11 DAYS UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY. SINCE DECEMBER 1, SOUTHFRONT HAS COLLECTED 1,466 USD. THIS IS ABOUT 31% OF THE MINIMUM MONTHLY BUDGET. WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR SUPPORT:
PayPal: email@example.com, http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9
In a December 2019 report [pdf], the German Bundestag admitted that Russia had a role in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, however none of it could be deemed as an armed intervention in Eastern Ukraine.
The document said that Russian humanitarian and military support couldn’t be denied, as well as the support provided to the two republics in establishing their states, however none of it could be deemed as an armed intervention in regard to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.
As per the report, there is no sufficient evidence that Russia controls any DPR or LPR military units, and there is no evidence of any presence of the Russian military.
Intervention in a civil war, though, violates the sovereignty of the state on whose territory this conflict occurs, but does not necessarily turn the conflict into an international one.
The prospects for Ukraine in a court accusing Russia of supporting terrorism seem rather vague, because there are no facts of terrorism itself, that is, deliberate and intentional killing of civilians, by separatists.
The document describes the conflict as a civil war, in which the Russian side has already intervened. The report, furthermore, takes a look at the situation through the perspective of international law and provides some other precedents: such as the support for Nicaraguan Contras by the United States.
In the International Court of Justice proceedings ‘Ukraine against Russia’, the Hague Court made a decision on precautionary measures in accordance with Article 73 et seq to end the form of discrimination against minorities on the Crimean Peninsula, the Court’s did not consider it proven that Russia financed terrorism at the state level.
The judges acknowledged that a significant number of civilians were killed in the fighting. However, the separatists should have intentionally and deliberately killed them in order to be able to speak lawfully of terrorism. Ukraine has not provided sufficient evidence for this:
„(…) for the purposes of a request for the indication of provisional measures, a State party to the Convention may avail itself of the rights under Article 18 only if it is plausible that the acts complained of constitute acts of terrorism. The Court observes that the acts to which Ukraine refers have given rise to the death and injury of a large number of civilians. However, in order to determine whether the rights for which Ukraine seeks protection are at least plausible, it is necessary to ascertain whether there are sufficient reasons for considering that the elements set out in Article 2, such as intention and knowledge, as well as the element of purpose, are present. The Court is of the view that, at this stage of the proceedings, Ukraine has not put before it evidence which affords a sufficient basis to find it plausible that these elements are present. Therefore, it concludes that the conditions required for the indication of provisional measures in respect of the rights alleged by Ukraine on the basis of the ICSFT are not met.”
However, the court proceedings were deemed enough to move forward on November 9th, 2019, but no decision on the case should be expected prior to 2021.
At the same time, an aid to recognizing extremism signs and symbols, issued by the UK’s Counter Terrorism office in June 2019 included symbols of Ukrainian nationalists. [pdf]
The Ukrainian Embassy in the UK immediately condemned the inclusion of an “Ukrainian national symbol” in the extremism guide, and said that it should be removed.
Placing the Trident #Tryzub, constitutional national symbol&Coat of Arms of #Ukraine, in Extremism Guide produced by @TerrorismPolice for UK teachers&medical staff is beyond outrageous. No explanations acceptable. We demand Trident to be removed from Guide with official apologies pic.twitter.com/sYbjW9yrsb
— Ukraine's Emb. to UK (@UkrEmbLondon) January 19, 2020
The Ukrainian side failed to mention that the symbol is used by the Azov battalion, and other Nazi-infested volunteer battalions, and it is specifically used to spread right-wing extremist ideology.
— андрей захаров (@Pl49URCec19TY0P) January 19, 2020
It’s true pic.twitter.com/ZMngjIFF2L
— Breege_XLII (@Breege_XLII) January 19, 2020
Germany admitting that Russia actually helps in Eastern Ukraine, and doesn’t actually partake in any terrorist activity, and the UK adding the Ukrainian “national symbol” to their extremism guide lead to several conclusions:
- The European countries are aware of the facts that the new Kiev government is filled to the brim with various radical and Nazi elements, it furthermore funds Nazis, as it even introduced a pension reform for veterans from the Nazi-infested elements. Furthermore, it supports radical and Nazi-like ideologies, such as the Ukrainian hero Stepan Bandera and his ideology, various Nazi elements soldiers’ uniforms and so forth. This, in turn, means that more than likely Europe understands that the Kiev government employs various methods of oppression, such as illegal detachments, censorship, political “witch hunts” and more, simply to remain in power. This is also clear for the US, as the Soufan Center’s report also admitted that Ukraine had become the Nazi hub of the world, and there were calls to designate the Azov battalion as a foreign terrorist organization by the US Congress.
- The DPR and LPR resisting this form of governance, and its elements is a natural reaction. This is further reinforced by the attempts in eastern Ukraine to carry out ethnic cleansing in 2014, by Kiev-backed radicals toward the Russian, as well as Russian-speaking population. And the Kiev-backed radicals did achieve partial successes, such as the massacre in Odessa.
- The Western governments widely ignore the open secrets, because it clearly doesn’t fit the policy towards Russia and the established narrative. It also reveals the truth behind the Western policy and conduct towards the 2014 coup in Ukraine.
Any impartial and objective look at the situation always produces evidence and observations that contradict what the US and Co. attempt to propagate as fact.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
- Ukraine Became World’s Largest Nazi Hub
- Ukrainian Parliament Passes Resolution For the Celebration of Nazi Anniversaries
- “My Swastika has Curved Edges, I am not a Nazi”: Ukrainian Defender Of Democracy To Dutch Media
- Ukrainian Prime Minister Appears To Be Neo-Nazis’ Supporter