WiZeus > Putin Files | putin20140305USA.html

U.S. Department of State | 05Mar2014 | [1] Putin's Fictions, [2] NATO 11Apr2014,  [3] USA 13Apr2014, [4] USA 13Apr2014, [5] NATO 11Jul2014, [6] USA 14Jul2014
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222988.htm
http://www.xoxol.org/putin/ten-false-claims.html

[U.S. Department of State: Ukraine]
[U.S. DipNote Blog]

President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine

Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 5, 2014


As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, "The formula 'two times two equals five' is not without its attractions."

Below are 10 of President Vladimir Putin's recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.

1.  Mr. Putin says:  Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets.  It is "citizens' defense groups," not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.

The Facts:  Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea.  While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military.  Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians.

2.  Mr. Putin says:  Russia's actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

The Facts:  The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity.  Russia's military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

3.  Mr. Putin says:  The opposition failed to implement the February 21, 2014 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The Facts:  The February 21, 2014 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament.  Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion.  Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain.  Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.

4.  Mr. Putin says:  Ukraine's government is illegitimate.  Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.

The Facts:  On March 4, 2014, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych "has no political future."  After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government.  Ukraine's new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes -- more than an 82% majority.  The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th, 2014 -- elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country.

5.  Mr. Putin says:  There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.

The Facts:  To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis.  Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia.  International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims.  Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees.

6.  Mr. Putin says:  Ethnic Russians are under threat.

The Facts:  Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat.  The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset.  President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level.  Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats.  Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv.  There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents.

7.  Mr. Putin says:  Russian bases are under threat.

The Facts:  Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases.  It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action.

8.  Mr. Putin says:  There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.

The Facts:  Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches.  All of Ukraine's church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing.  Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.

9.  Mr. Putin says:  Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea.

The Facts:  Ukraine's interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue.  Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea.  The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation.  Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada.

10.  Mr. Putin says:  The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.

The Facts:  The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine.  Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine.  Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada.  There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.

[2]
North Atlantic Treaty Organization | 11Apr2014 | Russia's Accusations
www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_109141.htm
 www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2014/20140411_140411-factsheet_russia_en.pdf
http://www.xoxol.org/putin/nato-setting-the-record-straight.html

Russia's accusations -- setting the record straight

Fact Sheet -- 11 Apr 2014

Russia's aggression against Ukraine has led to Russia's international isolation, including NATO's suspension of all practical cooperation with Russia.  To divert attention away from its actions, Russia has levelled a series of accusations against NATO which are based on misrepresentations of the facts and ignore the sustained effort that NATO has put into building a partnership with Russia.  Russia has also made baseless attacks on the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities and has used force to seize part of Ukraine's territory.  This document sets the record straight.

NATO - Russia relations

Russia claims that NATO has spent years trying to marginalise it internationally.

Since the early 1990s the Alliance has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia on areas of mutual interest, and striven towards a strategic partnership.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, as the London NATO Summit of July 1990 made clear (declaration here).  In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating new fora, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia (PfP founding documents here and here).

As a sign of Russia's unique role in Euro-Atlantic security, in 1997 NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council.  In 2002 they upgraded that relationship, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC).  (The Founding Act can be read here, the Rome Declaration which established the NRC here.)

Since the foundation of the NRC, NATO and Russia have worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning.  No other partner has been offered a comparable relationship.

Far from marginalising Russia, NATO has treated it as a privileged partner.

NATO's continuation and enlargement

Russian officials say that NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War, and that the accession of new Allies from Central and Eastern Europe undermines Russia's security.

NATO was not disbanded after the Cold War because its members wanted to retain the bond that had guaranteed security and stability in the transatlantic area, as the London Declaration makes clear: "We need to keep standing together, to extend the long peace we have enjoyed these past four decades".  Upholding the values that have always guided it, NATO became more than a powerful military Alliance: it became a political forum for dialogue and cooperation.

NATO's Open Door policy has been, and will always be, based on the free choice of European democracies.  When Ukraine decided to pursue a "non-bloc policy," NATO fully respected that choice.  Russia's long-time assertion that NATO tried to force Ukraine into its ranks was, and remains, completely false.

NATO has fulfilled the terms of Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty (available here) which states that Allies "may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty."

On six occasions, between 1952 and 2009, European countries made the choice to apply for membership based on a democratic process and respect for the rule of law.  NATO Allies made the unanimous choice to accept them.  NATO and EU enlargement has helped the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to tackle difficult reforms, which were required prior to accession.  It has helped their citizens enjoy the benefits of democratic choice, the rule of law, and substantial economic growth.  These efforts have moved Europe closer to being whole, free, and at peace than at any other time in history.

Russia also subscribed to this vision in the Founding Act.  It committed to "creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence," and to "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security."

Contrary to those commitments, Russia now appears to be attempting to recreate a sphere of influence by seizing a part of Ukraine, maintaining large numbers of forces on its borders, and demanding, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently stated, that "Ukraine cannot be part of any bloc."

Russian claims that NATO promised not to enlarge

Russian officials claim that US and German officials promised in 1990 that NATO would not expand into Eastern and Central Europe, build military infrastructure near Russia's borders or permanently deploy troops there.  No such pledge was made, and no evidence to back up Russia's claims has ever been produced. Should such a promise have been made by NATO as such, it would have to have been as a formal, written decision by all NATO Allies.  Furthermore, the consideration of enlarging NATO came years after German reunification.  This issue was not yet on the agenda when Russia claims these promises were made.

Allegations about NATO pledging not to build infrastructure close to Russia are equally inaccurate.  In the Founding Act, NATO reiterated "in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.  Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks.  In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures."

NATO has indeed supported the upgrading of military infrastructure, such as air bases, in the countries which have joined the Alliance, commensurate with the requirements for reinforcement and exercises.  However, the only combat forces permanently stationed on the territory of the new members are their own armed forces. Even before the Ukraine crisis, the only routinely visible sign of Alliance forces in the new members were the NATO jets used in the Baltic States for the air policing mission.  These minimal defensive assets cannot be described as substantial combat forces in the meaning of the Founding Act.

Since the crisis, NATO has taken steps to increase situational awareness and bolster the defences of our Eastern members.  This, too, is entirely consistent with the Founding Act and is a direct result of Russia's destabilizing military actions.

Finally, the Act also states, "Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe."  Russia's aggression against Ukraine is a flagrant breach of this commitment, as is its unilateral suspension of compliance with the CFE Treaty.

Russian claims that NATO has ignored its concerns over missile defence

NATO has not ignored Russia's concerns.  On the contrary, the Alliance has consistently sought cooperation with Russia on missile defence.  At the Lisbon Summit of 2010, NATO Heads of State and Government "decided to develop a missile defence capability to protect all NATO European populations, territory and forces, and invited Russia to cooperate with us" (declaration here).

This was reiterated at the Chicago Summit in May 2012 (here), where leaders underlined that NATO "remains committed to cooperation on missile defence in a spirit of mutual trust and reciprocity", and stated explicitly that NATO missile defence "will not undermine Russia's strategic deterrence capabilities".  NATO also proposed a transparency regime including the creation of two NATO-Russia joint missile-defence centres.  Russia has declined these offers.

These Summit declarations are more than political promises: they define NATO's policies.  Rather than taking NATO up on cooperation, Russia has advanced arguments that ignore physics as well as NATO's expressed policies.  Independent Russian military experts have made clear that NATO's missile defence programme could not pose any threat to Russia or degrade the effectiveness of its strategic deterrent forces.  The Russian government has used missile defence as an excuse for accusations rather than an opportunity for partnership.

Russian criticism of the legitimacy of NATO military actions -- Libya

In seeking to defend its illegal actions in Crimea, Russia has attacked the legitimacy of some of NATO's operations.

This includes the NATO-led operation of 2011 to protect civilians in Libyan.  The NATO-led operation was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), UNSCRs 1970 & 1973, both quoting Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and neither of which was opposed by Russia.  President Putin recently accused NATO of violating the resolutions by bombing Libya.  This is entirely inaccurate.

UNSCR 1973 authorized NATO "to take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack", which is what NATO did, with the political and military support of regional states and members of the Arab League.

After the conflict, NATO cooperated with the UN International Commission of Inquiry on Libya, which found no breach of UNSCR 1973 or international law, concluding instead that "NATO conducted a highly precise campaign with a demonstrable determination to avoid civilian casualties."

Russia criticism of the legitimacy of NATO military actions -- Kosovo

The NATO operation related to Kosovo followed over a year of intense efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to bring about a peaceful solution. The UN Security Council on several occasions branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees driven from their homes as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's Operation Allied Force was launched despite the lack of Security Council authorisation to prevent the large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians.

Following the air campaign, the subsequent NATO-led operation, KFOR, which initially included Russia, has been under UN mandate (UNSCR 1244), with the aim of providing a safe and secure environment for Kosovo.  This led to nearly ten years of diplomacy, under UN authority, to find a political solution and to settle Kosovo's final status, as prescribed by UNSCR 1244.

The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole international community dealing with a long-running crisis.  In Crimea, with no evidence of a crisis and no attempt to negotiate any form of solution, Russia bypassed the whole international community, including the UN, and simply occupied a part of another country's territory.

Russian claims that the Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate

The current Ukrainian president and government were approved by an overwhelming majority in the Ukrainian parliament (371 votes out of 417 registered) on 27 February 2014, including members of the Party of Regions.  That parliament was elected on 28 October 2012.  The Russian Foreign Ministry at the time declared that the elections were held "peacefully, without any excesses and in line with generally-accepted standards" and "confirmed Ukraine's commitment to democracy and the rule of law."  The statement can be read in Russian here.  The parliament which Russia called legitimate then can hardly be called illegitimate now.

Russian claims that the so-called referendum in Crimea was legal

Russian officials claim that the so-called referendum in Crimea on 16 March 2014 was legal.

The referendum was illegal according to the Ukrainian constitution (available in Ukrainian here, Russian here, English here), which states that questions "of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum.  Crimea, as part of Ukraine, has the status of an autonomous republic, but any issues about its authority have to be resolved by the Ukrainian parliament (article 134) and its constitution has to be approved by the Ukrainian parliament (article 135).

Additionally, the so-called referendum was organized in a matter of weeks by a self-proclaimed Crimean leadership that was installed by armed Russian military personnel after seizing government buildings.

Russian claims that the annexation of Crimea was justified by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo

Russian leaders claim that the precedent for the so-called declaration of independence of Crimea was the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo (online here).

However, the court stated clearly that their opinion was not a precedent.  The court said they had been given a "narrow and specific" question about Kosovo's independence which would not cover the broader legal consequences of that decision.

The court highlighted circumstances in which claims for independence would be illegal.  This would include if "they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force".  An example of "an unlawful use of force" would be an invasion and occupation by a neighbouring country -- which is exactly what Russia has done.

Furthermore, the process leading to Kosovo's declaration of independence spanned years and included an extensive process led by the United Nations.  Russian claims ignore all of these facts.

[3]
U.S. Department of State | 13Apr2014 | Russian Fiction
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/04/224759.htm?goMobile=0
http://www.xoxol.org/putin/ten-more-false-claims.html

Russian Fiction the Sequel: 10 More False Claims About Ukraine

Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
April 13, 2014

"No amount of propaganda can make right something that the world knows is wrong."
— President Obama, March 26, 2014

Russia continues to spin a false and dangerous narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine.  The Russian propaganda machine continues to promote hate speech and incite violence by creating a false threat in Ukraine that does not exist.  We would not be seeing the violence and sad events that we've witnessed this weekend without this relentless stream of disinformation and Russian provocateurs fostering unrest in eastern Ukraine.  Here are 10 more false claims Russia is using to justify intervention in Ukraine, with the facts that these assertions ignore or distort.

1.  Russia Claims:  Russian agents are not active in Ukraine.

Fact:  The Ukrainian Government has arrested more than a dozen suspected Russian intelligence agents in recent weeks, many of whom were armed at the time of arrest.  In the first week of April 2014, the Government of Ukraine had information that Russian GRU officers were providing individuals in Kharkiv and Donetsk with advice and instructions on conducting protests, capturing and holding government buildings, seizing weapons from the government buildings' armories, and redeploying for other violent actions.  On April 12, 2014, armed pro-Russian militants seized government buildings in a coordinated and professional operation conducted in six cities in eastern Ukraine.  Many were outfitted in bullet-proof vests, camouflage uniforms with insignia removed, and carrying Russian-designed weapons like AK-74s and Dragunovs.  These armed units, some wearing black and orange St. George's ribbons associated with Russian Victory Day celebrations, raised Russian and separatist flags over seized buildings and have called for referendums on secession and union with Russia.  These operations are strikingly similar to those used against Ukrainian facilities during Russia's illegal military intervention in Crimea in late February and its subsequent occupation.

2.  Russia Claims:  Pro-Russia demonstrations are comprised exclusively of Ukrainian citizens acting of their own volition, like the Maidan movement in Kyiv.

Fact:  This is not the grassroots Ukrainian civic activism of the EuroMaidan movement, which grew from a handful of student protestors to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians from all parts of the country and all walks of life.  Russian internet sites openly are recruiting volunteers to travel from Russia to Ukraine and incite violence.  There is evidence that many of these so-called "protesters" are paid for their participation in the violence and unrest.  It is clear that these incidents are not spontaneous events, but rather part of a well-orchestrated Russian campaign of incitement, separatism, and sabotage of the Ukrainian state.  Ukrainian authorities continue to arrest highly trained and well-equipped Russian provocateurs operating across the region.

3.  Russia Claims:  Separatist leaders in eastern Ukraine enjoy broad popular support.

Fact:  The recent demonstrations in eastern Ukraine are not organic and lack wide support in the region.  A large majority of Donetsk residents (65.7 percent) want to live in a united Ukraine and reject unification with Russia, according to public opinion polls conducted at the end of March by the Donetsk-based Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis.  Pro-Russian demonstrations in eastern Ukraine have been modest in size, especially compared with Maidan protests in these same cities in December, and they have gotten smaller as time has progressed.

4.  Russia Claims:  The situation in eastern Ukraine risks spiraling into civil war.

Fact:  What is going on in eastern Ukraine would not be happening without Russian disinformation and provocateurs fostering unrest.  It would not be happening if a large Russian military force were not massed on the border, destabilizing the situation through their overtly threatening presence.  There simply have not been large-scale protests in the region.  A small number of separatists have seized several government buildings in eastern cities like Donetsk, Luhansk, and Slovyansk, but they have failed to attract any significant popular support.  Ukrainian authorities have shown remarkable restraint in their efforts to resolve the situation and only acted when provoked by armed militants and public safety was put at risk.  Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observers have reported that these incidents are very localized.

5.  Russia Claims:  Ukrainians in Donetsk rejected the illegitimate authorities in Kyiv and established the independent "People's Republic of Donetsk."

Fact:  A broad and representative collection of civil society and non-governmental organizations in Donetsk categorically rejected the declaration of a "People's Republic of Donetsk" by the small number of separatists occupying the regional administration building.  These same organizations confirmed their support for the interim government and for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

6.  Russia Claims:  Russia ordered a "partial drawdown" of troops from the Ukrainian border.

Fact:  No evidence shows significant movement of Russian forces away from the Ukrainian border.  One battalion is not enough.  An estimated 35,000-40,000 Russian troops remain massed along the border, in addition to approximately 25,000 troops currently in Crimea.

7.  Russia Claims:  Ethnic Russians in Ukraine are under threat.

Fact:  There are no credible reports of ethnic Russians facing threats in Ukraine.  An International Republican Institute poll released April 5, 2014 found that 74 percent of the Russian-speaking population in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine said they "were not under pressure or threat because of their language."  Meanwhile, in Crimea, the OSCE has raised urgent concerns for the safety of minority populations, especially ethnic Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, and others.  Sadly, the ethnic Russians most at risk are those who live in Russia and who oppose the authoritarian Putin regime.  These Russians are harassed constantly and face years of imprisonment for speaking out against Putin's regular abuses of power.

8.  Russia Claims:  Ukraine's new government is led by radical nationalists and fascists.

Fact:  The Ukrainian parliament (Rada) did not change in February.  It is the same Rada that was elected by all Ukrainians, comprising all of the parties that existed prior to February's events, including former president Yanukovych's Party of Regions.  The new government, approved by an overwhelming majority in the parliament -- including many members of Yanukovych's former party -- is committed to protecting the rights of all Ukrainians, including those in Crimea.

9.  Russia Claims:  Ethnic minorities face persecution in Ukraine from the "fascist" government in Kyiv.

Fact:  Leaders of Ukraine's Jewish as well as German, Czech, and Hungarian communities have all publicly expressed their sense of safety under the new authorities in Kyiv.  Moreover, many minority groups expressed fear of persecution in Russian-occupied Crimea, a concern OSCE observers in Ukraine have substantiated.

10.  Russia Claims:  Russia is not using energy and trade as weapons against Ukraine.

Fact:  Following Russia's illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea, Russia raised the price Ukraine pays for natural gas by 80 percent in the past two weeks.  In addition, it is seeking more than $11 billion in back payments following its abrogation of the 2010 Kharkiv accords.  Russia's moves threaten to increase severely the economic pain faced by Ukrainian citizens and businesses.  Additionally, Russia continues to restrict Ukrainian exports to Russia, which constitute a significant portion of Ukraine's export economy.

[4]
U.S. Department of State | 13Apr2014 | Russian Destabilization of Ukraine
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/04/224762.htm
http://www.xoxol.org/putin/evidence-of-russian-support-for-destabilization-of-ukraine.html

Evidence of Russian Support for Destabilization of Ukraine

Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
April 13, 2014

On April 12, 2014 armed pro-Russian militants seized government buildings in a coordinated and professional operation conducted in six cities in eastern Ukraine.  Many of the militants were outfitted in bullet-proof vests and camouflage uniforms with insignia removed and carrying Russian-origin weapons.  These armed units, some wearing black and orange St. George's ribbons associated with Russian Victory Day celebrations, have raised Russian and separatist flags over the buildings they seized, and called for referendums and union with Russia.

Even more so than the seizure of main government buildings in Ukrainian regional capitals Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv last weekend, these operations bear many similarities to those that were carried out in Crimea in late February and culminated in Russia's illegal military intervention and purported annexation of Crimea.  In the earlier Crimean case, highly organized, well-equipped, and professional forces wearing Russian military uniforms, balaclavas, and military gear without identifying insignia moved in first to take control of Crimean government and security facilities before being later replaced by regular Russian military forces.

In an indication that the April 12, 2014 operations were planned in advance, the takeovers have occurred simultaneously in multiple locations in eastern Ukraine: Donetsk, Slavyansk, Krasnyi Liman, Kramatorsk, Chervonoarmiysk, and Druzhkovka.  There are reports that additional attempts to seize buildings in other eastern Ukrainian towns failed.  Inconsistent with political, grassroots protests, these seizures bear the same defining features and tactics across diverse locations, including takeover of government administration buildings and security headquarters, seizure of weapons in the targeted buildings, forced removal of local officials, rapid establishment of roadblocks and barricades, attacks against communications towers, and deployment of well-organized forces.  In Slavyansk, armed units have now also moved beyond the seized buildings to establish roadblocks and checkpoints in the nearby area.

The Ukrainian Government has reporting indicating that Russian intelligence officers are directly involved in orchestrating the activities of pro-Russian armed resistance groups in eastern Ukraine.  In addition, the Ukrainian Government detained an individual who said that he was recruited by the Russian security services and instructed to carry out subversive operations in eastern and southern Ukraine, including seizing administrative buildings.  All of this evidence undercuts the Russian Government's claims that Ukraine is on the brink of "civil war."

In each of these cases, independent media have been harassed and excluded from covering the seizures, while pro-Russian media were granted special access and used to broadcast the demands of these armed groups.  There are also reports that the forces have taken journalists into custody, attacked at least one, and in one case fired weapons as a warning to other journalists.

The events of April 12, 2014 strongly suggest that in eastern Ukraine Russia is now using the same tactics that it used in Crimea in order to foment separatism, undermine Ukrainian sovereignty, and exercise control over its neighbor in contravention of Russia's obligations under international law.

In the face of these provocations, the legitimate government of Ukraine in Kyiv continues to show restraint and has only used force when public safety was at risk and attempts to resolve the situation through dialogue failed.  Prime Minister Yatsenyuk was in the region on Friday, April 11, 2014, to discuss the central government's willingness to work with regions on decentralization -- including such issues as local elections, local control of budgets and finances and education, and enshrining Russian as an official language -- in advance of the May 25, 2014 presidential elections.

[5]
North Atlantic Treaty Organization | 11Jul2014 | Russia's Accusations
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2014_07/20140716_140716-Factsheet_Russia_en.pdf

Russia's accusations -- setting the record straight

Fact Sheet -- 11 July 2014

Russia's aggression against Ukraine has led to Russia's international isolation, including NATO's suspension of all practical cooperation with Russia.  To divert attention away from its actions, Russia has levelled a series of accusations against NATO which are based on misrepresentations of the facts and ignore the sustained effort that NATO has put into building a partnership with Russia.  Russia has also made baseless attacks on the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities and has used force to seize part of Ukraine's territory.  This document sets the record straight.

Russian claims that the Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate

Ukraine’s President Poroshenko was elected on 25 May 2014 with a clear majority in a vote which the OSCE characterized (report here) as showing the “clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms. ”The only areas where serious restrictions were reported were those controlled by separatists, who undertook “increasing attempts to derail the process.”

In other words, the President is legitimate, the actions of the separatists were not.

The current Ukrainian government was approved by an overwhelming majority in the Ukrainian parliament (371 votes out of 417 registered) on 27 February 2014, including members of the Party of Regions. That parliament was elected on 28 October 2012. The Russian Foreign Ministry at the time declared that the elections were held “peacefully, without any excesses and in line with generally-accepted standards” and “confirmed Ukraine’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law.” The statement can be read in Russian here. The parliament which Russia called legitimate then can hardly be called illegitimate now.

Finally, Russian officials continue to allege that the Ukrainian parliament and government are dominated by “Nazis” and “fascists.” However, in the presidential elections on May 25 2014, the candidates whom Russia labelled as “fascists” received barely 1% of the votes. Ukraine’s electorate clearly voted for unity and moderation, not separatism or extremism.

Russian claims that NATO’s response is escalatory

Russian officials accuse NATO of escalating the crisis in Ukraine by reinforcing the defence of Allies in Eastern Europe. This is a striking display of double standards. It is Russia which is destabilising Europe – not NATO.

Firstly, NATO’s actions throughout the crisis have been proportionate to the situation, and defensive in nature. The Alliance has deployed additional aircraft to reinforce air policing missions, additional ships to the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Seas, and additional troops to exercises on the territory of Eastern Allies.

All of these deployments are limited in scale and designed to reinforce defence. They have been prompted by the instability and unpredictability Russia has generated on our borders by its illegal invasion of a sovereign European country. NATO’s actions cannot be presented as a potential offensive force. To describe them as such shows either ignorance or dishonesty. They are in line with NATO’s international commitments, including the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

In the NATO-Russia Founding Act (available here), NATO reiterates that “in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe.”

Russia, on the other hand, has broken its international commitments, including basic principles in the NATO-Russia Founding Act, such as “refraining from the threat or use of force against each other as well as against any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any manner inconsistent with the United Nations Charter and with the Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations Between Participating States contained in the Helsinki Final Act” and the “respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples’ right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents.”

Between March and May 2014, Russia had massed around 40,000 troops on Ukraine’s border and threatened to invade Ukraine. As of 11 July 2014, Russia still has around 12,000 troops, tanks and, artillery close to the Ukrainian border. Over the past months, Russia has also embarked on an unprecedented schedule of no-notice military exercises involving massive numbers of troops and heavy equipment. Russia should explain what its military plans are before it starts accusing others of posing a threat. Secondly, all of NATO’s deployments have taken place on NATO territory, with the intention to deter threats to NATO territory.
Russia, on the other hand, has illegally annexed Crimea, allowed mercenaries and heavy weapons to flow across its border into Ukraine, and refused to condemn the aggressive and illegal actions of armed separatists in Ukraine, as it committed to do in Geneva in April. Recruiting efforts for separatist fighters are also expanding inside Russia.

NATO is showing strict respect of international borders and international commitments. Russia should do the same.

Russian claims that the so-called referendum in Crimea was legal

Russian officials claim that the so-called referendum in Crimea on 16 March 2014 was legal.

The referendum was illegal according to the Ukrainian constitution (available in Ukrainian here, Russian here, English here), which states that questions “of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum”. Crimea, as part of Ukraine, has the status of an autonomous republic, but any issues about its authority have to be resolved by the Ukrainian parliament (article 134) and its constitution has to be approved by the Ukrainian parliament (article 135).

The UN General Assembly on 27 March 2014 passed a non-binding resolution declaring the so-called referendum invalid (available here). The European Union also does not recognise the alleged outcome.

Additionally, the so-called referendum was organized in a matter of weeks by a self-proclaimed Crimean leadership that was installed by armed Russian military personnel after seizing government buildings. Obviously, any such fake referenda organised by self-appointed authorities who lack all democratic legitimacy are illegal and illegitimate.

It should be noted that Moscow never lodged a single complaint with any international body about the alleged discrimination of Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine.

Russian claim NATO’s continuation and enlargement threatens Russia

Russian officials say that NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War, and that the accession of new Allies from Central and Eastern Europe undermines Russia’s security.

NATO was not disbanded after the Cold War because its members wanted to retain the insurance policy that had guaranteed security and stability in the transatlantic area and beyond. As the London Declaration of 1990 (available here) makes clear: “ We need to keep standing together, to extend the long peace we have enjoyed these past four decades”. Upholding the values that have always guided it, NATO became more than a powerful military Alliance: it became a political forum for dialogue and cooperation.

NATO has fulfilled the terms of Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty (available here) which states that Allies “may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”

On six occasions, between 1952 and 2009, European countries made the choice to apply for membership based on a democratic process and respect for the rule of law. NATO Allies made the unanimous choice to accept them.

NATO and EU enlargement has helped the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to tackle difficult reforms, which were required prior to accession. It has helped their citizens enjoy the benefits of democratic choice, the rule of law, and substantial economic growth. These efforts have moved Europe closer to being whole, free, and at peace than at any other time in history.

Russia also subscribed to this vision in the Founding Act as well as other documents. It committed to “creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence,” and to “respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security.”

Contrary to those commitments, Russia now appears to be attempting to recreate a sphere of influence by seizing a part of Ukraine, maintaining thousands of forces on its borders, and demanding, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has stated, that “Ukraine cannot be part of any bloc.”

On the claim that NATO wants to ‘drag’ Ukraine into NATO

NATO does not ‘drag’ countries into the Alliance. NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. In fact, the Washington Treaty specifically gives Allies the right to leave. Over the past 65 years, 28 countries have chosen freely to join NATO. Not one has asked to leave. This is not dragging, it’s sovereign choice. 

NATO’s Open Door policy has been, and will always be, based on the free choice of European democracies. When in 2002 under President Kuchma Ukraine decided to pursue NATO membership, the Alliance took steps to help fulfil Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. When in 2010 Ukraine decided to pursue a “non-bloc policy”, NATO fully respected that choice. Russia’s long-time assertion that NATO tried to force Ukraine into its ranks was, and remains, completely false.

Any decision for Ukraine to apply for membership would have to be taken by Ukraine, in line with its democratic rules. When Foreign Minister Klimkin was in Brussels in July 2014 he made clear that NATO membership is not on the agenda. The government and people of Ukraine have other priorities. We respect their choices, Russia should do the same.

Claim that Russia had to act to stop NATO from basing missiles and ships in Sevastopol.

This is total fantasy.

NATO had no intention of deploying forces to Sevastopol. This was never discussed and there have never been any plans for that. The only one who talked about this ludicrous claim was President Putin.

In fact, before the Ukraine crisis, the only NATO forces routinely present on the territory of Eastern European Allies were the NATO jets used in the Baltic States for the air policing mission.

On the contrary, the only country which had ships and troops in Sevastopol was Russia, under its agreement with Ukraine. And after the illegal takeover of Crimea, Russia stole most of the ships of the Ukrainian navy and installed additional anti-ship and anti-aircraft batteries to expand its military presence in the region.

Russian claims that NATO promised not to enlarge or build infrastructure in Eastern Europe

Russian officials claim that US and German officials promised in 1990 that NATO would not expand into Eastern and Central Europe, build military infrastructure near Russia’s borders or permanently deploy troops there. No such pledge was made, and no evidence to back up Russia’s claims has ever been produced.

Should such a promise have been made by NATO as such, it would have to have been as a formal, written decision by all NATO Allies. Furthermore, the consideration of enlarging NATO came years after German reunification. This issue was not yet on the agenda when Russia claims these promises were made. The key question Russia should answer is why so many countries, particularly those on its periphery, continue to aspire to join NATO.

Allegations about NATO pledging not to build infrastructure close to Russia are equally inaccurate. As noted above, in the Founding Act, NATO stressed that “in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks.”

NATO has indeed supported the upgrading of military infrastructure, such as air bases, in the countries which have joined the Alliance, commensurate with the requirements for reinforcement and exercises. The process was transparent to all, including Russia. However, the only combat forces permanently stationed on the territory of the new members are their own armed forces. Even before the Ukraine crisis, the only routinely visible sign of Alliance forces on the territory of new members were the NATO jets used in the Baltic States for the air policing mission. These minimal defensive assets cannot be described as substantial combat forces in the meaning of the Founding Act. By contrast, in 2007, Russia unilaterally suspended its compliance with and later on withdrew from the only comprehensive and verifiable arms control regime in Europe, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

Since the crisis, NATO has taken steps to increase situational awareness and bolster the defences of our Eastern members. This, too, is entirely consistent with the Founding Act and is a direct result of Russia’s destabilizing military actions.

Finally, the Act also states, “Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe.” Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a flagrant breach of this commitment.

Russian claims that NATO Missile Defence is a threat to Russia

Russia’s arguments that NATO missile defence could undermine Russia’s strategic deterrent are baseless. NATO’s missile defense is neither designed nor directed against Russia. It is designed and located to defend NATO population and territories against threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.

Moreover, the Alliance has consistently sought cooperation with Russia on missile defence. At the Lisbon Summit of 2010, NATO Heads of State and Government “decided to develop a missile defence capability to protect all NATO European populations, territory and forces, and invited Russia to cooperate with us” (declaration here).

This was reiterated at the Chicago Summit in May 2012 (here), where leaders underlined that NATO “remains committed to cooperation on missile defence in a spirit of mutual trust and reciprocity”, and stated explicitly that NATO missile defence “will not undermine Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities”. NATO also proposed a transparency regime including the creation of two NATO-Russia joint missile-defence centres. Russia has declined these offers.

These Summit declarations are more than political promises: they define NATO’s policies. Rather than taking NATO up on cooperation, Russia has advanced arguments that ignore laws of physics as well as NATO’s expressed policies. Independent Russian military experts have made clear that NATO’s missile defence programme could not pose any threat to Russia or degrade the effectiveness of its strategic deterrent forces. The Russian government has used missile defence as an excuse for accusations rather than an opportunity for partnership.

Russian claims that the U.S. is disinterested in Europe and that the Alliance is not united

Russian officials claim that the United States is no longer interested in the security of Europe. This is simply false. Every single Ally is interested in Europe’s security, and every single Ally is contributing.

Since the crisis began, U.S. soldiers have deployed to the Baltic States - alongside European troops. U.S. ships have sailed in the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Seas, alongside European and Canadian vessels. U.S. aircraft have policed the skies of Eastern Europe, alongside European and Canadian planes. President Obama’s announcement of a European Reassurance Initiative of up to 1 billion dollars to further reinforce NATO’s collective defence underscores the United States’ unwavering commitment to NATO.

The Alliance is also looking into long-term measures to enhance the security of all member states in view of Russia ́s actions. Every single member of NATO is contributing to the Alliance’s response to this crisis. There is no stronger proof of the unity of NATO - and the inaccuracy of Russia’s claims.

NATO - Russia relations

Russia claims that NATO has spent years trying to marginalise it internationally.

Since the early 1990s the Alliance has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia on areas of mutual interest, and striven towards a strategic partnership.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, as the London NATO Summit of July 1990 made clear (declaration here). In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating new fora, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia (PfP founding documents here and here).

As a sign of Russia’s unique role in Euro-Atlantic security, in 1997 NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002 they upgraded that relationship, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC). (The Founding Act can be read here, the Rome Declaration which established the NRC here.)

Since the foundation of the NRC, NATO and Russia have worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. No other partner has been offered a comparable relationship, nor a similar comprehensive institutional framework. Far from marginalising Russia, NATO has treated it as a privileged partner. By contrast, Russia has referred to NATO as a threat in its strategic documents.

Russian criticism of the legitimacy of NATO military actions - Kosovo

The NATO operation for Kosovo followed over a year of intense efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to bring about a peaceful solution. The UN Security Council on several occasions branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees driven from their homes as a threat to international peace and security. NATO’s Operation Allied Force was launched to prevent the large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians.

Following the air campaign, the subsequent NATO-led peacekeeping operation, KFOR, which initially included Russia, has been under UN mandate (UNSCR 1244), with the aim of providing a safe and secure environment in Kosovo. This led to nearly ten years of diplomacy, under UN authority, to find a political solution and to settle Kosovo’s final status, as prescribed by UNSCR 1244.

The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole international community dealing with a long-running crisis. In Crimea, with no evidence of a crisis and no attempt to negotiate any form of solution, Russia bypassed the whole international community, including the UN, and simply occupied a part of another country’s territory.

Russian claims that the annexation of Crimea was justified by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo

Russian leaders claim that the precedent for the so-called declaration of independence of Crimea was the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo (online here).

However, the court stated clearly that their opinion was not a precedent. The court said they had been given a “narrow and specific” question about Kosovo’s independence which would not cover the broader legal consequences of that decision.

The court highlighted circumstances in which claims for independence would be illegal. This would include if “they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force”. An example of “an unlawful use of force” would be an invasion and occupation by a neighbouring country - which is exactly what Russia has done.

Furthermore, the process leading to Kosovo’s declaration of independence spanned years and included an extensive process led by the United Nations. Russian claims ignore all of these facts.

Russian criticism of the legitimacy of NATO military actions - Libya

In seeking to defend its illegal actions in Crimea, Russia has attacked the legitimacy of some of NATO’s operations.

This includes the NATO-led operation of 2011 to protect civilians in Libya. The NATO-led operation was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), UNSCRs 1970 & 1973, both quoting Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and neither of which was opposed by Russia. President Putin recently accused NATO of violating the resolutions by bombing Libya. This is entirely inaccurate.

UNSCR 1973 authorized NATO “to take all necessary measures” to “protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack”, which is what NATO did, with the political and military support of regional states and members of the Arab League.

After the conflict, NATO cooperated with the UN International Commission of Inquiry on Libya, which found no breach of UNSCR 1973 or international law, concluding instead that “NATO conducted a highly precise campaign with a demonstrable determination to avoid civilian casualties.”

[6]
U.S. Embassy Kyiv Blog | 14Jul2014 | Office of the Spokesperson
http://usembassykyiv.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/russias-continuing-support-for-armed-separatists-in-ukraine-and-ukraines-efforts-toward-peace-unity-and-stability/

Russia’s Continuing Support for Armed Separatists in Ukraine and Ukraine’s Efforts Toward Peace, Unity, and Stability

Posted by: Office of the Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State
July 14, 2014
Читати українською

The United States’ goal throughout the crisis in Ukraine has been to support a democratic Ukraine that is stable, unified, secure both politically and economically, and able to determine its own future. Therefore, we support ongoing dialogue among the foreign ministers from Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia to work toward a sustainable ceasefire by all parties in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions in eastern Ukraine that would build toward a lasting peace. We should emphasize, however, that our ultimate goal is not just a temporary halt to violence. We want Russia to stop destabilizing Ukraine and occupying Crimea, a part of Ukraine’s territory, and allow all of the people of Ukraine to come together to make their own decisions about their country’s future through a democratic political process.

Ukrainian President Poroshenko has proposed a detailed peace plan that includes a promise of amnesty for separatists who laid down their arms voluntarily, and who are not guilty of capital crimes, decentralization of powers within Ukraine, and protection of the Russian language. He also implemented a unilateral ten-day ceasefire on June 20 to create room for a political solution, which unfortunately was not reciprocated by the separatists and their Russian backers.

While Russia says it seeks peace, its actions do not match its rhetoric. We have no evidence that Russia’s support for the separatists has ceased. In fact, we assess that Russia continues to provide them with heavy weapons, other military equipment and financing, and continues to allow militants to enter Ukraine freely. Russia denies this, just as it denied its forces were involved in Crimea -- until after the fact. Russia has refused to call for the separatists to lay down their arms, and continues to mass its troops along the Ukrainian border. Many self-proclaimed “leaders” of the separatists hail from Russia and have ties to the Russian government. This all paints a telling picture of Russia’s continued policy of destabilization in eastern Ukraine.

Here are the facts:

Ukraine’s Good-Faith Efforts: In a bid to unify the country, President Poroshenko outlined a comprehensive peace plan on June 7, 2014. President Poroshenko’s plan offers amnesty to separatists who lay down their arms voluntarily, and who are not guilty of capital crimes; commits to providing a safe corridor for Russian fighters to return to Russia; establishes a job creation program for the affected areas; includes an offer of broad decentralization and dialogue with eastern regions, including the promise of early local elections; and grants increased local control over language, holidays, and customs. President Poroshenko also has reached out to the residents of eastern Ukraine and is pursuing constitutional reform which will give local regions more authority to choose their regional leaders and protect locally-spoken languages.

President Poroshenko implemented a unilateral seven-day (later extended to ten days) unilateral ceasefire on June 20, 2014. He also proposed meeting with leaders from eastern Ukraine -- including separatists -- despite their stated unwillingness to abide by the cease-fire or to negotiate.

Yet Russia and its proxies in Donetsk and Luhansk did not act on this opportunity for peace. Hours after the ceasefire began, Russia-backed separatists wounded nine Ukrainian service members. During the course of the ten-day ceasefire, Russia-backed separatists attacked Ukrainian security forces over 100 times, killing 28 service members. The separatists continue to hold more than 150 hostages, mostly civilians, including teachers and journalists. Separatists have refused all offers by the Ukrainian government to meet.

This timeline of events leading to, during, and after the unilateral Ukraine ceasefire illustrates how the good-faith efforts of the Ukraine government and European leaders to broker a ceasefire with Russia and the separatists it backs have been rejected. Russia and the separatists they are supporting continued to destabilize Ukraine throughout the ceasefire, and continue to destabilize Ukraine today.

As General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, stated on July 1, 2014: “The cease fire in Ukraine was not ended because of accusations; it was ended because Russian-backed separatists responded with violence while President Poroshenko tried to open a window for peace. Russia’s commitment to peace will be judged by its actions, not its words.” As the United States and our European allies have repeatedly stated, we call on the Russian government to halt its material support for the separatists, to use its influence with the separatists to push them to lay down their arms and abide by a ceasefire and to release all hostages. Only then can the process of bringing peace to Ukraine truly begin.

[Ukraine]
U.S. Department of State: Ukraine
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/up/

[U.S. DipNote Blog]

A Commitment to the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine  U.S. DipNote Blog | 27Mar2014 | DipNote Bloggers
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/03/27/commitment-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity-ukraine

Ukraine: Choosing Diplomacy Over Aggression  U.S. DipNote Blog | 13Apr2014 | Douglas Frantz
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/04/13/ukraine-choosing-diplomacy-over-aggression

United Nations Security Council Examines Human Rights Situation in Ukraine  U.S. DipNote Blog | 16Apr2014 | DipNote Bloggers
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/04/16/united-nations-security-council-examines-human-rights-situation-ukraine

The Way Forward in Ukraine  U.S. Dipnote Blog | 17Apr2014 | DipNote Bloggers
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/04/17/way-forward-ukraine

An Update on the Situation in Ukraine  U.S. Dipnote Blog | 24Apr2014 | DipNote Bloggers
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/04/24/update-situation-ukraine

Crimean Residents To Face Russian-Style Repression  U.S. Dipnote Blog | 25Apr2014 | Tom Malinowski
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/04/25/crimean-residents-face-russian-style-repression

Russia Today’s Disinformation Campaign  U.S. Dipnote Blog | 29Apr2014 | Richard Stengel
http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/04/29/russia-today-s-disinformation-campaign