The recording of a telephone conversation between Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and High Representative Catherine Ashton that has been leaked online is authentic.
The conversation between Paet and Ashton took place on 26 February after the Estonian Foreign Minister’s return from his visit to Ukraine. His visit took place last week, soon after the end of street violence in Kiev.
Foreign Minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard the previous day in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground. We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition’s involvement in the violence.
`It is extremely regrettable that phone calls are being intercepted,’ said Paet. ’The fact that this phone call has been leaked is not a coincidence,’ added Paet.
Then there was a press conference in Estonian (I'm too tired to translate it, so I had it go through google translate)
Foreign Minister Urmas Paet to reporters: 17:03 My phone call Catherine Ashton took place on the 26th of February, the day after my visit to Ukraine. The purpose of the call was to pass on the mood in Kyiv. A day earlier, people had been killed and injured there. 17:04 It is unfortunate that these calls will go to those to whom they should not be included. Distorted versions of the recording have also appeared aimed at discrediting the government of Ukraine. I urge journalists to very carefully consider the recording - I was talking about the versions of what happened circulating in Ukraine. 17:06 I did not give an assessment. Only expressed concern that if the rumors are going to live their own life, it can damage the situation in Ukraine. 17:06 I used for the speech the Foreign Ministry mobile phone. At the moment can not be sure that I have not heard from for more . We currently lack information on how the question could leak . 17:08 We have the corresponding authorities , who are investigating the leak . Perhaps the way the call could leak , does not make sense . One can only speculate as to why the call was placed to the Internet for one week after the meeting, when a new government is in office . 17:09 I have informed Catherine Ashton of the leak , but I assume that she had been informed before . 17:09 I do not know whether they tapped mine or Ashton's phone. I heard about the leak from Postimees journalists. 17:11 It is now a need to tighten security measures , it is the task of other agencies . 17:12 This record is likely to be used in order to discredit the new Ukrainian government. I categorically do not agree with that. Maidan crimes require investigation and the perpetrators should receive the punishment. 17:14 Phone , which I talked to Ashton , I was accompanied by Ukraine. I use the iPhone 4 phone , but it is by no means clear that the leakage is linked to my phone. 17:18 Olga ( Olga Bogomolets) Was the chief of the medical service at Maidan . 17:19 I have no reason to believe that we should use other communication solutions instead of phone calls. 17:20 To find out what really took place in Kyiv , an investigation is need. I believe that many people want to have an independent investigation of what happened in Ukraine. 17:21 Thank you , good night . Source.
On March 06 2014 07:12 Cheerio wrote: There are reports that Ukrainian Military Radio Reconnaissance has already intercepted lots of communications between Russians. One of those was described as a conversation between Putin and smb in Crimea in which Putin was wondering why Ukrainians are not firing at anyone and whether Russians did enough to provoke them.
proof please
LMFAO, if only russians would ask this of their own media as well.
On March 06 2014 09:05 hunts wrote:
On March 06 2014 09:03 Sub40APM wrote:
On March 06 2014 08:49 hunts wrote:
On March 06 2014 07:47 likeasu wrote:
On March 06 2014 07:12 Cheerio wrote: There are reports that Ukrainian Military Radio Reconnaissance has already intercepted lots of communications between Russians. One of those was described as a conversation between Putin and smb in Crimea in which Putin was wondering why Ukrainians are not firing at anyone and whether Russians did enough to provoke them.
proof please
LMFAO, if only russians would ask this of their own media as well.
to be fair to likeasu he has said he wanted people to view all sides for the most objective picture
I guess to be fair I do agree with him that I would need proof on such a thing before I would believe it, but it is funny how a lot of russians, even ones on TL jump on the propaganda wagon with 0 proof, and then whenever anything contradicts with them is only when they ask for proof.
Let's not be haughty bro. This is rude to some of our fellow forumers and the same is precisely true if not more true about Americans, even in peace-loving, intelligent, liberal California.
The current crisis is not about Crimea. It is about the rights of Russian-speakers throughout Ukraine whom the Kremlin wants to protect from violence and discrimination. Russia does not want a military intervention in Crimea and does not want to take Crimea from Ukraine.
Not a bad speculative write up but silly in many ways (some speculations are ludicrous) by Sergei Markov posted earlier in the thread, but I'm wholly convinced Ukraine is at the forefront a tug-of-war between USA and Russia, and to a lesser degree, EU.
what about the people of ukraine who desire a better life. u know, one with more eu tradin and moving and less russian influence
Irrelevant to my post, but I have yet to see where Ukraine was not allowed trade relations with any country in the European Union or elsewhere. I could mention a ton of other countries afflicted by foreign states, past and present, in some way or another.
Considering Ukraine's biggest trading partner by far is the European Union, I am questioning the legitimacy of your statement :S
Speaking of Russia and aid to Ukrainian economy, Russia was just about to give them $15 billion before shit went crazy in Kiev. lol
On March 06 2014 09:52 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Irrelevant to my post, but I have yet to see where Ukraine was not allowed trade relations with any country in the European Union or elsewhere.
The whole Euromaidan thing started about a European - Ukraine trade agreement that Yanukovich wasn't willing to sign after Russia put on the thumbscrews. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Initial_causes)
"14 August 2013, the Russian Custom Service stopped all goods coming from Ukraine[104] and prompted politicians[105] and sources[106][107][108] to view the move as the start of a trade war against Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from signing a trade agreement with the European Union."
"On 21 November 2013 a Ukrainian government decree suspended preparations for signing of the association agreement.[110][111] The reason given was that the previous months Ukraine had experienced "a drop in industrial production and our relations with CIS countries"
On March 06 2014 09:52 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Irrelevant to my post, but I have yet to see where Ukraine was not allowed trade relations with any country in the European Union or elsewhere.
The whole Euromaidan thing started about a European - Ukraine trade agreement that Yanukovich wasn't willing to sign. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Initial_causes)
Precisely, but it doesn't change the fact though that EU is by far Ukraine's biggest trading partner, which appears to contradict oneofthem's post (which I'm still trying to find the relevance to the post I made to which he replied :/ ) .
EDIT: I see your edit. Despite these measures, it's incontestable that the EU is their biggest trade partner still. As for the degree of effects of the measures, I don't know. Ukraine has tons of issues on its own, so Russia or not, Ukraine would still be the furthest thing from Sir Moore's Utopia. It's not like Ukraine doesn't benefit a lot from its economic relations with Russia, either.
Well it's actually pretty straight forward. Russia feels threatened by the trade agreement because it's just another example that the West is gaining influence over ex Soviet states, so they strong-arm them out of it.
Thing is that the West is not getting closer because they're actively pushing for it(which would be a legitimate reason for Russia to be concerned) , Russia's influence is crumbling simply because the country pretty much sucks.Europe gives the Eastern - European countries the chance to prosper over the long term and Russia simply can't compete, so now they're pulling out the guns.
If Russia wants more influence, fine. Then they should get rid of their corruption, act like a democratic country and even the EU would happily cooperate. But the way they're acting right now has no future.
On March 06 2014 10:22 Nyxisto wrote: Well it's actually pretty straight forward. Russia feels threatened by the trade agreement because it's just another example that the West is gaining influence over ex Soviet states, so they strong-arm them out of it.
Thing is that the West is not getting closer because they're actively pushing for it(which would be a legitimate reason for Russia to be concerned) , Russia's influence is crumbling simply because the country pretty much sucks.Europe gives the Eastern - European countries the chance to prosper over the long term and Russia simply can't compete, so now they're pulling out the guns.
If Russia wants more influence, fine. Then they should get rid of their corruption, act like a democratic country and even the EU would happily cooperate. But the way they're acting right now has no future.
A post-collapse country cannot be expected to operate like Norway. Most of Russia's problems stem from the catastrophic 1990s. Things are steadily improving in most regards, but the corruption and financial elite have already solidified their position (these people arose from the 90s' chaos, in fact), much like the corporate elite have established a position of great power in countries like USA and the godly conglomerates in ROK and Japan. You can't get rid of things that have huge influence and standing in a country.
In addition, the EU would never happily cooperate with a resurging Russia. The more power Russia has, the worse and more worrisome it is for EU countries and the United States. This is EXACTLY what the US is against for obvious reasons of its own political interests. There can never be solid, honest, bilateral political 'cooperation' so long as Russia is in a position of [growing] power.
Also, influence has little to do with a country being straight out of Moore's Utopia or not. It has to do with in what ways and to what degree they can assert their power.
The EU summit will probably impose some fairly symbolic sanctions, like halting talks on visa or trade liberalisation, the BBC's Chris Morris in Brussels reports.
But more substantive measures - including travel bans or asset freezes against senior Russian officials - are unlikely, our correspondent says. The idea is to offer strong support to Ukraine and simply try to keep talking to Russia.
On March 06 2014 10:22 Nyxisto wrote: Well it's actually pretty straight forward. Russia feels threatened by the trade agreement because it's just another example that the West is gaining influence over ex Soviet states, so they strong-arm them out of it.
Thing is that the West is not getting closer because they're actively pushing for it(which would be a legitimate reason for Russia to be concerned) , Russia's influence is crumbling simply because the country pretty much sucks.Europe gives the Eastern - European countries the chance to prosper over the long term and Russia simply can't compete, so now they're pulling out the guns.
If Russia wants more influence, fine. Then they should get rid of their corruption, act like a democratic country and even the EU would happily cooperate. But the way they're acting right now has no future.
A post-collapse country cannot be expected to operate like Norway. Most of Russia's problems stem from the catastrophic 1990s. Things are steadily improving in most regards, but the corruption and financial elite have already solidified their position (these people arose from the 90s' chaos, in fact), much like the corporate elite have established a position of great power in countries like USA and the godly conglomerates in ROK and Japan. You can't get rid of things that have huge influence and standing in a country.
In addition, the EU would never happily cooperate with a resurging Russia. The more power Russia has, the worse and more worrisome it is for EU countries and the United States. This is EXACTLY what the US is against for obvious reasons of its own political interests. There can never be solid, honest, bilateral political 'cooperation' so long as Russia is in a position of [growing] power.
Also, influence has little to do with a country being straight out of Moore's Utopia or not. It has to do with in what ways and to what degree they can assert their power.
Can you please grow out of this we-vs-them mentality?
On March 06 2014 10:22 Nyxisto wrote: Well it's actually pretty straight forward. Russia feels threatened by the trade agreement because it's just another example that the West is gaining influence over ex Soviet states, so they strong-arm them out of it.
Thing is that the West is not getting closer because they're actively pushing for it(which would be a legitimate reason for Russia to be concerned) , Russia's influence is crumbling simply because the country pretty much sucks.Europe gives the Eastern - European countries the chance to prosper over the long term and Russia simply can't compete, so now they're pulling out the guns.
If Russia wants more influence, fine. Then they should get rid of their corruption, act like a democratic country and even the EU would happily cooperate. But the way they're acting right now has no future.
In addition, the EU would never happily cooperate with a resurging Russia. The more power Russia has, the worse and more worrisome it is for EU countries and the United States. This is EXACTLY what the US is against for obvious reasons of its own political interests. There can never be solid, honest, bilateral political 'cooperation' so long as Russia is in a position of [growing] power.
You realize that people in Britain and France used to say exactly the same thing about Germany, right? I agree that russia needs change pretty badly though.
In addition, the EU would never happily cooperate with a resurging Russia. The more power Russia has, the worse and more worrisome it is for EU countries and the United States. This is EXACTLY what the US is against for obvious reasons of its own political interests. There can never be solid, honest, bilateral political 'cooperation' so long as Russia is in a position of [growing] power.
And why would the EU never happily cooperate with a resurgent Russia? You give plenty of clues to the answer but can't quite seem to say it openly.
There are plenty of countries that the Allies couldn't happily cooperate with barely 3-4 generations ago that they happily cooperates with now. And that's what this, the old Allies still sticking together and Russia is still the Ally who never bought into it and dipped out at first opportunity.
Hillary Clinton raised some eyebrows Tuesday by comparing Russia's incursion into Ukraine to the early days of Nazi Germany's expansion. But she's got plenty of company. Not only did Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) make similar comments; in fact, comparing Putin to Hitler has been going on since the Russia-Georgia crisis of 2008.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said his Russian counterpart told him Wednesday that the troops in Crimea “were not regular forces. They were well-trained militia forces responding to threats to ethnic Russians in the Crimea.”
I know this would escalate things and so isnt a great idea but I think it would be pretty funny if suddenly a 'Ukrainian milita responding to threats to ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars in the Crimea" were to show up...riding Abrams tanks and geared up in latest NATO gear. Also, for convenience sake they would all speak English and some of them would be the famous African-Ukrainians and Hipanic-Ukrainians you always hear about. But you know, without any military insignia so obviously, local militia.
The European Union has announced an assets freeze covering the ousted Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, and 17 other people held responsible for embezzling state funds.
The 28-nation bloc early on Thursday revealed the names of those targeted by its sanctions. The list appears to include Yanukovych’s closest aides, including a former interior minister, justice minister, the prosecutor general, the head of the security services and Yanukovych’s son.
I wonder how much money they'll find. On one hand, the documents from Trashsille mentions the various trusts and shell companies, on the other hand he had more than a week now to move that to Russia. On the third hand, if he moved it on Monday I guess he has a lot less of it. And on the fourth hand, would he really trust Putin to let him keep it ? If I was Putin I'd want to recoup my money.
Hillary Clinton raised some eyebrows Tuesday by comparing Russia's incursion into Ukraine to the early days of Nazi Germany's expansion. But she's got plenty of company. Not only did Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) make similar comments; in fact, comparing Putin to Hitler has been going on since the Russia-Georgia crisis of 2008.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said his Russian counterpart told him Wednesday that the troops in Crimea “were not regular forces. They were well-trained militia forces responding to threats to ethnic Russians in the Crimea.”
I know this would escalate things and so isnt a great idea but I think it would be pretty funny if suddenly a 'Ukrainian milita responding to threats to ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars in the Crimea" were to show up...riding Abrams tanks and geared up in latest NATO gear. Also, for convenience sake they would all speak English and some of them would be the famous African-Ukrainians and Hipanic-Ukrainians you always hear about. But you know, without any military insignia so obviously, local militia.
I guess the strangest thing ever would be if that carrier strike group showed up in the Black sea under Ukrainian flag. They could actually defect to the Ukrainian side right? So that makes it ok.
Found it interesting. If putins propaganda machine breaks down he has a serious problem. (Don't think it's gonna happen though.)
Yep someone else posted it, but the link was to a twitter to a link. But this is RT Americas, this would be like if the Russian employee of Fox News in Moscow resigned.
Hillary Clinton raised some eyebrows Tuesday by comparing Russia's incursion into Ukraine to the early days of Nazi Germany's expansion. But she's got plenty of company. Not only did Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) make similar comments; in fact, comparing Putin to Hitler has been going on since the Russia-Georgia crisis of 2008.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said his Russian counterpart told him Wednesday that the troops in Crimea “were not regular forces. They were well-trained militia forces responding to threats to ethnic Russians in the Crimea.”
I know this would escalate things and so isnt a great idea but I think it would be pretty funny if suddenly a 'Ukrainian milita responding to threats to ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars in the Crimea" were to show up...riding Abrams tanks and geared up in latest NATO gear. Also, for convenience sake they would all speak English and some of them would be the famous African-Ukrainians and Hipanic-Ukrainians you always hear about. But you know, without any military insignia so obviously, local militia.
I guess the strangest thing ever would be if that carrier strike group showed up in the Black sea under Ukrainian flag.
Well, if it was under Ukrainian flag then it would be provocation right. Russian Federation is firmly against the militarlization of the crisis which is why only totally local, self defensive units with absolutely no Russian soldiers, just people who managed to find the greatest sale of Russian gear ever, involved. So its just some Ukrainian local self defense group that found a carrier group on sale at wall mart.
On March 06 2014 14:26 Sub40APM wrote: Well, if it was under Ukrainian flag then it would be provocation right. Russian Federation is firmly against the militarlization of the crisis which is why only totally local, self defensive units with absolutely no Russian soldiers, just people who managed to find the greatest sale of Russian gear ever, involved. So its just some Ukrainian local self defense group that found a carrier group on sale at wall mart.
It's the French Foreign Legion in disguise. I knew it was them all along! Those cunning French bastards were behind this maskirovka the entire time! /sarcasm
the most recent edition of “Vesti Nedeli,” Russia’s most popular evening news program, a sober-voiced announcer broke it down into very simple terms. “Experts,” he intoned, “are more and more comparing the actions of these nationalists with those who came to power in Germany in the 1930s.”
“If you watch some of the shows that go on during the day, it’s harkening back to the heroic deeds of the Soviet Army, liberating the Crimea and Sevastopol,” said Vladimir V. Pozner, host of a political talk show on Channel One. “You begin to be very antsy — is this the buildup to something else? Is this not preparing the population for what ultimately will be the use of force?”
There have, however, been some challenges to the Kremlin’s depiction of the on-the-ground realities, especially in Crimea.
On Sunday, the Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights, a group that advises the Kremlin, released a statement signed by 27 of its members describing government reports of attacks on civilians in Crimea — the main pretext for Russian intervention — as “unreliable and exaggerated,” based on reporting done by two members who traveled to Crimea.
Russia’s three large channels are headed by executives who meet regularly with Kremlin officials, and they have been deeply engaged in promoting Mr. Putin’s agenda since he returned to the presidency in 2012.
Often, they employ ominous soundtracks and wild hyperbole; during Mr. Putin’s 2011 election campaign, one documentary used starving African refugees to illustrate Russia’s condition before he came to power. When Mr. Putin decided to ban the adoption of Russian children by Americans, one news channel broadcast footage of a woman from Alaska who disciplined a child by forcing him to drink hot sauce.
Sunday’s “Vesti Nedeli” was largely an indictment of the United States and its allies. It lingered on the seared, curled bodies of people killed during NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999, and quoted the words of the former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, who, before he died of a heart attack in his prison cell, warned his fellow Slavs to isolate themselves from the West: “Look at us, and remember they will do the same thing to you when you show weakness and go to pieces.”
Irek Murtazin, a Russian blogger, took umbrage when a state newspaper reported that the upper house of Parliament had “unanimously” approved the use of military force in Ukraine, publishing screen shots that showed that only 90 of the body’s 166 members had voted. “It is a sign that the Russian elite is not as monolithic as it is presented to us,”
the most recent edition of “Vesti Nedeli,” Russia’s most popular evening news program, a sober-voiced announcer broke it down into very simple terms. “Experts,” he intoned, “are more and more comparing the actions of these nationalists with those who came to power in Germany in the 1930s.”
“If you watch some of the shows that go on during the day, it’s harkening back to the heroic deeds of the Soviet Army, liberating the Crimea and Sevastopol,” said Vladimir V. Pozner, host of a political talk show on Channel One. “You begin to be very antsy — is this the buildup to something else? Is this not preparing the population for what ultimately will be the use of force?”
There have, however, been some challenges to the Kremlin’s depiction of the on-the-ground realities, especially in Crimea.
On Sunday, the Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights, a group that advises the Kremlin, released a statement signed by 27 of its members describing government reports of attacks on civilians in Crimea — the main pretext for Russian intervention — as “unreliable and exaggerated,” based on reporting done by two members who traveled to Crimea.
Russia’s three large channels are headed by executives who meet regularly with Kremlin officials, and they have been deeply engaged in promoting Mr. Putin’s agenda since he returned to the presidency in 2012.
Often, they employ ominous soundtracks and wild hyperbole; during Mr. Putin’s 2011 election campaign, one documentary used starving African refugees to illustrate Russia’s condition before he came to power. When Mr. Putin decided to ban the adoption of Russian children by Americans, one news channel broadcast footage of a woman from Alaska who disciplined a child by forcing him to drink hot sauce.
Sunday’s “Vesti Nedeli” was largely an indictment of the United States and its allies. It lingered on the seared, curled bodies of people killed during NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999, and quoted the words of the former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, who, before he died of a heart attack in his prison cell, warned his fellow Slavs to isolate themselves from the West: “Look at us, and remember they will do the same thing to you when you show weakness and go to pieces.”
Irek Murtazin, a Russian blogger, took umbrage when a state newspaper reported that the upper house of Parliament had “unanimously” approved the use of military force in Ukraine, publishing screen shots that showed that only 90 of the body’s 166 members had voted. “It is a sign that the Russian elite is not as monolithic as it is presented to us,”
Any quote by that butcher condemning anything is a mark in said anythings favor.
EPT
