Connect with us

Latest

News

Eurasia

EU’s sanctions against Crimea extended for another year

How this jives with democracy is anyone’s guess

Published

on

1,223 Views

The European Union is committing to its policy of perceiving revolutionary determination as its course of legitimacy. Apparently, a referendum gaining nearly 100% popular support isn’t sufficient to qualify for the self determination of a region. Therefore, the EU will continue to consider the Crimea as politically a part of the Ukraine. This, of course, means that the EU has reason for its sanctions regime against Crimea, which it will be extending for yet another year.

Deutsche Welle reports:

The European Union extended economic sanctions on Crimea and its port city of Sevastopol on Monday. The 28-member bloc imposed the measures after Russia annexed the Black Sea peninsula four years ago.

The EU said it remains “firmly committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” reiterating that “it does not recognize and continues to condemn this violation of international law.”

The measures — which will now stay in place until June 23, 2019 — ban the import of products originating in Crimea. They also prevent EU nationals or companies based in the bloc from investing or buying real estate in Crimea and Sevastopol, and ban EU cruise ships from docking there, except in an emergency.

The move comes three weeks after French lawmakers voted in favor of a resolution to lift parallel sanctions targeting Russia — currently set to expire at the end of next month — over its role in an ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. “(The sanctions are) totally ineffective today to solve this international crisis and are dangerous for France’s interests,” said conservative MP Thierry Mariani, who put forward the resolution.

Some French lawmakers also highlighted the importance of forming an “alliance” with Russia to fight the “Islamic State”, a common enemy, and find a solution to the Syrian conflict.

The general idea is that Crimea, now considered Russian territory by Moscow, isn’t responsible for its present predicament, and that Russia is the one to blame for the sanctions. EU hits someone with sanctions and points the finger elsewhere. The West, therefore, loves to create economic hardship on citizens of certain nations in an effort to stir up popular discontent against its government which the West then hopes to employ its efforts to control a method of regime change, commonly referred to as ‘color revolutions’. How this jives with democracy is anyone’s guess, as it appears to violate democratic processes going and coming.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
19 Comments

19
Leave a Reply

avatar
19 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
17 Comment authors
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimestomRussGRadical PragmatistIsabella Jones Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimes
Guest
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimes

meh sanctions.. eu r toothless

tom
Guest
tom

“How this jives with democracy is anyone’s guess”.

The word is “jibes”. I recommend an English dictionary – or you can look one up online. It’s not hard. If you go on using words at random, sooner or later your articles will become completely incomprehensible.

tom
Guest
tom

If the EU doesn’t accept the legality of Crimea’s decision to secede from Ukraine and return to Russia, does it accept the legality of the American colonists’ self-interested rebellion against their legal government in London? Or does that get a pass under one of the two great overriding moral principles:

1. It happened a long time ago.

2. It was done by friends of ours so it doesn’t count.

tom
Guest
tom

Incidentally, the Ukraine has never been a legal state. Until 1991 it was part of the Russian Empire, then part of the USSR. A group of ruffians in Kiev announced that Ukraine had become an independent nation in July 1991 – six months before the USSR dissolved itself.

Since Ukraine’s secession from the USSR and its successor state, the Russian Federation, was illegal, Crimea – like the rest of Ukraine – has always been part of Russia.

RussG
Guest
RussG

I had hopes for some sensibility from the EU, but those hopes are now dashed. I guess they are still a bunch of stupid US vassals.

Radical Pragmatist
Guest
Radical Pragmatist

The per capita GDP of basket case Ukraine was only 1/3 of Russia and Poland before the U.S. instigated Maidan fiasco. The people of Crimea would not accede to a return to Ukraine authority even if Russia tried to simply hand it back.

Moreover, the U.S. “self-determined” the breakup of Yugoslavia with that inspired chaos and Nitwit Joe Biden and other U.S. political hacks ruminated about partitioning Iraq in 2009. So in other words, the U.S. has no problem breaking up countries when it sees fit.

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

“…..Crimea, now considered Russian territory by Moscow,………” Rather more to the point Mr. Sellars — Crimea is now, and indeed has always been, considered Russian territory – by Crimea. Moscow is in no way “at fault” for Crimea being formally and legally announced to be part of Russia. This was done in response to a referendum and vote conducted by the Crimean people. You write as though the EU is being unfair to Crimea in applying sanctions to her, because it was Russia [i.e. Moscow, i.e. Kremlin, i.e. Putin ] which is the guilty party which enforced the situation on… Read more »

Andrew Orr
Guest
Andrew Orr

This might make sense if Russia was holding Crimea against its will.

Gio Con
Guest
Gio Con

Apparently Israel is the only imperialist nation that’s allowed to annex other people’s land without getting sanctioned.

Wayne Blow
Guest
Wayne Blow

God-damned gutless, chicken-assed, weaklings, need some one to wipe your asses eh ??? How can any one in the “FREE” world respect you pompous asses, you have zero integrity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Mason
Guest
John Mason

Thought that Italy was going to appose further sanctions against Crimea. Italian new government mentioned their opposition to sanctions not long ago, well the Italians have been known to be all bluster and talk with very limited action.

ColinNZ
Guest
ColinNZ

The EU are only accelerating their own demise … I suspect many senior Russian political figures are enjoying the show.

Thraxite
Guest
Thraxite

The Russian Foreign Office should start emphatically stating that the reciprical sanctions will not be removed until 12months after the EU sanctions are removed. So that the Wests’ farmers know that they will have a whole extra year of suffering after western sanctions are removed, this may cause some blow back at home and if it doesn’t then really who cares? Obviously not their own governments!

VeeNarian (Yerevan)
Guest
VeeNarian (Yerevan)

It is crystal clear that both Banderised Ukraine and enslaved EU suffer from the same affliction as a result of the mysterious forces of exceptionalism, supremacism, expansionsm and racism. These are deep animal instincts that prevent logical higher order thinking. These political animals have to be trained by simple methods that work on real live animals. There is no need and no chance for Crimea to be recognised as Russian land. Like some mindless animal on the hunt they are still salivating at the thought of possessing Crimea and outraged that Crimea returned Russia in 2014. Consider this: will the… Read more »

Lisa Miller
Guest
Lisa Miller

Take a look at the date; timing is everything. 1991. Even before Bubba.

HappyCynic
Guest
HappyCynic

Luckily, Ukraine heeded Putin’s warning not to start an invasion of Donbass during the World Cup, but they’re eventually going to invade Donbass, They’re as dumb as Saakashvili was in shelling Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia (how’d that work out for Georgia? 🙂

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

Kosovo did not even need a referendum to be made into a state, while Crimea did and already had a level of autonomy and a government at a time when there was no legal government in Ukraine (even the voting did not meet the numbers after the coup and threat to kill the President.
Russia is doing well in diversifying under the sanctions (extorrtions,as they are not legal, only the UNSC can impose such sanctions).

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

Fak the EU.

ke4ram
Guest
ke4ram

Considering the unelected European Commission one can understand why they don’t accept the vote of the Crimean’s.

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending