CHRISTIAN NEWS FROM RAY
A free service of Jesus Christ is Lord Ministries
News selected and edited by Ray Mossholder
SPECIAL REPORT 2 MIDNIGHT EDITION March 2, 2014
AS CRIMEAN INVASION WORSENS, THE RED PHONE STAYS HOT
President Obama told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a 90 minute phone call on Saturday that his country sending troops into Ukraine is a “clear violation” of that country’s sovereignty, according to the White House. But the request appeared likely to go unheeded as the Kremlin issued a defiant-sounding statement saying Putin stressed to Obama that the situation in Ukraine poses “real threats” to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots who live in Ukrainian territory. “Vladimir Putin emphasized that, in the case of a further spread in violence in eastern regions (of Ukraine) and Crimea, Russia maintains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population that lives there,” the Kremlin statement said.
The leaders spoke for about 90 minutes with Obama expressing his “deep concern” over Russia’s actions in the past two days and called on Putin to de-escalate tensions by withdrawing his forces back to bases in Crimea and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine, the White House said. Obama also called Russia’s actions a “violation of international law” and said they will lead to “greater political and economic isolation,” according to the readout of the conversation from the White House Office of the Press Secretary.
The United States in the coming hours and days will talk with allies and partners in the UN Security Council and others and suspend upcoming participation in preparatory meetings for the G-8 summit in Sochi, Russia, the White House also said.
Obama also discussed the situation with French President Francois Hollande and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. According to a statement released by the White House, the leaders agreed to coordinate closely and pledged to work together on a package of support and assistance to help Ukraine.
Earlier on Saturday, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke with Ukraine’s President Oleksandr Turchynov “to assure him he had the strong support of the United States and commend the new government for showing the utmost restraint in the face of the clear and present danger to the integrity of their state, and the assaults on their sovereignty.”
“We also urge that the Government of Ukraine continue to make clear, as it has from throughout this crisis, its commitment to protect the rights of all Ukrainians and uphold its international obligations,” a statement released Saturday evening said. Kerry also convened a call with his counterparts from around the world to coordinate on next steps.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke by telephone with his Russian counterpart and stressed that “without a change on the ground,” Russia risks further instability in the region, isolation in the international community and an escalation that would threaten European and international security,” the Pentagon said.
Earlier in the day, White House officials huddled in a high-level meeting to work on a response to Russia’s efforts to move military forces into neighboring Ukraine, as Capitol Hill leaders pledged support for the Ukrainians and called on Obama to order an immediate U.S. Response. The meeting came hours after Russia’s parliament gave Putin the military go-ahead to protect Russian interests in neighboring Ukraine.
Among those gathered at the White House were Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, CIA Director John Brennan, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
Ukraine is amid a major political unrest that started three months ago and last month resulted in the ouster of President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
On Saturday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called on Obama to lead an immediate international effort — including targeted sanctions — to halt Russian military intervention. “The United States and our European allies should immediately bring to bear all elements of our collective economic strength to stop Russian advances in Ukraine,” said Democrats and Republicans on the committee, including Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, the top GOP lawmaker in the group.
They said Congress will also consider targeted sanctions against Russian people and entities that “undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine” and that the Russian government “felt free to intervene militarily in Ukraine” because the United States and Europe have failed to make clear there will be serious consequences.
Obama on Saturday also told Putin that if Russia has concerns about the treatment of ethnic Russian and minority populations in Ukraine, the appropriate way to address them is peacefully through direct engagement with the government of Ukraine and through the dispatch of international observers under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
FROM THE UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations Security Council met Saturday in open and closed sessions, marking the second consecutive day members have discussed the crisis in Ukraine.
After meeting behind closed doors, the 15-member council agreed to hold an open, televised meeting despite objections from permanent member Russia. Ukraine asked the other four permanent council members — the U.S., Britain, France and China — for help in stopping Russia’s “aggression.” Ukraine’s U.N. ambassador, Yuriy Sergeyev, says Russia has rejected Ukraine’s proposal to hold immediate bilateral consultations.
Sergeyev also on Saturday called on Putin to not follow through with talk of military invasion. And he demanded that Russian military aggression against Ukraine stop immediately before the conflict spirals out of control. He called deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich “crazy.” When asked later whether Ukraine is at war with Russia, Sergeyev said, “No. We are not at war. We are trying to avoid any clashes. We are being provoked.”
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call to “urgently engage in direct dialogue with the authorities” in Kiev.
Calling the situation in Ukraine “as dangerous as it is destabilizing,” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power told the council, “It is time for the Russian military intervention in Ukraine to end.” Power and other members of the council called for sending international monitors to Ukraine as soon as possible to observe the situation, and Power warned that “Russia’s provocative actions could easily push the situation beyond the breaking point.” She also mentioned work on an international mediation mission to send to Ukraine. The council took no action. But the current council president, Luxembourg Ambassador Sylvie Lucas, said members stressed the importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the need to lower tensions, in addition to the need for international monitors.
Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said the new government in Kiev needs to get away from “radicals” and warned, “such actions they’re taking could lead to very difficult developments, which the Russian Federation is trying to avoid.”
Russia has given refuge to Ukraine’s now-fugitive president, Viktor Yanukovych, who fled after demonstrations turned violent amid tensions over his decision to turn Ukraine toward Russia, its longtime patron, instead of the European Union.
Churkin said Russia was intervening at the request of pro-Russian authorities in the semi-autonomous Crimea, which is largely Russian-speaking and is home to Russia’s Black Sea navy fleet.
British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, who called for Saturday’s meeting, told reporters after the meeting that `there is no justification for Russia’s military activities in the last 48 hours.”
Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson called the situation in Ukraine “very difficult and very dangerous” and said they were seeing “negative signs, serious signs, risks of escalation.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING(CNN) Russia approved the use of military force in Ukraine on Saturday, despite warnings of consequences from the West, and Ukraine responded by saying any invasion into its territory would be illegitimate. The acting prime minister has gone so far as to say that a Russian invasion would mean war and an end to his country’s relationship with Russia.
But there are so many questions as to how Ukraine arrived at this point: Why is Russia so interested in happenings there? Why does the West want to prevent Russian intervention? How did we get here? Why have thousands of protesters staking their lives, seemingly, on their desire for political change? And why has the government resisted their calls so vehemently? Let’s take a look:
1. Why has Russia gotten so involved?
Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea have closer ties to Russia, while Western Ukraine is more friendly with Europe. Many Eastern Ukrainians still speak Russian, and the 2010 presidential elections divided the country with Eastern Ukraine voting heavily in favor of pro-Russia Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. On Saturday, the Kremlin issued a statement that Russian President Vladimir Putin told U.S. President Barack Obama that Russia approved military action in Ukraine because it “reserves the right to defend its interests and the Russian-speaking people who live there.”
2, Hasn’t Yanukovych stepped down?
The Ukraine Parliament voted him out of power and he has fled to Russia. However, in a press conference Friday, the former President said — in Russian rather than Ukrainian — that he was not overthrown. He insisted he was still the boss and that he wants nothing more than to lead his country to peace, harmony and prosperity. While it’s unclear if he could return to power, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations blamed members of the European Union for the bloody demonstrations that led to Yanukovych’s ouster.
3. What will happen in Ukraine if Russia sends troops there?
Top Ukrainian officials, including the acting President and prime minister, have said they are prepared to defend the country. They’ve also said that any invasion would be illegitimate, a response echoed by the United States, which has told Russia to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.
4. Would there be international backlash to a Russian incursion?
The United Nations has warned Russia against military action, while Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told Putin “dialogue must be the only tool in ending the crisis.” International leaders have also denounced the prospect of Russian involvement, while Obama has warned there would be consequences if Russia acted militarily.
What sort of consequences?
Obama hasn’t been specific other than to say Russia could face “greater political and economic isolation” and that the United States “will suspend upcoming participation in preparatory meetings for the G-8″ in Sochi. Several Republican leaders in Congress have called on the President to take a tougher stand.
What are Obama’s options?
Sanctions, of course, top the list of options, but the United States will need to prepare for the backlash. Former presidential adviser David Gergen says Putin would consider any sanctions “small potatoes” compared to keeping control of Crimea, while Putin could pull his support for Obama’s initiative to reduce nuclear threats in the world, including in Iran. Christopher Hill, former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Macedonia, Iraq and Poland, says imposing sanctions also raises the risk of alienating a superpower. “That means 20 years of trying to work with Russia down the drain,” he said.
7. What started the turmoil in Ukraine?
Protests initially erupted over a trade pact. For a year, Yanukovych insisted he was intent on signing a historical political and trade agreement with the European Union. But on November 21, he decided to suspend talks with the EU.
8. What would the pact have done?
The deal, the EU’s “Eastern Partnership,” would have created closer political ties and generated economic growth. It would have opened borders to trade and set the stage for modernization and inclusion, supporters of the pact said.
9. Why did Yanukovych backpedal?
He had his reasons. Chief among them was Russia’s opposition to it. Russia threatened its much smaller neighbor with trade sanctions and steep gas bills if Ukraine forged ahead. If Ukraine didn’t, and instead joined a Moscow-led Customs Union, it would get deep discounts on natural gas, Russia said.
10. Were there any other reasons?
Yes, a more personal one. Yanukovych also was facing a key EU demand that he was unwilling to meet: Free former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, his bitter political opponent. Two years ago, she was found guilty of abuse of office in a Russian gas deal and sentenced to seven years in prison, in a case widely seen as politically motivated. Her supporters say she needs to travel abroad for medical treatment.
11. What happened next?
Many Ukrainians were outraged. They took to the streets, demanding that Yanukovych sign the EU deal. Their numbers swelled. The demonstrations drew parallels to Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, which booted Yanukovych, then a prime minister, from office.
12. Who’s heading the opposition?
It’s not just one figure, but a coalition. The best known figure is Vitali Klitschko. He’s a former world champion boxer (just like his brother Wladimir). Klitschko heads the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms party. But the opposition bloc goes well beyond Klitschko and the UDAR. There’s also Arseniy Yatsenyuk, now acting Prime Minister and a Christian.
13. How did Yanukovych react?
In a way that inflamed passions further. He flew to Moscow, where he and Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Russia would buy $15 billion in Ukrainian debt and slash the price Kiev pays for its gas. And then, when the demonstrations showed no signs of dying down, he adopted a sweepting anti-protest law.
14. What did the anti-protest law say?
The law barred people from wearing helmets and masks to rallies and from setting up tents or sound equipment without prior police permission. This sparked concerns it could be used to put down demonstrations and deny people the right to free speech — and clashes soon escalated. The demonstrators took over City Hall for the better part of three months.
15. But wasn’t the law repealed?
Yes, ultimately it was. Amid intense pressure, deputies loyal to Yanukovych backtracked and overturned it. But by then, the protests had become about something much bigger: constitutional reform.
16. What change in the constitution did they want to see?
The protesters want to see a change in the government’s overall power structure. They feel that too much power rests with Yanukovych and not enough with parliament.
17. What did the government do?
In late January, the President offered a package of concessions under which Yatsenyuk, the opposition leader, would have become the prime minister and, under the President’s offer, been able to dismiss the government. He also offered Klitschko the post of deputy prime minister on humanitarian issues. He also agreed to a working group looking at changes to the constitution. But the opposition refused.
18. Why did the opposition pass on the offer?
The concessions weren’t enough to satisfy them. They said Yanukovych had hardly loosened his grip on the government, nor had he seemingly reined in the authorities’ approach to protesters. “We’re finishing what we started,” Yatsenyuk said.
19. Who was to blame for the clashes?
Depends on whom you ask. The government pointed the finger at protesters. The opposition, in turn, blamed the government.
20. What’s the takeaway here?
Street protests that started in November over a trade pact swelled into something much bigger — resulting in the former President fleeing to Russia for safety while still claiming to be the official leader of the country. With Russian troops rumored to be preparing for hostilities in the Crimea, the future of the region and the resulting effect on U.S.-Russian relations appears shaky.
CNN’s Marie-Louise Gumuchian and Antonia Mortensen contributed to this report
AMERICA VERSUS RUSSIA? TWO VIEWS: FOX NEWS AND CNN
FOX
Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com’s “DefCon 3.” She served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She was an aide to Dr. Henry Kissinger at the White House, and in 1984 Ms. McFarland wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s groundbreaking “Principles of War ” speech. She received the Defense Department’s highest civilian award for her work in the Reagan administration.
Russia, flush with new-found wealth from oil exports, expands its military reach and political influence abroad. A war-weary America slashes defense spending and retreats from the world. The president embarks on a massive government-subsidized program to develop alternative energy to replace fossil fuels.
Pundits cluck about America in retreat, and point to the rise of an Asian economic superpower. That’s the world circa 1976, but it sounds like quotes ripped from today’s headlines.
History has a way of repeating itself. The Obama administration is looking a lot like the Carter administration. Only worse.
President Obama may think the Cold War is over, as dated as yesteryear’s fashions. But President Putin thinks it’s game on, and Russia is winning. And there is ample evidence to support his claim.
I can’t wait for the pictures from the next Obama-Putin meet-up. It will be in June in Sochi, where President Obama would NOT go for the Olympics, but has to go for the G-8 summit.
In the past, Putin has looked bored, picking lint off his sleeve while Obama droned on.
This time he’ll no doubt have a smirk on his face: he’s got Snowden safely ensconced in Moscow, he’s calling the shots in Syria, he’s taken America’s place with Egypt, and Europe is addicted to his natural gas.
His budget is in surplus and his coffers flush with oil revenues.
His military is moving into regions the Americans are retreating from.
He’s even sending warships to Cuba.
Putin has a lot to smile about.
The Obama administration, in contrast, has presided over a series of foreign policy disasters. “Leading from behind” has resulted in the predictable outcome: the guys up front no longer look over their shoulders for orders. America isn’t leading from behind, it’s being left behind.
Our allies no longer trust us, and our adversaries no longer fear us. We’ve alienated Poland and the Czech Republic by canceling our missile shield agreements.
We didn’t even figure in the Ukraine negotiations. The Europeans are mad at us for spying on them.
We’ve lost two wars, not on the field of battle in Afghanistan and Iraq but in the corridors of power in Washington, Baghdad and Kabul. Even President Karzai, a guy we created, is pushing us around.
In the Middle East, we’ve managed to alienate historic allies like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
We’ve negotiated a deal with Iran which allows them to keep their nuclear facilities while we lift sanctions and their economy booms. They will soon have plenty of extra cash to pay for terrorists, cyberattacks and WMD.
Japan and South Korea doubt our reliability as treaty partners.
The Chinese are taking advantage of America’s weakness to make claims to the South and East China seas.
Even that nuclear weapon toting, pipsqueak North Korean boy-president taunts America with videos of Obama burning.
But all is not lost. America has a way of reinventing itself just as things seem darkest. That will be as true in the next few years as it was 35 years ago. This time American ingenuity, entrepreneurialism and abundant natural resources will lead the way with a new energy industry that will dwarf anything in Russia or the Middle East.
By 2020 America will be THE energy superpower on the planet. We will no longer export billions of dollars to import oil from countries that hate us.
We will no longer be embroiled in Arab civil wars that have commanded our presence for decades.
Cheap oil and natural gas will bring manufacturing back to America and we will make things again and unemployment will vanish. Not only will we be energy independent, we will be energy exporters to countries like China, India and Japan. And the inevitable lower oil and gas prices will bankrupt Russia.
So Mr. Putin, smirk all you want for now. You may think the Cold War is back on and you’re winning. But it won’t last.
And don’t worry America. We survived Jimmy Carter and we will survive Barack Obama. Only one questions remains….who is the next Ronald Reagan?
FROM CNN
By Leon Aron, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Leon Aron is resident scholar and director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. The views expressed are his own.
To understand what motivates Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Ukrainian crisis and how he will proceed, we have to recall two key things about his strategy and his tactics.
First, Russian foreign policy – whether under Brezhnev, Yeltsin, Putin or anyone after him – is informed by three imperatives: Russia as a nuclear superpower, Russia as the world’s great power, and Russia as the central power in the post-Soviet geopolitical space. And a power that is political, economic, cultural, diplomatic and most certainly military.
What differs from one Russian political regime to another is interpretation and implementation, that is, the policies that support these objectives. Putin’s have been far more assertive and at times riskier than those of his predecessors. The nuclear “superpowership” has been translated into a vehement opposition to missile defense in Europe. Russia as a great power has been defined largely in opposition to the U.S. and the West in general. And the centrality of Russia in the post-Soviet space has been re-interpreted as dominance and control.
Ukraine’s European breakout – caused by Putin’s first major political blunder in openly and heavy handedly betting on ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and thus escalating the issue from corruption and thievery to Ukraine’s sovereignty – is hugely important to Putin’s Russia. Why? Because it has dealt a very heavy, perhaps fatal, blow to not one but two elements of the Russian geostrategic triad as defined by Putin: to the “great power” pillar (the West has won in the Ukraine!), and to Russia’s control in the post-Soviet space.
From Moscow’s point of view, the double whammy must be mitigated – or better yet reversed – before the consequences become irrevocable and the geopolitical map of Eurasia permanently redrawn. As a result, for as long as the eye can see, containment, de-stabilization and, if possible, derailment of the Europe-bound Ukraine will be by far the most important objective of Russian foreign (as well domestic) policy.
As to the tactics, in his effectively 14 years in power, Putin has been very lucky both in his domestic and foreign endeavors, in part because of objective factors (when he took over as acting president in 1999, a barrel of crude averaged around $17 a barrel) and in large measure because his opponents, at home and abroad, were politically or economically handicapped.
As a result, Putin has trusted his luck and his smarts while counting on his opponents’ weaknesses. This means he has operated in accordance with Napoleon’s principle: On s’engage and puis on voit, which I would translate as “First get into a fight, and then decide what to do.”
And that is how he has proceeded thus far, gradually escalating the pressure on Ukraine, seeing what works and what does not, pausing and looking over his shoulder at the response from the West, primarily the U.S. From the expression of concern for the safety of ethnic Russians in Ukraine (which proved ineffective), to the questioning of the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government, to the introduction of forces in the Crimea, to his “request” to the Federation Council of the Russian parliament for the “use of troops in Ukraine. In accordance with his tactical habits, Putin will likely stop now and assess the reaction. A full-scale invasion and occupation of Crimea is therefore likely to be next – unless the response from the “West” proves effective.
What will that response be? We know (and so surely does Putin) that the U.S. is not going to go to war over Ukraine. Yet even with the military option off the table, the U.S. still has quite a few diplomatic and economic tools at its disposal, to be deployed publicly and, most crucially, privately.
The U.S. and its allies also must keep in mind that most, if not all, of these measures are aimed not only at Putin but at the elites around him and at the Russian public at large. Dominant though he is, Putin is not Stalin or Brezhnev. Russia is not the Soviet Union, the Iron Curtain is gone – the internet exists and public opinion matters.
The West’s steps are not difficult to divine. To begin, in the public domain, separate statements and phone calls to Putin by U.S. allies would be replaced by a joint statement from the heads of state of NATO and EU countries warning about the “consequences” of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Such a statement should stress that Russia risks isolating itself from the world – economically, politically, culturally – with disastrous results for the people of the Russian Federation.
These “consequences” may have been spelled out in President Obama’s private call to Putin (with an understanding that what is private today may become public tomorrow). Ideally, the conversation would have been one in which the American president was speaking not only for the U.S., but also for NATO and the EU. The president is likely to have pointed out that the risks would involve Russia’s membership in the G-8, the safety of financial and other assets of the Russian elite which are located outside of Russia, as well as the ability of the members of this elite and their families to visit, live or study in the U.S. and the EU. In addition, Moscow’s behavior could trigger new export controls, which given its dependence on Western technology, particularly in the oil and gas sector as well as in the food industry, could have a very negative impact on the Russian economy.
Alongside these measures, the U.S. and its allies might also provide – publicly and in private – a few face-saving devices for Russia, such as guarantees that the Russian-speaking Ukrainians will be free from harassment or discrimination of any kind; an introduction of U.N. peacemaking forces in Crimea to protect the political rights of allCrimeans, and the reaffirmation of the pre-existing “special status” of Crimea within Ukraine, as well as the continuation of the pre-existing Russian sovereignty of the leased naval base in Sevastopol.
Given the size of the hole that the Ukrainian revolution has torn in the fabric of Russia’s geopolitics, these measures may not stop Russia from attempting to reverse the crisis. But they will certainly convey the increasing costs of the course in which the Kremlin seems to be embarking, and possibly provide a way out without losing face.
The Prime Minister of Ukraine has asked you to pray for his country. Please do.
Ray
******************************
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Every cloud has a silver lining except a war cloud.
****************************
CHRISTIAN NEWS FROM RAY – SPECIAL REPORT 2 MIDNIGHT EDITION March 2, 2014