved	December 1984

The organization was formed by activists who found the VO Svoboda party’s far-right views too moderate.  They gained a lot of publicity back in 2009 for their role in obstructing controversial building and development projects in Kyiv.

They have also been seen on many occasions opposing ‘titushki’ or paid thugs (who worked closely with the police under the regime of Viktor Yanukovych).

During Euromaidan, it was largely C14 members who occupied the Kyiv City Administration building.  Their reputation was somewhat tarnished by their behaviour during the last bloody days of Maidan.  While other activists were coming under fire, they reportedly hid in either the Canadian or Dutch embassy.

The origin of the organization’s name is disputed, with some assuming that 14 is code language for the slogan by US Nazi David Lane (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children”). 

C14 denies that it is neo-Nazi, and asserts that its name when written looks like Sich from the Zaporizhyan Sich, the Cossack political entity from the fifteenth to eighteenth century.  14, in turn, they link with 14 October, the day traditionally linked with the beginning of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army [UPA] in 1943.  This day was, rather controversially, chosen to be Defenders of Ukraine Day, following Russia’s military aggression in 2014.

According to information that I have received, the С14 group is a paramilitary right-wing radical group that has close relations with the nationalist Ukrainian ‘Svoboda’ party. There is a reasonable suspicion that C14, founded in 2010, takes its name from the 14-word slogan of the American Nazi David Lane: ‘We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children’. However, the group spokesman explains the name as follows: ‘The name C14 comes from a transcription of Cyrillic and Latin scripts, but certainly not from a racist slogan’. October 14 is the date on which the organisation was founded and a public holiday, called the Defender of Ukraine Day. C14 is a civil society organisation that is officially and legally registered with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Yevhen Karas, also known as' Vortex', is a member of the C14 Group. According to current sources, C14 recruited members from among football fans of Dynamo Kyiv, Metalist Kharkiv and Shakhtar Donetsk, etc. However, C14 members have also been charged with hate crimes, including dissemination of racist material and attacks.

EU Parliamentary questions 7 November 2019 E-003694/2019/rev.1 Question for written answer E-003694/2019/rev.1 to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Rule 138 Miroslav Radačovský (NI) Subject: The Ukrainian C14 group https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-003694-ASW_EN.html

Question:

Given the increasing extremism, anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia in the European Union, will the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy consider introducing travel bans and other related measures against the leader of the violent Ukrainian neo-Nazi militant group C14, Yevhen Karas and other radical Ukrainian nationalists implicated in murders, intimidation of ethnic minorities and other violent crimes?

Answer:

According to information that I have received, the С14 group is a paramilitary right-wing radical group that has close relations with the nationalist Ukrainian ‘Svoboda’ party. There is a reasonable suspicion that C14, founded in 2010, takes its name from the 14-word slogan of the American Nazi David Lane: ‘We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children’. However, the group spokesman explains the name as follows: ‘The name C14 comes from a transcription of Cyrillic and Latin scripts, but certainly not from a racist slogan’. October 14 is the date on which the organisation was founded and a public holiday, called the Defender of Ukraine Day. C14 is a civil society organisation that is officially and legally registered with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Yevhen Karas, also known as' Vortex', is a member of the C14 Group. According to current sources, C14 recruited members from among football fans of Dynamo Kyiv, Metalist Kharkiv and Shakhtar Donetsk, etc. However, C14 members have also been charged with hate crimes, including dissemination of racist material and attacks.

Later we will look at the Khazarian mafia