World

A column of Russian military equipment, composed of perhaps 200 peices, has been videoed moving toward the Ukrainian border. The video shows 16 loader trucks carrying tanks. The column is reportedly moving toward the Dolzhansky crossing.

These reports have not been officially verified. Information is being written as it is becomes available. [Update: the reports have now published in Podrobnosti, and is being reported on by several Western outlets.]

Reports are also coming in from djp3tros and other sources on Twitter.

Russia Has Sent Tanks Into Ukraine, Says US State Department

Earlier Sunday, NATO released images it said showed Russian tanks had recently entered Ukraine from the same origin, the Russian city of Rostov. Russia had vigorously denied any truth to the claims of the Ukrainian government that Russian tanks had entered, but the US State Department confirmed the claims Saturday.

[Updated] The Ukrainian military has since stated that their forces at the border are in full combat readiness, and that no advances on the border have been made in the past 24 hours.

 

 

74 vehicles can be counted in another video.

 

Another video, posted Saturday, also shows large amounts of military vehicles moving toward Ukraine in Rostov. Around 45 vehicles are shown.

 

Another video shows 14 vehicles.

 

 

By Day Blakely Donaldson

NATO Statement

Youtube

Mashable

djp3tros

podrobnosti

The BRICS alliance is considered to have been largely dismissed by Western players in recent years, but, with new developments, including this years Russian aggression in Ukraine and recent trade and banking agreements and talks among the BRICS community, analysts are beginning to look at BRICS as a potentially historic challenge to a global order that has been in place since World War II.

Russia lost its welcome in the G8 and saw economic sanctions imposed on it by much of the Western world due to its illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea and more recent continued military aggression in Eastern Ukraine. Russia remains a part of BRICS, however, which is causing analysts to pay more attention to a possibility of the inauguration of a new phase of global bipolarity.

BRIC was created officially in 2009, and attracted many attention and investors due to the massive combined total population and landmass of the four original members. Nearly 3 billion people lived in Brazil, Russia, India and China–40 percent of the world’s population–and the nations cover 25 percent of the world’s land. Investors and others saw the potential for rapid growth in domestic consumption as millions of people elevated their socioeconomic status into the middle class bracket.

The BRICS nations recently have signed trade agreements and begun the formation of institutions to rival the current monopoly of their Western and European counterparts IMF and the World Bank, which are much criticized by economists in the developing world.

Russia and China signed a multi-billion dollar Sino-Russian gas deal in May–the so-called Agreement on Cooperation, which was 10 years in the making. The deal undercuts the US dollar in international transactions. Recently, the leaders of China and Russia have been holding talks about the creation of a new credit rating agency to cater to BRICS countries. The BRICS countries have been reported to be near a deal on the New Development Bank, each valued at $100 billion.

In addition, a BRICS development bank was proposed by India, which would directly rival the World Bank and IMF.

The future of global economics has seen many preditions, but it is still uncertain. In 2003, Goldman Sachs reported their speculation that by 2050 the BRIC economies would surpass most current major powers in wealth, due to a dominating supply of manufactured goods and services from China and India combined with Brazil’s raw materials.

More recently, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also projected that of the three percent annual growth it expects up to 2060, emerging economies will have much stronger, faster growth than already established economies.

Whereas the US economy represents nearly a quartre of global economic activity today, GDP is expected to shrink to 18 percent by 2030. China, which currently produces 17 percent of world GDP, will produce 28 percent in 2030, according to OECD estimates. India, which accounts for 7 percent today, will account for 17 percent in 2030 and 18 percent in 2060.

Europe’s share of world GDP will gradually drop from 17 percent today to nine percent by 2060. Japans economy will similarly shrink.

The OECD itself–composed of 34 countries–which accounts for 65 percent of global GDP will shink to 43 percent by 2060, at which time the combined GDP of China and India will be 46 percent, and other OECD nations will have a combined percentage of 18 percent.

Global GDPs will be affected largely by population growth, the OECD predicts. Personal incomes and living standards will also see the global gap narrowed. Emerging economies will increase living standards and the aging populations of the EU and US will stagnate living standards.

Alternatively, some global economists think that factors besides population growth will factor considerably into future developments, pointing to actual economic progress so far in BRICS countries. In recent years, only China has maintained strong growth rates. The other economies have been hampered by rule-of-law and other challenges.

Some commenters point to models of international organization besides the G7 and BRICS as the hope of international cooperation, such as the G20, where emerging economies are thought to have more of an equal footing with OECD nations, providing what may be a better model of dialogue between the various levels of economic development in the 21st century. The G20 takes into account contemporary and future economic rebalancing and seeks international consensus on universal global issues.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

NASDAQ

Youtube

Investopedia

Al Jazeera

Telegraph UK

In a recent report on the current Russian propaganda “netwar” being waged against non-Russia minds, the Center for Eastern Studies (OSW) found that Russia is actively carrying out organized campaigns to convince non-Russians that Russia is justified in its recent actions–particularly with regard to Crimea and greater Ukraine–but, the report found, the Russian info-war will likely not be successful outside of the Russian-speaking world where people are “less receptive to Russian disinformation.”

The report, entitled “The Anatomy of Russian Information Warfare; the Crimean Operation, a Case Study,” was written by the Centre for Eastern Studies’ Jolanta Darczewska.

“The Crimean operation has served as an occasion for Russia to demonstrate to the entire world the capabilities and the potential of information warfare,” the report states. Russia’s goal is to convince the world of a context for Russia actions in which Russia is participating in a struggle against an “Atlantic civilization led by the USA” which “intends to disassemble Russian statehood and gain global hegemony,” and in which Russia struggle for “a just multi-polar world, which defends tradition, conservative values and true liberty.”

Darzcewska did not think Russian propaganda could convince any but Russian speakers who are already invested in the Russian side of the conflict. “The Russian propaganda is rather incredible and easy to verify in the era of new technologies,” Darzcewska wrote. “Furthermore, the propagated ideas are not appealing.”

The audience Putin is successful with is already “receptive to Russian propaganda,” and the rest of the world is “less receptive to Russian disinformation.” Darzcewska’s phrased it, “Ideological newspeak based on disinformation falls on fertile socio-cultural ground in the East.”

Russia is attempting to promote its messages outside Russia, Darzcewska says, through “specialist media” such as Voice of Russia (VOR) and Russia Today (RT), official websites of Russian institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and also through “local opinion leaders.”

“The geopolitical doctrine,” Darzcewska wrote, “treats information as a dangerous weapon: it is cheap, it is a universal weapon, it has unlimited range, it is easily accessible and permeates all state borders without restrictions. The information and network struggle, as well as its extreme forms, such as information-psychological warfare and netwars, are means the state uses to achieve its goals.”

“Through information war, Darzcewska wrote, a state can also gain geopolitical advantage: “Geopolitics offers ideological grounds for information battles. In opposition to the ideology of liberalism, it promotes ‘a neo-conservative post-liberal power (…) struggling for a just multi-polar world, which defends tradition, conservative values and true liberty.’ The ‘Russian Eurasian civilization’ is set at contrast to the ‘Atlantic civilization led by the USA’ which allegedly intends to disassemble Russian statehood and gain global hegemony.” Darzcewska wrote that the crisis in Ukraine was presented in the context of the rivalry between the two civilizations.

In information war, specific techniques are used by the various practitioners, Darzcewska wrote. These “sociotechnical principles of successful propaganda” include “the principle of massive and long-lasting impact (the ‘orange plague’ and ‘Banderivtsy’ propaganda stero-types have been incessantly reiterated since 2003), the principle of desired information (Russians and Russian-speaking people expect that their rights should be protected, so they believed the manipulated information that the Russian language had been banned), the principle of emotional agitation n (bringing the recipients of the message to a condition in which they will act without much thought, even irrationally), the clarity principle (the message is simplified, uses black-and-white terms, and is full of loaded keywords, such as Russophobe), the principle of supposed obviousness (causing the propaganda thesis to be associated with created political myths: the Russian spring equals patriotism, Banderivtsy equals fascism, Maidan equals chaos, etc.).”

In her report, Darzcewska concluded, “Russian information warfare is set to continue since Putin’s new doctrine has crystallized. This doctrine is geopolitical, Eurasian, anti-liberal and oriented towards rivalry with the West and Russia’s dominance in Eurasia.”

By Day Blakely Donaldson

The Anatomy of Russian Information Warfare; The Crimean Operation, A Case Study, by Jolanta Darczewska, Centre for Eastern Studies, Poland

 

In the war-ravaged though officially at peace Democratic Republic of Congo, 12 percent of the population has been raped. Nearly 50 women and girls are raped every hour.

“It’s true that we raped here. We found women because they can’t escape. You see her, you catch her, you take her away and you have your way with her,” one Congolese soldier told a reporter after a leave was ordered to “go and rape.” “Sometimes you kill her. When you finish raping then you kill her child. When we rape, we feel free.”

Soldiers of Congolese bands are frequently given leave by their commanders to “go and rape women.”

“How do you see someone who is hitting you in the eyes? How will you know someone who is inserting a gun barrel in your mouth?” one Congolese woman described the event of being raped by three soldiers. The woman had been raped before the incident with the soldiers, however, by a schoolteacher. The militia raped her two daughters as well, and afterward killed her husband.

Shamed, she was ostracized from her family and sought shelter with an aid organization. She has been raped three times since then.

1,152 women are raped every day–48 per hour–in the DRC, according to the American Journal of Public Health.

“Every day, they take the women and rape . You see a three-year-old child who has been raped. Why would they do that?” said film-maker Fiona Lloyd-Davies, whose documentary “Seeds of Hope” premiered at the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict Tuesday.

“[T]here is very little about sex there, it’s mostly about an experience of horror and power,” commented Rob Williams, the chief executive of War Child UK, a charity working to reduce rape in the Congo, on the issue.

Lloyd Davis said of Congolese rape victims, “I do think that women and girls expect to be raped, there is a sort of tired acceptance. More so in rural areas, where you need to walk far to get water, tend to your crops, or go to the forest and dig for cassava. The perpetrators could be militiamen from different groups, but it could also be soldiers from the Congolese army. It has become part of society, which is terrifying for women and girls.

The soldiers who commit these crimes are not always, but often, young men kidnapped and forced into the militia life from a young age. “They’re numb, they have been skewed, they have a different sense of what is normal. But this doesn’t mean they’re not aware of what they’re doing,” said Lloyd-Davies. Some soldiers express remorse, such as a man in “Seeds of Hope” who also said he would not admit his crimes unless his superiors were prosecuted. “They are the ones who sent us,” he said. “If those who committed these crimes can be arrested and judged, then that would be good.”

“Up until now, there have been very few trials, and the trials that we have seen have not been very effective,” Lloyd-Davies commented recently on the question of justice and accountability in the Congolese conflict.

She cited Bosko Ntaganda, an indicted war criminal, who had been sought by the International Criminal Court since 2006 for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In 2011 Ntaganda was in charge of 50,000 Congolese army troops and was working for the government.

Not only lack of accountability for perpetrators of rape, but shame of victims of rape also contributes to its perpetuation.

“There is a huge stigma attached to it,” said Lloyd-Davies. “Husbands and families often reject them. If they become pregnant, young women have told me that their family makes them choose between coming back to them and keeping the baby. Mostly the women seem to choose to stay with the baby, even though they often have difficult relationships with them, especially if they are boys.”

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Ted Talks

DW

Russia took over the chairmanship of the UN Security Council (UNSC) June 1, and Ugandan Minister of Foreign Affairs Sam Kutesa took over the Presidency of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) June 11. One of these nations is currently at the top of world headlines for aggression in Ukraine, and both have recently made headlines for passing strict anti-gay legislation–in contravention of and threatening the guarantees of the UN Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to top UN representatives.

When Russia passed anti-gay laws before the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, the UN took several measures to condemn the laws. “The United Nations stands strongly behind our own ‘free and equal’ campaign,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in condemning Russia’s legislation. “Hatred of any kind must have no place in the 21st century.”

“As I have been repeatedly and consistently stating in the spirit and framework of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Ki-Moon continued, “that everybody is born free and equal and everybody has a right to be equal, regardless of age, and sex, and sexual orientation, and gender identity. This is a fundamental principle of human rights.”

When Uganda signed into law its strict Anti-Homosexuality Act in February–for which some Ugandan legislators were proposing the death penalty, although the proposal was dropped in favor of life in prison–the UN spoke out against the legislation, saying it violates basic human rights and endangers homosexuals and others.

“This law will institutionalize discrimination and is likely to encourage harassment and violence against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation,” stated UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. “It is formulated so broadly that it may lead to abuse of power and accusations against anyone, not just LGBT people.”

Pillay and Ki-Moon voiced deep human rights concerns. “This law violates a host of fundamental human rights,” continued Pillay, “including the right to freedom from discrimination, to privacy, freedom of association, peaceful assembly, opinion and expression and equality before the law – all of which are enshrined in Uganda’s own Constitution and in the international treaties it has ratified.”

The June agenda for the UNSC will include a meeting in Afghanistan and meetings on African issues–particularly on Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, the Sahara-Sahel, Sudan and South Sudan.

The Middle East is also on the agenda for the UNSC, particularly Yemen, Libya and Syria. Other matters upcoming include armed drones and new peacekeeping missions where force may be mandated.

No talks on Ukraine have been scheduled. Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, however, that Russia was “ready for any surprises here,” noting that every UNSC member can call a meeting on any situation which poses an internatioal threat to peace and security.

Russia is one of the five permanent members of the UNSC, along with the US, China, Great Britain and France. There are 10 non-permanent members.

The UNSC makes decisions for the UN regarding peace and international security, and all UN members are supposed to heed UNSC decisions, in accordance with the UN Charter.

Russia will hand over the chairmanship of the UNSC to Rwanda on July 1.

Uganda to Lead United Nations General Assembly

The UNGA is composed of 193 member nations. The UNGA is the organ of the UN wherein all members have equal representation. The UNGA oversees the UN budget, receives UN reports and makes recommendations, and appoints non-permanent members to the UNSC.

The Presidency of the UNGA is a rotating one-year position, and is a largely ceremonial post.

The election of Ugandan Foreign Affairs Minister Sam Kutesa to the Presidency has drawn some criticism. Kutesa has a history of corruption and has been censured for corruption by the Ugandan Parliament. The government to which Kutesa belongs is also a cause for the criticism. The Ugandan government, headed for 28 years by Yoweri Museveni, has been accused and found guilty of international war crimes by international courts.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

UNGA

UN

Russian parliamentary speaker and former Historical Truth Commission Chairman Sergei Naryshkin has made statements asserting that it was Ukraine–not Russia–that actually annexed Crimea, citing a 1991 Crimean referendum as evidence. Naryshkin made his statements to the Russian parliament Wednesday.

RIA Novosti quotes Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin, “Back in January 1991, the Crimean region held a referendum, which disputed the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine. The vote for this was 93 percent with a turnout of 81 percent. Essentially, then, it was 23 years ago that the annexation of Crimea was made–though peaceful–but it was really annexation.”

Naryshkin said that the Ukrainian annexation of Crimea was possible because of the irresponsibility of some Russian politicians.

The 1991 referendum referred to by Naryshkin was over the issue of Crimea becoming an autonomous republic within the Soviet Union, and there was strong support in favor.

Ukrainian scholar Natalya Belitser wrote of this referendum, “After much heated debate and, perhaps, keeping in mind the possible bloody and violent consequences of rejecting demands similar to those made in other parts of the ailing Soviet Union, on February 12, 1991, the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet adopted a law providing autonomous status for Crimea within the borders of Ukraine.”

When, months later and after the failed coup against Mikhail Gorbachev and Ukraine’s declaration of independence, Crimea voted in a nation-wide ballot, 54 percent of Crimeans favored Ukrainian independence.

Following Naryshkin’s statement about Ukraine annexing Crimea, a history is given of the return to Russia of Crimea, which begins in November 2013 Maidan protests, and reaches a critical point on February 22 after “a violent seizure of power.” Following this, Verkhovna Rada, violating political agreements, changed the constitution and changed the leadership of the parliament and the Interior Ministry and removed power from the head of state, who was later forced to leave Ukraine, fearing for his life, according to the history.

“Crimea, in turn, did not recognize the legitimacy of the new government and decided to hold a referendum about the future of the region,” continues the article. “Voting took place on March 16. The ballot paper were made two questions: ‘Are you for the reunion of the Crimea with Russia on the Rights of the Russian Federation?’ and ‘Are you for the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and for the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine?'”

Sergei Naryshkin is a Russian official, politician and businessman who has been Chairman of the State Duma since December 2011. Previously he was head of the Administration of the President of Russia from May 2008 to December 2011; he was also chairman of the Historical Truth Commission in May 2009 until it was dissolved in February 2012.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

RIA Novosti