World

4,500 Russian fighters have illegally crossed the Ukraine border from Russia into Donetsk and Lugansk, said Yaroslav Gonchar, deputy commander of the Azov battalion to the Ukraine Independent Information Agency (UNIAN) Thursday.

“According to the information that I have, approximately four and a half thousand fighters from Russia have entered into Donetsk and Lugansk regions illegally,” said Gonchar. “These fighters are rabble of the former Soviet Union.”

“The situation has developed in such a way that we have an unprotected border, and the rabble is able to cross the border of our country,” said the volunteer commander.

Azov battalion is a volunteer battalion of territorial defense for the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Azov battalion is based in Mariupol, on the Azov Sea. It was established during the recent unrest in southern and eastern Ukraine. The battalion is based temporarily in Berdyansk.

Armed fighters have also been reported to be flooding into Donetsk since last weekend. The fighters have been reported to be from Russia in part–particularly from Chechnya and other North Caucasus regions. The fighters are heavily armed.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

UA

LSE

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statements, affirmations and denials in recent months have caused the US State Department, the New York Times, and other news agencies to begin to publish articles labeling his words “lies,” “fiction” and “false claims.”

Putin has maintained strong stances against accusations of Russian involvement in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, as well as on the purpose and presence of Russian troops stationed near the Eastern Ukrainian border, but realities have shown otherwise.

On April 17 chinks in the veneer began to show when Putin publicly stated that Russian troops were at work in Crimea from the outset. Putin had previously denied any Russian participation in Crimea. The Russian representation at the UN and Russian diplomats in serving in foreign countries had also vehemently denied accusations of Russia’s actions. In the same nationally televised presentation, Putin referred to Eastern Ukraine as “New Russia,” but continued to deny that so-called pro-Russian forces attacking buildings in Eastern Ukraine and calling for Russian intervention and Crimea-style referendums to separate from Ukraine were Russian soldiers. Putin called such allegations “all nonsense.”

Justifying the pro-Russian presence in Crimea, Putin stated, “They acted politely, but resolutely and professionally. There was no other way to hold the referendum in an open, honest and honorable way and allow the people to express their opinion.”

On April 20, the New York Times reported on photos endorsed by the Obama administration linking the “green men” operating in Eastern Ukraine to the Russian military. The Ukrainian government also announced they had proof the forces were Russian in origin.

Then, on May 17, Ostro reported that the head of the self-proclaimed Peoples Republic of Donetsk (DRP), Aleksandr Boroday, had told a press conference that the forces in Crimea and those in East Ukraine were under “a single command” and that he had worked in Crimea as a spin doctor.

A of group of the DRP, who had forcefully occupied Donetsk government buildings, pronounced a separate state April 7, and held a Crimea-style referendum May 11. The DRP announced that the turnout for the referendum was 75 percent and the vote was 89 percent in favor of separation from Ukraine.

During the original Crimean occupation by Russia–which at the time was not admitted to be participated in by Russia–Russia amassed a sizable military force near Crimea on Russian soil, but after the peaceable annexation of the peninsula in the wake of the March 16 referendum, the force was withdrawn. A force then amassed on the borders of Eastern Ukraine. Originally, the Russian government denied any buildup of troops. Then Putin continuously maintained that the buildup was for military exercises, of which NATO and other organizations reported they had seen no evidence. At the end of March Putin announced that the massive Russian force had been ordered to withdraw, but NATO and other organizations reported that they had seen no evidence of withdrawal. Then again on May 19, Putin publicly ordered the forces Ukrainian border to return to their home bases, and said that the withdrawal had started. Again, NATO stated that it had seen no sign of soldiers returning to their bases.

The response to Putin’s words and the contrast with Russian actions have caused Western politicians and media to begin to label Putin as a falsifier and a liar. On March 5 the Office of the Spokesperson of the US State Department published a statement on the US State Department website titled, “President Putin’s Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine,” where the office lists 10 of “Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.”

On March 6, the New York Times–America’s second-largest newspaper by circulation and most popular with internet readers–covered the Russian response to the US State Department article, but in its headline called the 10 Russian claims “Lies.”

The long list of news organizations which have begun to publish articles on Putin as using lies include Forbes, the National Post, and Telegraph UK.

A senior White House official commented on the most recent statements by Putin about the withdrawal of troops on the eastern border of Ukraine, “As you’ll recall, they’ve made similar claims before. They made them at the end of March and didn’t follow through, so we’ll be tracking this closely over the course of today and the coming days, and we’ll want to see clear, firm evidence of this move before we make any judgment.”

By James Haleavy

Sources:

US State Department

Seattle Times

New York Times

New York Times

Ostro

The Interpreter

Alexsandr Boroday, the leader of the Donetsk Peoples Republic in East Ukraine held a press conference Saturday in which he admitted that the pro-Russian actions in Crimea as well as those in Donetsk, Lugansk and other contended areas in Eastern Ukraine, made up a team and were organized by “a single command.”

Boroday, who is a Moscow native and a citizen of Russia, also admitted that he had personally “worked in Crimea,” although he maintained that he was acting as “a private person” in Ukraine.

“I will not hide the fact that I worked in the Crimea, said Boroday,” explaining his work in Crimea was as a spin doctor.”

Boroday also stated that he had been “involved in political and business consulting for various structures” “for many years,” and that he was seeking Russia’s annexation of East Ukraine.

Boroday declined to answer the question of whose project he and other pro-Russian forces were implementing in Crimea and East Ukraine.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Source:

Ostro

The petition to designate Russia a “state sponsor of terrorism” has passed the half way mark at the Obama Administration’s White House. The petition currently has 54,085 signatures, and needed only 45,915 signatures by May 23 to to qualify for reaching its goal of 100,000.

The petition, created April 23, reads,

“In its unannounced war against Ukraine, Russia relies on covert operations which fall squarely within the definition of ‘international terrorism’ under 18 U.S.C. § 2331. Specifically, armed operatives of Russia, acting under disguise, attempt to influence the policy of Ukrainian government by intimidation or coercion. They also try to affect the conduct of a government by assassinations and kidnapping, taking by force government buildings, police posts and military bases of Ukraine. This activity is being conducted on large scale and over prolonged time period, despite condemnation by the USA, G-7, NATO, EU and UN.

“Accordingly, Russia must be officially designated as ‘State sponsor of terrorism’, per http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm”

Code 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” as activities that occur outside of the US and “involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;” and “appear to be intended” “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;” “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or” “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2331, “act of war” means “any act occurring in the course of” “declared war;” “armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or” “armed conflict between military forces of any origin.”

State sponsors of terrorism are, according to the US State Department, “countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” State sponsors of terrorism currently include Syria (added 1979), Cuba (1982), Iran (1984), Sudan (1993).

Nations designated “state sponsor of terrorism” are subject to three US laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. These laws restrict US foreign assistance, ban defense exports and sales and some other items, and provide financial and other restrictions. People and countries engaging in certain trade with a “state sponsor” are also implicated in sanctions and penalties.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Sources:

Petition at White House

US State Department

Findlaw

 

Friday a deal was signed in Addis Abada, Ethiopia, between South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir and top rebel leader Dr Riek Machar.

Under the deal, a transitional government is to be formed. A new constitution will The agreement also calls for a new constitution and new elections.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Source:

South Sudan News Agency

Amnesty International has revealed that Nigerian security forces received multiple advanced warnings about the raids that took place on the Chibok boarding school April 14-15, in which over 240 schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram forces.

Security forces were warned hours in advance, according to the rights group, who accused the Nigerian authorities of “gross dereliction of duty.”

Amnesty International independently verified information based on multiple interviews with credible sources, and concluded that the Nigerian security forces had over four hours of advance warning about the attack but not take measures appropriate to prevent it. Security and local officials had reported the threat to Damboa military command near Chibok by phone, after local civilian vigilante groups raised the alarm the evening of April 14. Reportedly, a large group of unidentified armed men entered Gagilam village on motorbikes and told residents they were headed toward Chibok.

Security forces were aware of the attack after 7:00 PM, but did not muster troops due to fear of a better-armed force, according to Amnesty International. A force of 17 army and police met the Boko Haram force significantly later, but was insufficient and was forced to retreat.

Netsanet Belay, Amnesty International’s Africa Director, Research and Advocacy, stated, “The fact that Nigerian security forces knew about Boko Haram’s impending raid, but failed to take the immediate action needed to stop it, will only amplify the national and international outcry at this horrific crime.”

By Cheryl Bretton

Source:

Amnesty International

Both leaders of the South Sudan conflict have arrived in Ethiopia Friday to meet face-to-face for the first time since the breakout of fighting after a government row in Juba, the capital of South Sudan, December 16.

President Salva Kiir and the leader of the SPLM-SPLA in the Opposition, Dr. Riek Machar, and are scheduled to each meet separately with Ethiopian Prime Minister, Hailemariam Dessalegn, before they meet eachother in Addis Abada, Ethiopia.

After months of fighting and many abandoned opportunities to meet or otherwise resolve the conflict, the two leaders are finally meeting after a visit by UN Secretary Genral Ban Ki-moon and the beginnings of economic sanctions by the US.

Ki-moon arrived in South Sudan Monday and met with Kiir and talked to Machar by satellite phone, garnering promises to meet from both parties.

US Secretary of State, John Kerry also visited South Sudan and threatened economic sanctions if the two warring parties did not desist. The US began the first sanctions earlier this week, affecting one army general from each side of the conflict.

From the government side, a member of the presidential guard, Marial Chunuong, was singled out by the US for leading attacks against civilians in and around the capital, Juba, and from the rebel side leader Peter Gadet was targeted for leading an April 17 assault on the city of Bentiu in which 200 civilians were killed.

Also Friday, a delegation from the government and from rebel leader David Yau Yau’s Democratic Movement-Cobra Faction signed a final agreement in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, which will end the conflict in Greater Pibor County of Jonglei State. The signatories were Canon Clement Janda, the chairperson of Political and Foreign Relations Committee in the Council of States on behalf of the Government of South Sudan, and General Boutros Khalid, from the Cobra-Faction.

General Boutros Khalid signed on behalf of the Cobra-Faction.

Other progress was made this week, when the two sides signed a recommitment to allow much needed humanitarian provided food supplies to be delivered to people in conflict affected areas. South Sudan is currently facing a major food crisis due to the onset of the rainy season, by which time all crops that will be harvested for next year must be planted, and upon which South Sudan’s scant road system will become mud.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Source:

Eye Radio