Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Probably the more important and depressing part for Puffy Putin:

McPhie said the EU had estimated it could reduce its dependence on Russian gas by two-thirds this year

Geo-Politics Is Metamorphosing at Every Moment

Alastair Crooke

March 28, 2022

Whilst Europe and the U.S. never have been more closely aligned, the ‘West’ paradoxically has also never been more alone.

"Very occasionally, a single anecdote can almost completely summate a moment in history. And this one did: In 2005, Zbig Brzezinski, the architect of Afghanistan as quagmire to the Soviet Union, and the author of The Grand Chessboard (which embedded the Mackinder dictum of ‘he who controls the Asian heartland controls the world’ into U.S. foreign policy), down in Washington with Alexander Dugin, Russian political philosopher and advocate for a ‘heartland’ cultural and geo-political renaissance.

Brzezinski had already written in his book that, absent Ukraine, Russia would never become the heartland power; but with it, Russia can and would. The meeting had been set with a photo-prop of a chessboard placed between Brzezinski and Dugin (to promote Brzezinski’s book). This arrangement with a chessboard prompted Dugin to ask whether Brzezinski considered Chess to be a game meant for two: “No, Zbig shot back: It is a game for one. Once a chess piece is moved; you turn the board around, and you move the other side’s chess pieces. There is ‘no other’ in this game”, Brzezinski insisted.

Of course, the single-handed chess game was implicit in Mackinder’s doctrine: ‘He who controls the heartland’ dictum was a message to the Anglo powers to never allow a united heartland. (This, of course, is precisely what is evolving at every moment).

And on Monday, Biden channelled Brzezinski out loud, whilst addressing the Business Roundtable in the U.S. His remarks came toward the end of his brief speech where he talked about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and America’s economic future:

“I think this presents us with some significant opportunities to make some real changes. You know, we are at an inflection point, I believe, in the world economy: [and] not just the world economy – in the world [which] occurs every three or four generations. As one of my, as the one of the top military people said to me in a secure meeting the other day, 60 million people died between 1900 and 1946; and since then we established a liberal world order and that hadn’t happened in a long while. A lot of people died, but nowhere near the chaos. And now’s the time when things are shifting. We’re going, there’s gonna be a new world order out there; and we’ve got to lead it and we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.”

Again there is no ‘other’ at the board. When the moves are made, the board is turned around 180º to play from the other side.
The point here is that the carefully deliberated counter-attack on this Brzezinski zeitgeist was formally launched in Beijing with the joint-declaration that neither Russia nor China accept for America to play chess alone with no others at the board. This represents the defining issue of this coming era: The opening-up of geo-politics. It is an issue for which the excluded ‘others’ are prepared to go to war (they see no choice).

A second chess-player has stepped forward and insists to play – Russia. And a third stands ready: China. Others are silently lining up to witness how the first engagement in this geo-political war fares. It seems from Biden’s comments quoted above that the U.S. intends to use sanctions, and the full unprecedented extent of U.S. treasury measures, against Brzezinski dissidents. Russia is to be made an example of that which awaits any challengers demanding a seat at the board.
But it is an approach that is fundamentally flawed. It stems from Kissinger’s celebrated dictum that ‘he who controls money controls the world’. It was wrong from the ‘get go’: It was always ‘he who controls food, energy (human as well as fossil) and money can control the world. But Kissinger just ignored the first two required conditions – and the last has imprinted itself on the Washington mental circuits.
And here is the paradox: When Brzezinski wrote his book, it was a very different era. Today, whilst Europe and the U.S. never have been more closely aligned, the ‘West’ paradoxically has also never been more alone. Opposition to Russia may have seemed at the outset a slam dunk global unifier: That world opinion would so robustly oppose Moscow’s attack, that China would pay a high political price for failing to jump onto the anti-Russia bandwagon. But that is not how it is working out.

“While the U.S. rhetoric pillories Russia for “war crimes” and the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, et al”, former Indian Ambassador Bhadrakumar notes, “the world capitals view this as a confrontation between America and Russia. Outside of the western camp, the world community refuses to impose sanctions against Russia or even to demonise that country”.

The Islamabad Declaration issued on Wednesday after the 45th meeting of the foreign ministers of the fifty-seven member Organisation of Islamic Conference refused to endorse sanctions against Russia. Not a single country in the African continent or West Asian, Central Asia, South and Southeast Asian region has imposed sanctions against Russia”.
There may well be a further factor at play here: For when these latter states hear phrases such as the ‘Ukrainians, through their heroism, have won the right to enter our “club of values”’, they scent a whiff of debilitated ‘white’ Europe clutching at the life-rafts
.
The reality is that the sanctions to which Biden referred in his speech have already failed. Russia has not defaulted; the Moscow stock exchange is open; the Rouble is on the rebound; their current account is in rude good health and Russia is selling energy at windfall prices (even after discount).
In short, trade ‘will be diverted’, not destroyed (the benefit of being an exporter of goods almost fully produced locally – ie. a fortress economy).
The second oddity in Biden’s policy is that whilst Clausewitzian doctrine (to which Russia broadly adheres) argues for the dismantling of ‘the enemy’s centre of gravity, to achieve victory’, in this case presumably, the western control of the global reserve currency and payments systems. Today, however, it is Europe and the U.S. that have been dismantling it themselves: and further locking themselves into soaring inflation and contracting economic activity, in some unexplained fit of moral masochism.

As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard notes in the Telegraph, “What is clear is that western sanctions policy is the worst of all worlds. We are suffering an energy shock that is further inflating Russia’s war-fighting revenues … There is a pervasive fear of a gilets jaunes uprising across Europe, a suspicion that a fickle public will not tolerate the cost-of-living shock once the horrors of Ukraine lose their novelty on TV screens”.
Again, perhaps we can attribute this paradoxical behaviour to Kissinger’s obsession with the power of money, and his forgetfulness of other major factors.
All of this has led to a certain unease creeping into the corridors of power in some NATO capitals over the course that the Ukraine conflict is taking: NATO will not intervene; it will not implement a no-fly zone; and has pointedly ignored Zelensky’s new plea for additional military equipment. Ostensibly, this reflects the ‘selfless’ gesture by the West to avoid a nuclear war. In reality, however, the development of new weaponry can transform geopolitics in a moment (for example, Russia’s Kinzhal hypersonic smart bunker-buster). The fact is that across the board, NATO cannot prevail militarily against Russia in Ukraine.

It seems the Pentagon has – for now – won in the war with State Department and has begun the process of ‘correcting the narrative’.
Contrast these two U.S. narratives:
The State Department on Monday signalled that U.S. is discouraging Zelensky from making concessions to Russia in return for a ceasefire. The spokesman “made it very clear that he is open to a diplomatic solution that does not compromise the core principles at the heart of the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine. When asked to elaborate on his point, Price said that the war is “bigger” than Russia and Ukraine. “The key point is that there are principles that are at stake here that have universal applicability everywhere”. Price said Putin was trying to violate “core principles”.
But, the Pentagon “drop[ed] two truth bombs” in its battle with State and Congress to prevent confrontation with Russia: “Russia’s conduct in the brutal war tells a different story than the widely accepted view that Putin is intent on demolishing Ukraine and inflicting maximum civilian damage—and it reveals the Russian leader’s strategic balancing act”, reported Newsweek in an article entitled, “Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He’s Holding Back. Here’s Why.”

One quotes an unnamed analyst at the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) saying, “The heart of Kyiv has barely been touched. And almost all of the long-range strikes have been aimed at military targets. A retired U.S. Air Force officer now working as an analyst for a Pentagon contractor, added: “We need to understand Russia’s actual conduct. If we merely convince ourselves that Russia is bombing indiscriminately, or [that] it is failing to inflict more harm because its personnel are not up to the task or because it is technically inept, then we are not seeing the real conflict””.
The second ‘truth bomb’ directly undermines Biden’s dramatic warning about a false flag chemical attack. Reuters reported: “The United States has not yet seen any concrete indications of an imminent Russian chemical or biological weapons attack in Ukraine but is closely monitoring streams of intelligence for them, a senior U.S. defence official said.”

Biden is positioned in the middle, saying ‘Putin’s a war criminal’, but also that there will be no NATO fight with Russia. “The only end game now,” a senior administration official said at a private event earlier this month, “is the end of Putin regime. Until then, all the time Putin stays, [Russia] will be a pariah state that will never be welcomed back into the community of nations. China has made a huge error in thinking Putin will get away with it”.

There it is – the bottom line: Allow the carnage in Ukraine to continue; sit back and watch the ‘heroic Ukrainians bleed Russia dry’; do enough to sustain the conflict (by providing some weapons), but not enough to escalate it; and play it as the heroic struggle for democracy, in order to satisfy public opinion.

The point is that it isn’t working out that way. Putin may surprise all in DC by exiting Ukraine when Russia’s military operation is complete. (When Putin speaks of Ukraine, by the way, he usually discounts the western part added on by Stalin as Ukrainian).

And it isn’t working out with China. Blinken said in justification of new sanctions imposed on China last week: “We are committed to defending human rights around the world and will continue to use all diplomatic and economic measures to promote accountability”.

The sanctions were imposed because China had failed to repudiate Putin. Just that. The language of accountability and (of atonement) used however, can be understood only as an expression of woke contemporary culture. It is enough to present some aspect of Chinese culture as politically incorrect (as racist, repressive, misogynist, supremacist or offensive), and immediately it becomes politically incorrect. And that means that any aspect of it can be adduced at will by the Administration as meriting sanctioning.

The problem again reverts to the West’s refusal to accept ‘others’ at the chessboard. What can China do, but shrug at such nonsense.

Biden, in his speech to the Roundtable, fore-staged – yet again – a new world order; he suggested that a Great Re-set is coming.
But maybe a ‘Re-set Reckoning’ of a different order is on the cards; one that will return many things to that which, until relatively recently, had actually worked. Politics and geo-politics are metamorphosing at every moment."

https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...-every-moment/

In the red corner:

G7 rejects Russian demand to pay for gas in rubles

Bloc sees payment switch as breach of current contracts

28 Mar, 2022 12:44

"The Group of Seven major economies have collectively agreed to reject Moscow’s demand to pay for gas imports from Russia in rubles, according to German Energy Minister Robert Habeck.

“All G7 ministers agreed completely that this [would be] a one-sided and clear breach of the existing contracts,” Habeck told journalists on Monday.

The minister added that “payment in rubles is not acceptable” and that the nations will urge the companies affected “not to follow” the demand issued by Russian President Vladimir Putin last week.
On Monday, Putin ordered the government, the central bank, and Gazprombank to develop the necessary tools to switch all payments for Russian natural gas from “unfriendly states” to rubles from March 31.
READ MORE: Russia’s ruble payment plan leaves European gas buyers confused
This includes countries that have targeted Russia’s financial system and seized its foreign reserves in response to the crisis in Ukraine.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia will stop shipping natural gas to countries that reject the demand."

DDOS-GUARD

In the blue corner:

Russia sets ruble gas payment deadline

President Putin says ‘unfriendly countries’ must switch to its currency by March 31

28 Mar, 2022 09:14

"Russian President Vladimir Putin has authorized the government, the central bank, and Gazprombank to take the necessary steps to switch all payments for Russian natural gas from “unfriendly states” to rubles starting March 31.The measure targets “member states of the EU and other countries that have introduced restrictions against citizens of the Russian Federation and Russian legal entities,” the mandate published on the Kremlin website reads.

Russia will stop shipping natural gas to countries refusing to settle payments in rubles, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Monday.

The decision, first announced last week, came as Russia’s oil trade has been left in disarray as importers put orders on hold due to the latest sanctions introduced against Moscow over its military operation in Ukraine.

Russia’s decision to switch payments to its domestic currency has been made in response to the unprecedented penalties imposed by the US and its allies on the country’s financial system.

The ruble plummeted to record lows after Western nations and Japan blocked Russia’s access to some of its international reserves. Since last week’s currency-switch announcement, the ruble has reached its strongest level against the US dollar and the euro in nearly a month"

https://www.rt.com/business/552820-g...ayments-putin/

Originally Posted by OhOh

EU confirms date of its energy independence from Russia

And Russia crumbles, people starve, crime is rife and refugees flood to the naughty west - and you'll be happy

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He has no ideas of his own, he's the Isaan village idiot of idiots.

Well-phrased

Russia obliges western nations to speed up plans to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

Putin claims environmental victory.

^Cheers Vlad? You just speeded up the wests response to cutting emissions via fossil fuel consumption. The law of unintended consequences eh?

Im well aware I posted this yesterday but you chose to ignore it by keeping your head stuck up your ass. The EU has also challenged the legality of payment demands in a new, previous,y unspecified currency.

How dangerous is committing economic suicide? More dangerous than Vlad I would say.

Originally Posted by Switch

^Cheers Vlad?

I suspect THE LORD has more important people to hold discussions with, than you and I.

Originally Posted by Switch

Im well aware I posted this yesterday

My apologies if you posted the opinion piece ,or a similar one, yesterday.

Do you have a link, there is nothing in this tread regarding:

Originally Posted by OhOh

The ability of NaGastan and vassals to deliver LNG to European.

Presumably the subject of "this" (your post), "yesterday", 29/03/2022.

Originally Posted by Switch

You just speeded up the wests response to cutting emissions via fossil fuel consumption.

I suspect any, fossil fuel reduction proposal, will require all the countries politicians to create, discuss, propose and adopt a reduction national law. Which may take a day or 1, 5, 10, 15 years.

Which emissions reduction are the "west"/you suggesting?

1. Russian gas abandoned in favour another gas supplier?

2. Building more nuclear-powered electricity capacity?

3. Building more coal-powered electricity capacity?

4. Building more windmills?

5. Starving the west's citizens to death, thus reducing demand?

....

Originally Posted by Switch

The EU has also challenged the legality of payment demands in a new, previous,y unspecified currency.

Challenged the payments system where, an EU court, a NaGastan court or in the EU media? Hot air.

Solved the issue with all affected parties? Create, discuss, propose and adopt. Nowhere near.

But there is till a day or two until Russia applies it or withdraws it.

Russia can react in a moment, the EU?

Originally Posted by sabang

How dangerous is committing economic suicide? More dangerous than Vlad I would say.

He's causing his people hardship and committing economic suicide - check with him. This was the dumbest thing he could have done

So that means Europe has to make like a lemming? I don't think so. Thing is, you want Vlad to fail- but do you want Europe to fail too?

Originally Posted by sabang

Thing is, you want Vlad to fail- but do you want Europe to fail too?

Vlad has already failed, and the EU will be fine. Nice try though.

Originally Posted by sabang

How dangerous is committing economic suicide? More dangerous than Vlad I would say.

That's exactly what Vlad has done.

Originally Posted by sabang

Thing is, you want Vlad to fail- but do you want Europe to fail too?

Yes

No


Yes, Putin will.

No, Europe won't

^ THE LORD stopped copying NaGastan and EU economic and cultural drift some decades ago.

Ironically, some suggest THE LORD may offer the Ukraine Government variations of those unilaterally imposed by NaGastan on Japan to end WWII. Including of course all the data from the Japanese biochemical developments. Used later against the Chinese in the Korean War.

Unit 731

"While Unit 731 researchers arrested by Soviet forces were tried at the December 1949 Khabarovsk war crime trials, those captured by the United States were secretly given immunity in exchange for the data gathered during their human experiments.^[6]

The Americans coopted the researchers' bioweapons information and experience for use in their own biological warfare program, much as they had done with German researchers in Operation Paperclip.<sup>[7]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731</sup>

1.

Treaty of San Francisco

"The Treaty of San Francisco (サンフランシスコ講和条約, San-Furanshisuko kōwa-Jōyaku), also called the Treaty of Peace with Japan (日本国との平和条約, Nihon-koku to no Heiwa-Jōyaku), re-established peaceful relations between Japan and the Allied Powers on behalf of the United Nations by ending the legal state of war and providing for redress for hostile actions up to and including World War II.

It was signed by 49 nations on 8 September 1951, in San Francisco, California, U.S. at the War Memorial Opera House^{[2][better source needed]}. Italy and China were not invited, the latter due to disagreements on whether the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China represented the Chinese people. Korea was also not invited due to a similar disagreement on whether South Korea or North Korea represented the Korean people.^[3]

It came into force on 28 April 1952, and legally ended the American-led Allied occupation of Japan. In Article 11, Japan accepted the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts imposed on Japan both within and outside Japan.^[4]

This treaty ended Japan's role as an imperial power, allocated compensation to Allied and other civilians and former prisoners of war who had suffered Japanese war crimes during World War II, ended the Allied post-war occupation of Japan, and returned full sovereignty to it.

This treaty relied heavily on the United Nations Charter^[5] and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights^[6] to enunciate the Allies' goals.

This treaty, along with the Security Treaty signed that same day, marks the beginning of the San Francisco System which defines Japan's relationship with the United States and its role in the international arena and characterizes Japan's post-war history.<sup>[7][better source needed]:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco</sup>


2.

Security Treaty between the United States and Japan

"The Security Treaty between the United States and Japan (日本国とアメリカ合衆国との間の安全保障条約, Nippon-koku to Amerika Gasshūkoku to no aida no anzen hoshō jōyaku) was a treaty signed on 8 September 1951 in San Francisco, California by representatives of the United States and Japan, in conjunction with the Treaty of San Francisco that ended World War II in Asia.

The treaty was imposed on Japan by the United States as a condition for ending the Occupation of Japan and restoring Japan's sovereignty as a nation.^[1]

It had the effect of establishing a long-lasting military alliance between the United States and Japan. The agreement contained five articles, which dictated that Japan allow the United States to continue to maintain military bases on Japanese soil even after the end of the Occupation.

The accord prohibited Japan from providing foreign powers any bases or any military-related rights without the consent of the United States.

Moreover, the accord allowed the United States to use military forces stationed in Japan without prior consultation with the Japanese government, and made no mention of any requirement for U.S. forces to defend Japan if Japan were to be attacked.^[1] Troublingly for many Japanese, the treaty had no set expiration date, nor did it specify any precise mechanism of abrogation.

The accord was ratified by the U.S. Senate on 20 March 1952 and was signed into U.S. law by U.S. President Harry Truman on 15 April 1952. The treaty went into effect on 28 April 1952, in conjunction with the effectuation of the Treaty of San Francisco that ended the Occupation.^[1]

At the time, the United States maintained 260,000 troops on Japanese soil, making use of 2,824 facilities throughout the nation (not counting additional soldiers and bases in Okinawa, which remained under direct U.S. control at the time).^[2]

In addition to the treaty itself, an "Administrative Agreement" of 29 articles spelling out exact details of the basing agreement was negotiated in secret between the Japanese and United States government and made public without a vote by either government's legislature on February 28, 1952.^[3]

The treaty was highly controversial among the Japanese public, which led to widespread protests throughout the country. As a result, Negotiations between leaders Nobusuke Kishi and Dwight D. Eisenhower followed, and the treaty was eventually superseded and replaced by the revised Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan on June 19, 1960."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Treaty_between_the_United_States_and_Japa n

3.

Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan

"The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan (日本国とアメリカ合衆国との間の相互協力及び安全保障条約, Nihon-koku to Amerika-gasshūkoku to no Aida no Sōgo Kyōryoku oyobi Anzen Hoshō Jōyaku), more commonly known as the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty in English and as the Anpo jōyaku (安保条約) or just Anpo (安保) in Japanese, is a treaty that permits the presence of U.S. military bases on Japanese soil, and commits the two nations to defend each other if one or the other is attacked "in the territories under the administration of Japan." Over time, it has had the effect of establishing a military alliance between the United States and Japan.

The current treaty, which took effect on June 23, 1960, revised and replaced an earlier version of the treaty, which had been signed in 1951 in conjunction with the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that terminated World War II in Asia as well as the U.S.-led Occupation of Japan (1945–1952). The revision of the treaty in 1960 was a highly contentious process in Japan, and widespread opposition to its passage led to the massive Anpo protests, which were the largest popular protests in Japan's history.^[1]

The 1960 treaty significantly revised the U.S.-Japan security agreement in the direction of greater mutuality between the two nations. The original 1951 treaty had contained a provision permitting the United States to use forces based in Japan throughout East Asia without prior consultation with Japan, made no explicit promise to defend Japan if Japan were attacked, and even contained a clause allowing U.S. troops to intervene in Japanese domestic disputes.^[2] These defects were remedied in the revised version of the treaty in 1960. The amended treaty included articles delineating mutual defense obligations and requiring the US, before mobilizing its forces, to inform Japan in advance.^[3] It also removed the article permitting U.S. interference in Japanese domestic affairs.^[3]

The treaty also included general provisions for the further development of international understanding and improved economic collaboration between the two nations. These provisions became the basis for the establishment of the United States–Japan Conference on Cultural and Educational Interchange (CULCON), the United States–Japan Committee on Scientific Cooperation, and the Joint United States–Japan Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs, all three of which are still in operation in some form.^[4]

The U.S.-Japan Security Treaty has lasted longer than any other alliance between two great powers formed after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.^[5]

The treaty had a minimum term of 10 years but provided that it would remain in force indefinitely unless one party gives one year's notice of wishing to terminate it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_ the_United_States_and_Japan


One suspects there are many clauses suited to be inserted into the Ukraine Surrender documents, currently being negotiated.

Originally Posted by OhOh

One suspects there are many clauses suited to be inserted into the Ukraine Surrender documents, currently being negotiated.

Probably better to call it a "Please stop murdering innocent civilians" document.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

"Please stop murdering innocent civilians"

That title was used for the past 8 years, when the Ukraine army was SPLATTERING Ukraine citizens in Donbas, Ukraine.
Ignored by the OSCE observers.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Probably better to call it a "Please stop murdering innocent civilians" document.

Originally Posted by OhOh

That title was used for the past 80 years

for China

Speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S.V. Lavrov during the plenary session at a meeting in the format of the neighboring countries of Afghanistan (Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan), Tunxi, March 31, 2022

31.03.2022 06:27

"Dear Mr Chairman,

Dear colleagues, friends,


First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to our Chinese hosts for organizing the next ministerial meeting of the neighboring countries of Afghanistan and the events that are taking place and are still to come on the sidelines of this meeting. We consider this initiative very timely. "Checking the clock" in this format is in demand in terms of the state of affairs in Afghanistan for the development of regional approaches to the post-conflict development of this country.


It can be stated that, despite the lack of managerial experience, financial and economic restrictions and political and diplomatic pressure from the United States and its allies, the new administration of Afghanistan manages to keep the state afloat. There are certain positive results in the counterterrorist sector. Efforts are being made to respect human rights.


Kabul is actively working to expand diplomatic and economic ties. Taliban government officials regularly hold meetings with foreign partners in bilateral and multilateral formats, as was the case in Moscow, Tehran, Doha, Oslo, Antalya, etc. Today this list will be replenished with the city of Tunxi. We note the gradual establishment of trade and economic cooperation, primarily with the countries of the region, whose business structures are showing interest in Afghanistan. All these contacts, of course, contribute to the international recognition of the new Afghan authorities. In this regard, I would like to note that the first Afghan diplomat, who arrived in Moscow last month and was sent by the new authorities, received accreditation from the Russian Foreign Ministry.


In our opinion, the main obstacle to the official recognition of the new government in Kabul remains its lack of representativeness. I mean the absence in the authorities of those persons who would represent the interests of not only different ethnic groups of the country, national and confessional minorities, but also political forces. If these conditions are met, the decisive role in the issue of official recognition of DT should belong to the UN .


The World Organization should be the main coordinator in solving the whole complex of problems of the post-conflict reconstruction of Afghanistan. What, in particular, was discussed during the last meeting of the Moscow format in October 2021. All the countries present here and the Taliban delegation took part in it. The final document contained a collective call by all of us to the speedy convening of a representative international conference of donors under the UN auspices. Almost six months passed before the UN, with the support of such extra-regional states as Qatar , Germany , Great Britain responded to this call and announced a high-level conference on humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. Frankly, we were puzzled by the lack of coordination between the organizers and participants in the preparation of this forum. We received a corresponding invitation less than two weeks before it was held. And the dates strangely coincided with our today's event. The conclusion suggests itself that Western colleagues are trying to use the UN flag, the UN Secretariat in order to create artificial competition in international and regional efforts in the Afghan direction. We consider such actions counterproductive and call on our colleagues from the UN to approach their duties more responsibly.


On March 17, UN Security Council Resolution 2626 was adopted to extend the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Russia took an active part in the work on this document. At the same time, they were forced to abstain from voting on it due to the categorical refusal of the Western members of the Security Council to include in the text a direct mention of the Taliban de facto authorities. We are convinced that this issue should have been coordinated with the new Afghan authorities. However, our insistent proposals were ignored, although the support of any UN mission by the host state is an absolute imperative in deciding the work of all peacekeeping and special political missions of the Organization.

We consider it necessary to step up our common work with the leadership of the UN and its Afghan mission so that the interests of Afghanistan's neighbors and other regional partners in the context of the reconstruction of this country are fully taken into account.

Dear colleagues,


Despite the cessation of hostilities in general and a significant decrease in the number of civilian casualties, the security situation in the country cannot yet be called stable. The activities of international terrorist organizations such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Jamaat Ansarulla, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, East Turkestan (IMU, ETIM) and others remain a serious factor of tension. Additional tension is created as a result of the activities of Panjshir partisans from the National Front resistance."

Of particular concern are the plans of ISIS and their supporters to destabilize the Central Asian states and export instability to Russia. An alarming signal is the build-up of detachments of Jamaat Ansarullah and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) in the area of ​​the Afghan-Tajik and Afghan-Uzbek borders.


As we have already stated, we consider unacceptable the deployment of any US and NATO or the Afghans serving them on the territory of neighboring states, primarily in Central Asia. Such designs run counter to the security interests of our states and run counter to the obligations arising from the statutory documents of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. We urge you to be extremely careful when approaching requests for the placement of Afghan refugees on the territory of neighboring countries and carefully weigh the possible negative consequences that carry high risks for the respective country and regional security as a whole. Even if such visits are made under noble humanitarian slogans, it will not be superfluous to exercise heightened vigilance.


The acuteness of the problem of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs does not subside. According to some estimates, the income from the drug business is from 6 to 11 percent. GDP of Afghanistan. According to the results of last year, an increase in the yield of drug-containing crops and the volume of drug production is recorded. As far as we know, the Taliban authorities, despite the measures that our Chairman mentioned, do not prohibit local farmers from growing opium poppy due to the difficult situation in the economy. High-ranking representatives of the DT themselves are sounding the alarm in connection with the increase in the number of drug addicts to 5 million people, including, according to estimates, 1 million are women and children. Call on the international community to assist Afghanistan in the transition to alternative crops. We are convinced that approaches to solving the Afghan drug problem should be comprehensive and combine law enforcement actions with the development of national agriculture and the healthcare system.


Dear colleagues,


After the 20-year military presence of NATO, accompanied by a failed experiment in imposing recipes and values ​​alien to the Afghan people, the "collective West" is directly responsible for the current humanitarian situation, the deplorable state of the Afghan economy. Consequently, he must assume the main financial burden to overcome the crisis and stabilize the situation.


However, Washington, as we have seen more than once, is trying to avoid responsibility for the fate of Afghan citizens and refugees, including those who served the Americans and are now "stuck" on their way to the US in "transit countries." It seems that Washington is not averse to keeping these people in the region on a permanent basis.


Particularly cynical and even mocking is the decree of President John Biden to block half of the accounts of the Afghan Central Bank under the pretext of the need to pay compensation for the claims of relatives of the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Afghan people had nothing to do with organizing these crimes. This frankly unfair decision severely limits the ability of the Taliban government to normalize the situation and reduces the counter-terrorism potential of the Afghan armed forces and law enforcement agencies. The sincerity of the intentions of the Americans to help stabilize the situation in Afghanistan raises serious doubts.


We positively assess certain steps taken by international structures and financial institutions, in particular the World Bank, which has decided to unfreeze the funds of the Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund in order to alleviate the humanitarian situation. So far, however, these measures have not led to a noticeable improvement in the lives of ordinary Afghans. Washington, again, through its influence in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, hinders the implementation of social programs by the Kabul authorities. In particular, it hinders the resumption of work of Afghan financial operators with the international banking system.

In such conditions, it is necessary to strengthen regional cooperation, consolidate our approaches aimed both at restoring and normalizing all spheres of life in Afghanistan, and at curbing the threats of terrorism and drug trafficking still emanating from this country. I also believe that the Moscow format, the SCO and CSTO .


It is important to continue working within the framework of the so-called. extended trinity. It has a serious untapped potential and is able to bring together key regional partners and other donors in the interests of a comprehensive post-conflict reconstruction of Afghanistan.


The main thing is that our American colleagues participate in this mechanism in good faith, proceeding not from the latest geopolitical plans, but from the interests of the Afghan people and stability in the region. Russia continues to provide humanitarian assistance to the Afghan population. In November-December 2021, another three shipments of humanitarian goods were delivered, including food and medicine. Another batch of humanitarian aid was delivered last week, when an interdepartmental Russian delegation was in Kabul. This visit confirmed the mutual interest in establishing Russian-Afghan cooperation in such areas as energy, transport, civil aviation, mining, and agriculture.


In conclusion, I would like to note that we support the adoption of the Joint Statement following our today's meeting, as well as the "Tunxi" initiative proposed by the Chinese organizers. This document can serve as a basis for our further work to build up practical cooperation with our Afghan colleagues."

The source, in Russian is here:

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1807302/

^another wall of irrelevant text. Bravo bright and shining object.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Ukraine citizens in Donbas, Ukraine.

Good to see you acknowledging Donbas is inhabited by Ukrainians, and is a part of Ukraine.

Even if you ignore the fact it has been a break away republic for the last 8 years, and at war with Ukraine- I wager it won't be for long. That is widely expected to be part of the peace deal.

Originally Posted by sabang

Even if you ignore the fact it has been a break away republic for the last 8 years, and at war with Ukraine- I wager it won't be for long. That is widely expected to be part of the peace deal.

Eight years, and they still don't even control half of it. Not much of a breakaway and Putin borrowed Trumps sharpie to redraw the map.

If you are referring, as I assume you are, to the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk- I have no idea if they will become part of the Donbass republics or not. When I refer to the Donbass republics I mean exactly that, not the provincial map as it existed in the former Ukrainian federation. So you might say, Donbass as it exists expands to a roughly defined Line of Control, under the Minsk accords. Putin may want more, or may be willing to settle for less- dunno.