Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Shocking New Evidence: Maidan snipers confess they were under orders from Coup leaders to shoot police AND protesters

Snipers claim they were under orders from Coup leaders to shoot police AND protesters

Published

on

6,802 Views

It was the shot unheard around the world – everyone knows the Ukraine Crisis began after the 2014 Maidan Coup, but few in the West know Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, fewer still know of the mysterious snipers who rained down death from above those fateful days in Kiev.

The corporate media was quick to follow standard stenographers union protocol in line with modern western journalistic standards – so they of course immediately blamed Russia without any evidence. Thay claim Russian trained snipers were supporting the Ukrainian president by firing on protesters.

Those who actually in Kiev, and not only Russian media, but independent foreign media report a key fact: yes, the snipers fired on protesters, but also on security forces. Snipers were attacking both sides, adding fuel to the raging fires of bloody revolution that laid Kiev – the Mother of Russian Cities – again to ruin.

Now, thanks to Sputnik, we have finally identified the snipers, they were Georgian, and their accounts will shock you:

It is necessary to create chaos on the Maidan, using weapons against any targets, protesters and police – no difference” Said one of the ringleaders

According to Sputnik, snipers Koba Nergadze and Alexander Revazishvili, who now fear for their lives, are even ready to confirm their stunning account below in a Ukrainian court:

Sputnik has obtained copies of an official testimony that they gave to lawyers Alexander Goroshinsky and Stefan Reshko … and also copies of air tickets confirming the arrival of Nergadze and Revazishvili to Kiev during the Maidan events.

To get really understand how we got here, we must go back to the beginning of sniper fire on Maidan, which is where the Sputnik report begins:

On February 20, 2014, unknown snipers shot at people gathered on Kiev’s central Maidan square killing 49 protesters and four police officers. Local opposition leaders, as well as US and EU representatives, were quick to point a finger at the “regime of Viktor Yanukovych.” Still, an official investigation failed to produce any results with the culprits still at large.

A Sputnik correspondent has met with the purported snipers, all of them from Georgia. They insist that they were taking orders from Maidan leaders. Moreover, they had direct orders to fire at police officers AND protesters in order to enrage the crowd and provoke a political crisis.

from left to right: General Tristan Tsitelashvili, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze

According to Sputnik, General Tristan Tsitelashvili, erstwhile commander of the Georgian Army’s elite Avaza unit, was the first to expose the fact it was Georgian snipers were firing onto Maidan Square. The General lead troops during the August 2008 hostilities in Abkhazia, until he became a personal enemy of Mikhail Saakashvili, who tried to blame him for his own failures.

Saakashvili trying…to eat his tie? Seriously, we couldn’t make this up if we tried

Saakashvili is the infamous and stupendously incompetent Georgian president, turned Ukrainian opposition leader who just got deported to Poland by equally unpopular Ukrainian President Poroshenko. He’s lucky he wasn’t deported to Georgia, as he isn’t exactly welcome in his home country either.

While many people have reasonable complaints against the former Georgian President, General Tsitelashvili’s issue is far more personal. His home was raided by Saakashvili’s forces who arrested the General, and critically injured his little son. Since 2008, the two had been sworn enemies, but Tsitelashvili can hardly be considered a friend of Russia, considering he fought for Georgia. This makes his incredible account all the more credible. Sputnik’s report continues with a quote from the General:

I knew already in 2014 about people from Georgia who were present on Maidan square with specific orders to shoot. Some of them served under my command in the Georgian army. Some are still in Ukraine, fighting, others returned to Georgia. They took their time to speak out because they were afraid to. They are still afraid because they can simply be eliminated as unwanted witnesses!

One of those snipers who “knew too much” was Koba Nergadze, a carrier Georgian special forces operator. Sputnik spoke with him as well:

“We were fighting smugglers. The region was divided into zones controlled by Georgian and Ossetian businessmen. Conflicts occasionally flared up, including real firefights with the Ossetian military. Our brigade suffered 11 or 12 people killed, I can’t say for sure. Overall, the Georgian army lost 45 people,” Nergadze said.

After his 2006 departure from the regular army after, he joined the Georgen DEFMIN’s Security Service, with the help of a peculiar friend.

This friend was Mamuka Mamulashvili, the commander of the “Georgian Legion” fighting in eastern Ukraine…on Kiev’s side. Once again, as with General Tsitelashvili, these aren’t exactly Russia’s friends, which makes their claims against Kiev all the more unbiased and believable.

“I first met him while in the army, at the birthday party of my friend Bezho,” Koba added. “Officially, we also dealt with the protection of the rallies held in Tbilisi, to make sure that there would be no clashes between supporters and opponents of Saakashvili. In fact, we were tasked with suppressing opposition rallies and keeping an eye on the opposition,” he admitted.

If necessary, by order of commanders, our service officers beat up opposition leaders. As a rule, we did this while wearing masks. People called us ‘Sonderkommando.’ Service members were usually tight-lipped about where they worked and what they did.

Sputnik further explains that:

The agents were divided into “tens.” Nergadze was one of the foremen. Other foremen he knew are Georgy Saralidze, Merab Kikabidze and David Makiashvili. In his interview with Sputnik, Koba mentioned some of the “tariffs.” He said that they were paid $1,000 for beating up an opposition MP.

In December 2013, Mamulashvili invited the “foremen” to a meeting and ordered them “to immediately go to Ukraine to help the protesters.” Nergadze’s group was allocated $10,000 with an additional $50,000 promised them upon their return.

They used other people’s passports to reach their destination. Nergadze had a passport issued in the name of Georgy Karusanidze (born in 1977).

In Kiev, the group was accommodated on Ushinsky Street and each day, as if to work, they went to Maidan.

“We were told to ensure order so that there were no drunks, to maintain discipline and identify rabble-rousers sent in by the authorities,” the officer recounted. 

Nergazde celebrated New Year at Hotel Ukraina, which was already controlled by protesters.

The hotel Ukraiina provides the perfect vantage point for a Sniper, overlooking Maidan square.

If a sniper were to fire from the hotel, into the violently rioting crowd, targeting both sides in the middle of the pandemonium, the fighting would quickly escalate, and the mass panic would help conceal the sniper’s identity, position, and very existence.

The Hotel Ukraine is the large building on the top left

The report continues:

Alexander Revazishvili is another former Georgian military man, who arrived in Kiev in the midst of unrest. After serving in the Georgian army, he was an active member of “Free Zone” – an organization of Saakashvili’s supporters. In his own words, he “infiltrated the oppositionists’ ranks, inciting fights and engaging in other provocations.” The organization was led by Koba Khabazi, who introduced Revazishvili to Mamulashvili. He took a great deal of interest in the ex-officer’s military specialization as a sniper.
In mid-February, Revazishvili, Khabazi and four other representatives of the Free Zone arrived in Kiev on a UIA flight. They were accommodated at Vozduhoflotskaya Street before being moved to the city conservatory, which was already controlled by the opposition.
“The following day Mamulashvili brought us to Maidan and placed us in a tent set up on the square. Khabazi told us that our task was to provoke the protesters to attack. Our group, along with the protesters, attacked Berkut with stones and Molotov cocktails. Some people were bringing rocks; some were lining up Molotov cocktails, while others assaulted Berkut and the police. Revazishvili said.
https://youtu.be/T7k0MjODEQY

“Sergei Pashinsky Was Bringing the Arms”

Protesters fighting with police during Maidan, unaware snipers were targeting both sides

“On February 14 or 15, the group commanders – me, Kikabidze, Makiashvili, Saralidze, I do not remember the names of the others – were gathered in a suite on the third floor of Hotel Ukraina.

Among those present were Parubiy (Andrey Parubiy, right-wing Ukrainian politician, the “commandant of the Maidan” during the period of unrest in Kiev; since 2016 – Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada), and Pashinsky (Sergei Pashinsky, a notorious Ukrainian politician and businessman, a People’s Deputy of Ukraine. – Ed.). ‘We need to help our fraternal people, and soon we will have an assignment.’ He gave no further clarification. By that time I had already seen hunting rifles and pistols, carried by the protesters,” “Nergadze said.

Also taking part in the meeting was a certain Christopher Brian, who was presented as a former American soldier.
In the evening of February 19, Sergey Pashinsky and several unfamiliar guys with big bags returned to the hotel.

They took out SCS carbines, 7.62mm Kalashnikov assault rifles, an SVD rifle and a foreign-made carbine. Pashinsky explained to us that the weapons would be needed “for self-defense,” but when I asked him from whom we were going to defend ourselves, he did not answer and left the room. Sputnik reports.

The next part of their story really proves what the goal of the snipers was to do. Apparently Mamulashvili mentioned some a “special task” to the snipers.

It is necessary to create chaos on the Maidan, using weapons against any targets, protesters and police – no difference.” said Mamulashvili

He said that the money for the “business trip” would be paid once the “assignment” had been completed.

The account continues that:

Someone asked Mamulashvili in Georgian: “Where’s Misha?” He answered: “With Porokh.” Then they left. Sometime later, Pashinsky and several other men brought in a bag with weapons, mostly SCS carbines. Pashinsky himself was holding a Kalashnikov rifle with an open butt.

Among those present was Vladimir Parasyuk, the leader of one of the Maidan “hundreds,” who subsequently commanded the 4th Company of the Dnepr Battalion and later became a People’s Deputy of Ukraine.

Revazishvili went on to say:

Pashinsky asked me to help choose shooting positions. He said that Berkut [police commandos] could storm the Conservatory during the night and break up the protesters. At night, about 4 or 5 am, I heard gunshots.

I thought they were coming from the October Palace. Pashinsky jumped up, grabbed the walkie-talkie, and started yelling to cease fire, that it was not the right time. The shooting immediately stopped.

At about 7.30 am (maybe later) Pashinsky ordered everyone to get ready and open fire, taking two or three shots and immediately change position. The shooting continued for about 10-15 minutes. After that, we were ordered to drop weapons and leave the building.

Then he returned to Maidan. He heard that people were enraged; some believed that it was the Berkut shooting. Others, on the contrary, thought that it was the protesters who had fired the shots.

“I realized that this might end badly, that I was in a real fix, that people could tear me up right here if they only knew the truth. I went out to take a walk on Maidan. They I decided that it was time to fly out. I took a taxi to the airport,” Revazishvili concluded.

Sputnik’s report finishes with the words of

Early in the morning on February 20, at about 8, I heard the sound of gunshots coming from the conservatory; 3 or 4 minutes later, Mamulashvili’s group opened fire from windows on the third floor of Hotel Ukraina. They were shooting in pairs. After each shot, they moved to another room and fired again. When it was all over, they told us to get out. That same day Bezho and I flew to Tbilisi.

The stunning report ends as follows:

The ex-officer of the Georgian army was never paid the money he was promised. Today, he fears revenge from his former “colleagues.”

Koba Nergadze and Alexander Revazishvili are ready to confirm their words in a Ukrainian court. Sputnik has obtained copies of an official testimony that they gave to lawyers Alexander Goroshinsky and Stefan Reshko, who represent the interests of former members of the Berkut police commando unit. Sputnik also has copies of air tickets confirming the arrival of Nergadze and Revazishvili to Kiev during the Maidan events.

Those who follow alternative media are well aware of the existence of the snipers and the real story of Maidan, however now we finally may know who they are, and what they did. Moreover, seeing as Sputnik announced that in addition to their legal accounts, they can prove they were in Kiev during the Maidan coup. We are one step closer to learning more about how the Coup began, but are we any closer to an end to the war…uncertain. This may have incredible implications in coming days, and if anything new arises, we will be sure to keep you informed.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

US Blunders Have Made Russia The Global Trade Pivot

Even if Europe is somehow taken out of the trade equation, greater synergy between the RIC (Russia, India and China) nations may be enough to pull their nations through anticipated global volatilities ahead

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Mathew Maavak via ActivistPost.com:


The year 2019 had barely begun before news emerged that six Russian sailors were kidnapped by pirates off the coast of Benin. It was perhaps a foretaste of risks to come. As nations reel from deteriorating economic conditions, instances of piracy and other forms of supply chain disruptions are bound to increase.

According to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), 107 cases of piracy were noted during the first half of 2018 vis-à-vis 87 throughout 2017.  The 2018 tally included 32 cases in Southeast Asian waters and 48 along African shores – representing 75% of the total. To put this figure into perspective, Asian behemoths India and China – despite their vast shorelines – recorded only 2 cases of piracy each during the study period. Russia had none. In terms of hostages taken, the IMB tally read 102 in H1 2018 vs 63 in H1 2017.

Piracy adds to shipping and retail costs worldwide as security, insurance and salaries are hiked to match associated risks in maritime transport. Merchant vessels will also take longer and costlier routes to avoid piracy hotspots.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) report in 2016 sums up the perils ahead:

As over 90% of global trade is carried out by sea, the economic effects of maritime crime can be crippling. Maritime crime includes not only criminal activity directed at vessels or maritime structures, but also the use of the high seas to perpetrate transnational organized crimes such as smuggling of persons or illicit substances.  These forms of maritime crime can have devastating human consequences.

Indeed, cases of human trafficking, organ harvesting, and the smuggling of illicit substances and counterfeit goods are proliferating worldwide in tandem with rising systemic debt and suspect international agendas.

Australia offers a case in point. While it fantasizes over a Quad of allies in the Indo-Pacific – to “save Asians from China” – criminal elements from Hong Kong, Malaysia to squeaky-clean Singapore have been routinely trafficking drugs, tobacco and people right into Sydney harbour for years,  swelling the local organised crime economy to as much as $47.4 billion (Australian dollars presumably) between 2016 and 2017.

With criminal elements expected to thrive during a severe recession, they will likely enjoy a degree of prosecutorial shielding from state actors and local politicians. But this is not a Southeast Asian problem alone; any superpower wishing to disrupt Asia-Europe trade arteries – the main engine of global growth – will have targets of opportunity across oceans and lands.  The US-led war against Syria had not only cratered one potential trans-Eurasia energy and trade node, it served as a boon for child traffickingorgan harvesting and slavery as well. Yet, it is President Bashar al-Assad who is repeatedly labelled a “butcher” by the Anglo-American media.

Ultimately, industries in Asia and Europe will seek safer transit routes for their products. The inference here is inevitable: the greatest logistical undertaking in history – China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – will be highly dependent on Russian security umbrella, particularly in Central Asia. Russia also offers an alternative transit option via the Northern Sea Route, thereby avoiding any potential pan-Turkic ructions in Central Asia in the future.

Russo- and Sinophobia explained?

In retrospect, Washington’s reckless policies post-Sept 11 2001 seem aimed at disrupting growing synergies between Asia and Europe. This hypothesis helps explain the relentless US-led agitprops against Russia, China and Iran.

When the gilet jaunes (yellow vest) protests rocked France weeks ago, it was only a matter of time before some pundits blamed it on Russia. US President Donald J. Trump cheered on; just as “billionaire activist” George Soros celebrated the refugee invasion of Europe and the Arab Spring earlier.  If the yellow vest contagion spreads to the Western half of Europe, its economies will flounder. Cui bono? A Russia that can reap benefits from the two-way BRI or Arctic trade routes or a moribund United States that can no longer rule roost in an increasingly multipolar world?

Trump’s diplomatic downgrade of the European Union and his opposition to the Nord Stream 2gas pipeline matches this trade-disruption hypothesis, as do pressures applied on India and China to drop energy and trade ties with Iran.  Washington’s trade war with Beijing and recent charges against Huawei – arguably Asia’s most valuable company – seem to fit this grand strategy.

If China concedes to importing more US products, Europe will bear the consequences. Asians love European products ranging from German cars to Italian shoes and Europe remains the favourite vacation destination for its growing middle class. Eastern European products and institutions are also beginning to gain traction in Asia. However, these emerging economies will suffer if their leaders cave in to Washington’s bogeyman fetish.

Even if Europe is somehow taken out of the trade equation, greater synergy between the RIC (Russia, India and China) nations may be enough – at least theoretically – to pull their nations through anticipated global volatilities ahead.

In the meantime, as the US-led world crumbles, it looks like Russia is patiently biding its time to become the security guarantor and kingmaker of Asia-Europe trade.  A possible state of affairs wrought more by American inanity rather than Russian ingenuity…

Dr Mathew Maavak is a regular commentator on risk-related geostrategic issues.

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

Latest

Historic Eastern Christianity: An Uncertain Future

The survival of historic Eastern Christianity, particularly in Syria, is critical for several reasons.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored by Elias Samo via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The survival of historic Eastern Christianity has never been as urgent as it is today. Christianity saw its beginning in Greater Syria which was subdivided by France and Britain after WWI into modern day Syria, Lebanon, Palestian/Israel and Jordan. The land that housed, nurtured and spread the teachings of Jesus Christ for over two millenniums, now threatens children of that faith. The survival of historic Eastern Christianity, particularly in Syria, is critical for several reasons:

  1. Greater Syria is the homeland of Jesus and Christianity. Abraham was from modern day Iraq, Moses from Egypt, and Muhammad from Mecca; Jesus was from Syria.
  1. Paul converted to Christianity and saw the light while walking through ‘The Street Called Straight’ in Damascus.
  1. Jesus’ followers were called Christians for the first time in Antioch, formerly part of Syria.
  1. One of the earliest churches, perhaps the earliest, is in Syria.

The potential demise of historic Eastern Christianity is reflected in the key question Christians ask: should we stay or emigrate? The urgent question – in the face of the ongoing regional turmoil – precipitated with the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and escalated since the Arab uprisings in 2011. Historic Eastern Christians’ fears were further magnified when Archbishop Yohanna Ibrahim of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Archbishop Paul Yazigi of the Greek Orthodox Church, both of metropolitan Aleppo, were kidnapped on April, 22, 2013; with no traces of their whereabouts, dead or alive, since. For many years, I was deputy, friend, and advisor to the Archbishop Ibrahim, which provided me an opportunity to meet many Christians. I have, over time, noticed the change in their sentiment, with more considering emigration after the uprising and the kidnapping of the two Archbishops. Historic Eastern Christians survived the Ottoman Genocide in 1915 and thereafter; they multiplied and thrived in the Fertile Crescent despite some atrocities until the start of the misnamed “Arab Spring” in early 2011. Prior to the “Arab Spring”, historic Eastern Christians were victims of violence on several occasions. In the mid-1930s, the historic Assyrian community in Iraq suffered violent onslaughts and were driven to Syria. In the 1970s and 1980s, during the Lebanese Civil War, Christians were victims of sectarian violence. During the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Christians were victims of widespread sectarian violence which led to mass migration. The “Arab Spring” began with great hope for the right of the people to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. However, it was swiftly hijacked by Islamists and Salafists and turned into an “Islamic Spring, an Arab Fall and a Christian Winter”; bringing along with it a new massacre of Christians. Presently, Eastern Christianity is at the mercy of clear and identifiable domestic, regional, and international, historic and contemporary conflicts in the Fertile Crescent, namely:

  1. Jihad vs. Ijtihad: A long standing conflict amongst Muslims between the sword vs. the pen.
  2. Sunni vs. Shiite: A conflict which began following the death of the Prophet Muhammad.
  3. Arabism vs. Islamism: The former has territorial limitations, the later has no territorial limitations.
  4. Syria vs. Israel: It is an essential component of the Palestinian problem, not the presumed Arab- Israeli conflict.
  5. West vs. East: A throwback to the Cold War, or its revival.
  6. Historic Persian, Ottoman and Arab Empires animosities: Each seeking regional hegemony.

One is reminded of the proverbial saying, “When the elephants fight, the grass suffers.” Certainly, Eastern Christianity is suffering and threatened with extinction.

Syria was a model of religious tolerance, common living and peaceful interaction amongst its religious, sectarian, cultural and ethnic components. Seven years of turmoil, in which various international and regional powers manipulated segments of Syrian society by supplying them with an abundance of weapons, money and sectarian ideologies, has heightened Eastern Christians’ fears. During the seven-year turmoil in Syria, the entire society has suffered; Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Yazidis, Kurds, Christians and others. Christians, being a weak and peaceful component of the society, have suffered immensely. Ma’aloula; a religious treasure for Christians globally, and the only city in the world where Aramaic – the language of Jesus Christ – is spoken, was attacked and besieged by ISIS. Numerous historic Churches were damaged, and many destroyed. Christians in Raqqa were forced by ISIS into one of three options: 1. Pay a penalty in pure gold – known as a ‘Jizya’ to keep their life and practice their faith – albeit in secret only; 2. Convert into Islam; or 3. Face immediate death. To top their pain, the kidnap of the two prominent Archbishops meant no Eastern Christian believer was safe.

Amidst all the doom and gloom, however, there remains hope. The survival of Christianity depends on the actions and reactions of three parties:

Eastern Christians: During the last hundred years, 1915-2015, since the Ottoman Genocide, Eastern Christians have been victims of a history of massacres, which meant that every Eastern Christian was a martyr, a potential martyr or a witness of martyrdom; if you fool me once, shame on you, if you fool me twice, shame on me. The ongoing regional turmoil has heightened their sense of insecurity. The answer to an age-old question Eastern Christians had on their mind: To flee Westwards or remain in their land, in the face of death, is increasingly becoming the former.

Eastern Muslims: There is a difference in perceptions between Eastern Christians and mainstream Muslims regarding the massacres committed against Christians. When certain violent groups or individuals kill Christians, while shouting a traditional Islamic profession: “No God but one God and Muhammad is God’s messenger”, it is reasonable for Christians to assume the killers are Muslims. However, for mainstream Muslims, the killers do not represent Islam; they are extremists, violating basic Islamic norms such as Muhammad’s sayings, “Whoever hurts a Thummy – Christian or Jew – has hurt me”, “no compulsion in religion” and other Islamic norms regarding just treatment of people of the Book; Christians and Jews. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Muslim elites to impress upon their fellow Muslims that:

a. The three monotheistic religions believe in one God and all ‘faithfuls’ are equal in citizenship, rights and duties.

b. Christians participated in the rise of Arab Islamic civilization. They were pioneers in the modern Arab renaissance and they joined their Muslim brethren in resisting the Crusades, the Ottomans and Western colonialism.

c. Christians are natives of the land and they provide cultural, religious, educational, and economic, diversity.

d. Christians are a positive link between the Muslims and the Christian West, particularly in view of the rise of Islamophobia. Massacres of Christians and their migration provide a pretext for the further precipitation of Islamophobia.

e. Civilization is measured by the way it treats its minorities.

The Christian West: The Crusades, Western colonialism, creation and continued support of Israel, support of authoritarian Arab political systems, military interventions, regime change, and the destabilization of Arab states made Muslims view Eastern Christians ‘guilty by association’. The Christian West helped Jews come to Palestine to establish Israel. Shouldn’t the same Christian West also help Eastern Christians remain in their homeland, rather than facilitate their emigration? Western Christians, particularly Christian Zionists, believe that the existence of Israel is necessary for the return of Jesus to his homeland. However, it would be a great disappointment for Jesus to return to his homeland, Syria and not find any of his followers.

Prior to 2011, Eastern Christian religious leaders were encouraging Syrian Christians in the diaspora to return to Syria, their homeland, where life was safe and secure with great potential. Now, the same leaders are desperately trying to slow down Christian emigration. Eastern Christians’ loud cries for help to remain are blowing in the wind.

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

Latest

Protests erupt in Athens, as ‘North Macedonia’ vote fast approaches (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 62.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

NATO and the EU are full of joy with the Prespes agreement, which is sure to pass the Greek Parliament and fast rack the newly minted Republic of North Macedonia into NATO and the EU.

Meanwhile in Athens and Skopje, anger is reaching dangerous levels, as each side debates the pros and cons of the deal inked by Tsipras and Zaev.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at yesterday’s protests in Athens, Greece, where things got very ugly as radical left Prime Minster Alexis Tsipras used tear gas and a heavy police hand to put down protests, that reached upwards of 60,000 people in the Syntagma downtown square.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Ekathimerini

As Greece gets ready for a political showdown this week over the Prespes agreement, we are witnessing a relentless, often cynical, maneuvering between parties, their leaders and even individual deputies.

What is at stake is not only the ratification of the deal between Athens and Skopje, but also the potential redrawing of the domestic political map.

Greek society and the country’s political world are deeply divided. The public is clearly against the deal, with up to 70% opposed to it.

The tens of thousands that demonstrated in Sunday’s rally in Athens, showed once more that sentiments run high.

The violence, which the Prime Minister blamed on extremists, while the opposition leader criticized the extended use of tear gas and called for an investigation to find out who was responsible, is indicative of the slippery slope the country is facing in the months leading to the national elections.

Despite the voices of reason calling for a minimum of cooperation and looking for common ground, Alexis Tsipras and Kyriakos Mitsotakis are in an all out war.

The leftist Prime Minister is attempting to use the Prespes agreement to create a broad “progressive” coalition that extends well beyond SYRIZA, while the conservative opposition leader, who is leading in the polls, is trying to keep his party united (on the name issue there are differing approaches) and win the next elections with an absolute majority.

With respect to the Prespes deal itself, the rare confluence of shrewd political considerations with deeply held feelings about one’s history, makes for an explosive mix and ensures a heated debate in parliament.

As for the raw numbers, despite the public opposition, the passage of the Prespes agreement in the 300 member Greek Parliament should be considered a done deal. In the most plausible senario 153 deputies will support the deal in the vote expected later in the week.

The governing SYRIZA has 145 deputies, and one should add to those the positive votes of Tourism Minister Elena Kountoura, centrist To Potami deputies Stavros Theodorakis, Spyros Lykoudis and Giorgos Mavrotas, former To Potami MP Spiros Danellis, and ANEL MP Thanasis Papachristopoulos.

This leads to a majority of 151. Last night one more positive vote was announced, that of Thanasis Theocharopoulos, leader of Democratic Left which untill now was part of the Movement for Change coalition, from which he was ejected as a result of his decision to support the deal.

Finally, Citizens Security Deputy Minister Katerina Papacosta, a former member of New Democracy, is expected to also vote for the agreement, but has not officially said so. Thus, for all practical purposes, the Prespes agreement is expected to pass, with 152 or 153 votes.

Former Prime Minister George Papandreou, who is not a member of parliament and who has worked tiressly on the issue, both as foreign minister and PM, has gone public in support of the deal.

Despite the discomfort this move created in the leadership of the Movement for Change, doing otherwise would have made him look inconsistent. As he is not voting, the damage is seen as limited, although the symbolism does not help the Movement for Change approach.

To the extent that Greece’s transatlantic partners and allies want to see the agreement implemented, they should feel relief. Of course, nothing is done until the “fat lady sings”, but one can clearly hear her whispering the notes in the corridors of the Greek Parliament.

Still, for the astute observer of Greek politics and the foreign officials and analysts who value the crucial role of Greece as an anchor of stability in the Balkans – being by far the strongest country in this region, both militarily and economically, despite the crisis of the last eight years – the deep divisions the issue has created in the society and the political world, are a cause for concern and could spell trouble in the future.

Dealing with such a volatile landscape calls for delicate moves by all.

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