Ukraine crisis: No sign of Russia withdrawal, says NATO

According to the BBC

The NATO claimed that Russian troops haven’t left from the border with Ukraine, after Kremlin has made two announcements of military withdrawals. According to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, there is no evidence or sign of any withdrawal by the Russian troops. He also claimed that a Russian withdrawal would help to de-escalate the Ukrainian crisis.

BBC also said that Russia, previously, ordered to their troops in the Rostov, Belgorod and Bryansk regions to return to their bases. However, as said by the Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby, "We have seen no indication of any movement."

In the BBC new we can find an analysis by Jonathan Marcus, a BBC Diplomatic correspondent. The analysis says that the 40.000 Russian troops placed on the Ukrainian border is a tool to threat the Ukrainian government.

The regions of Donetsk and Luhansk declared themselves independent after the 11 May referendum. Those regions said that they will not recognize the Ukrainian president elections of the next Sunday.

Russia also claimed to the Ukrainian government to stop the violence against the Pro-Russian demonstrators, due to the continuous violence in the east part of the country.

According to RT

It is very interesting how contradictory are both outlets. In the new developed by RT, we can see a video where Russian troops are leaving. In the video, the Russian withdrawal is imminent. So the question would be: ¿Who is manipulating the truth? ¿The NATO or Russia? ¿BBC or RT?

According to RT, Vladimir Putin ordered to the defense minister to bring the Russian troops back from the southwestern border with Ukraine. Russian Government also requested to Ukraine to stop the violence and to start peaceful talks between the Ukrainian government and Pro-Russian demonstrators.

In the weekend, there were violent events in the region of Donetsk. This region and Lugansk are self-claimed “independent” because of the referendum.

The RT new also reminded the detention of two Russian journalists in the Ukrainian city of Kramatorsk. The Foreign Ministry of Russia requested the release of both journalists. BBC didn’t say anything about this issue.

Bibliography

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27476172

http://rt.com/news/159888-putin-troops-back-bases/

Odessa Fire

According to BBC

The new in BBC is very contradictory. There is no clarity in the information given and there are a lot of hypotheses and guesses in what could have happened in the city of Odessa on May 2. It´s important to explain the context of this new. The city of Odessa has a 30% minority of ethnic Russians. In this day, after a football match, played there, fans of both teams and Pro-Ukrainian supporters marched together in order to express their desire of a united Ukraine. On the other hand, Pro-Russian activists were camping in a central square (Kulykove pole).

However, BBC tells us that Pro-Russian demonstrators started the violence, when they attacked the march. According to the people in the march, those Pro-Russian activists attacked the population with bats and batons. BBC also said that they had army helmets and guns.

Pro-Ukrainian supporters reacted to the violence. Both sides were armed and they threw each other pavement blocks and Molotov cocktails. BBC also tells that the riot police shielded Pro-Russian demonstrators while one of them was shooting a gun. The lack of authority and action from the police is present during the whole situation.

Eventually, Pro-Ukrainian demonstrators reached the Pro-Russian camping, and after they had burned it, Pro-Russian activists entered to the Trade Unions House building. From there the fight continued. People also said that Pro- Russians were shooting guns against the population from the upper floors. Both sides were throwing Molotov cocktails and pavement stones. One of those Molotov cocktails started the fire. Many people who were trapped in the building died suffocated, and the other ones jumped from the building and died with the impact. Sadly, some people believe that the violence in Odessa is not over yet.

According to Press TV

Although, this news outlet doesn’t hesitate when telling the new, it doesn’t give so many details. According to them, Ukrainian forces launched a military operation against Pro-Russian activists. This means, that Press TV is blaming Pro-Ukrainian activists for beginning the riots and the violence in the city of Odessa. They also said that 40 people died in the fire of the Trade Union building, where Pro-Russians people looked for shelter.

Moscow blamed the whole incident to the inefficiency and irresponsibility of the authorities. They also requested for Ukraine to stop the military operations in the south eastern part of the country. Russia also requests to Ukraine to stop the bloodshed in this country. It also claimed that what happened in Odessa was a “humanitarian disaster”.

As it was expected, this outlet tries to show a better image of Russia and blames Pro-Ukrainian activists for the deaths on Odessa.

Bibliography

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27275383

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/05/05/361446/demo-held-in-moscow-for-odessa-killings/

¿Why García Márquez had to seek asylum in Mexico?

It is never too late to do a tribute and to change our perception about the life and ideology of the most important ambassador that Colombia has had in all its history, the Nobel prized writer Gabriel García Márquez. In the following article, written by himself and shared by the independent group of journalists “Las 2 Orillas” in the last days, he explains the reasons why he had to leave his country and seek asylum in Mexico. It is sad how many people criticize “Gabo” just for the politic ideologies that he followed. We have to learn to respect the other´s point of view and we also have to stop judging the life of a man based on his thoughts, and not on his actions.  And the most important action that Gabo did in his life was to make proud and to fill with honor this country with his oeuvre.

The article is in the following link, in “Las 2 Orillas” website:

¿Por qué García Márquez tuvo que asilarse en México? | Las2Orillas.CO

US soldiers arrive in Lithuania to ‘reassure’ NATO allies amid Ukrainian crisis

 According to the Guardian

150 troops were deployed in Lithuania in order to reassure the control in the east part of the continent. Up to 600 troops will be deployed in the rest of the year in Poland and the Baltic Countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) is important to say, that these countries are the borders of the NATO “jurisdiction”. The objective of this deployment of troops is infantry exercises. 

"As threats emerged, we see who our real friends are" said the president of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite. She was very excited when the US troops finally arrived. According to her, their intervention was never more needed.

Something very interesting in this new is what Richard C Longo, (Deputy Commanding General of US Army Europe) said: “I don't think the deployment of troops is meant to be a message to Russia”, he also said, “Let me make this clear: should Lithuania need NATO, I guarantee NATO will be there”. As I interpret it, what he is trying to say is that Russia shouldn´t worry because, these actions are not supposedly related with the Russian invasion in Crimea. This is just a measure of control and a warning for any country who tries anything against any NATO ally.

According to RT

In this outlet, we find that there´s much more information about the military exercises that is doing the NATO. It says that besides the arrival of 150 US troops in the Air Force Aviation Base in Siauliai, Lithuania, the NATO has also deployed ships in the black sea. This situation worries Russia.

Another difference in the news is the temporality in which they´re telling the facts. The Guardian has said that these 150 troops are the beginning of the deployment of 600 troops in the eastern countries. However, RT tells us that in those countries, there is already the presence of US and NATO troops (in Poland and Latvia, they arrived the Wednesday and Friday, respectively). As I see it, I think that Russia is feeling the pressure made by the NATO allies and that´s why they reassure that all people knows that in those countries there is already NATO presence.

RT makes sure that all of their readers know the message that was sent from US to Moscow. “If there's a message to Moscow, it is the same exact message that we take our obligations very, very seriously on the continent of Europe”. The Guardian didn’t write anything about this “warning”.

In relation to the frigate in the Black Sea, RT has said that France will join them, sending a NATO vessel Dupleix. In addition to this military effort, France will also send four fighter jets in order to “supervise” the Baltics. The Guardian didn’t express anything about this “massive western arming movement”.

Finally, this new ends with the concern that Moscow. This worry is due to movement of Ukrainian troops in the east part of the country “… 11,000 Ukrainian soldiers, 160 tanks, 230 armored carriers and at least 150 artillery pieces have been deployed in the region.” This military measure has “forced” Russia to mobilize its troops to the border too.

Bibliography
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/26/us-paratroopers-nato-lithuania-russia

http://rt.com/news/155068-us-troops-lithuania-drills/

Pro-Russian protesters seize government buildings in Ukraine's Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov

The situation in these Ukraine’s cities is stressful. In Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov, thousands of people seized the government buildings in the demonstrations that took place the last Sunday. After reading in two different ideologies outlets (RT and BBC), we can identify significant differences in the way these two communicate the acts.

According to RT
In Donetsk, more than two thousand people gathered in Lenin Square in the center of the

city where they demanded for an independence referendum like the one that Crimea had. They claimed that their right for self-determination must be respected.

The people also carried Russian flags and banners and they chanted “Russia, Russia”. In the top of the administration building, the protesters carried a giant Russian flag.

In Lugansk, around one thousand people rallied in front of the local Ukrainian security service office. Demonstrators took the security building as they demanded the release of 15 pro-Russian activists. 6 of them were released.

In Kharkov, demonstrators followed the example of Donetsk and Lugansk took control of the administrative buildings and clashed against far right activists. Around 10.000 people participated in the protests. Pro-Russian rallies are taking place almost every weekend after the dismissal of Victor Yanukovych.

According to BBC
The information that BBC has, is short and it doesn’t specify as much as RT does. However, the main idea is the same.

BBC shows demonstrations not as big as RT does. For example, it says that in Donetsk, around 1.000 people participated in the seizure of the building, by the other side, RT says there were 2.000. And also in the other cities, BBC didn’t tell any specification in the number of participants. RT did it. I think that BBC shows this story in a general way in order to decrease the impact of the new, and to show that these protests are not are “strong” as RT says they are.

BBC also said that the Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen Avakov accused President Putin and Mr. Yanukovych of "ordering and paying for another wave of separatist turmoil in the country's east". Obviously, RT didn’t mention anything about this, because this would make a bad image of Putin.

Finally, there´s an analysis from Bridget Kendall (a diplomatic correspondent from BBC) who says that these kinds of protests are not the first ones and that they are not that big. So, ¿who´s telling the truth? ¿is BBC decreasing the impact of the real new? Or maybe ¿is RT exaggerating the information in order to encourage a Russian invasion?


Bibliography

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-donetsk-protest-russia-733/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26910210

North & South Korea exchange artillery fire across sea border

According to The Guardian

The tensions renewed when hundreds of artillery shells were fired by the two countries near a disputed sea boundary. North Korea also claimed that it could carry out a “new kind” of nuclear test. Experts have also said that the actions of North Korea could be harder to predict due to the recent political turbulence.

The North had announced to hold a live-fire drill. When the shells landed in the south of the disputed boundary, the South responded. North Korea shot approximately 500 rounds of artillery shells, the South 300.

As said by John Delury, an expert on the North, at Yonsei University in Seoul, these actions are normal springtime tensions. However the amount of the last missile tests are much more than expected.

According to Russian TV

North Korean shells have landed in South Korean waters, which let Seoul to open fire across the disputed border zone. The Monday morning the North Korean government announced to conduct military exercises.

The North is condemned by the International community due to their nuclear tests. The United Nations Secretary Council (UNSC) has also announced that there would be consequences if North Korea continued testing its missile technology. In 2006 the UNSC passed a resolution that forbids the testing of missiles.  

 

Pyongyang announced that it would carry out a “new form” of nuclear test. This would be the fourth nuclear test that North Korea does. The last one was in February the last year. The other two were in 2009 and 2006. And the North also claimed to be running a Uranium enrichment program in order to produce nuclear weapons. 

Bibliography

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/31/south-korea-returns-fire-north-korean-shells

http://rt.com/news/korea-rocket-fire-border-265/

Details of sanctions against Russia to be finalized in London

In order to press the Russian government to withdraw its forces in Crimea, today the western officers are meeting in London to discuss the appropriate sanctions. Asset freezing and travel bans would be the sanctions.

On Monday, unidentified men (10) fired warning shots, when they were moving into a Ukrainian naval base. These kinds of circumstances, made the whole situation even more stressful.

The White House gave a strong declaration where Russia would get out of the G8 group. Barack Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, said: "It is hard to see the G8 [summit] happening", in Sochi in June. The White house, also gave its opinion about the referendum scheduled for Sunday in Crimea. They said that the result of the referendum won’t be accepted by the US and their international allies.

A rally in Moscow in support of Vladimir 

Putin's stance on Crimea.

The Sunday, the course of the Ukrainian Crisis will take a dramatic turn. The result could enable Vladimir Putin to increase the presence of Russian troops in Crimea. That´s why the next Monday European foreign ministers will take the final decisions about the sanctions for Russia.

The NATO announced that it will deploy a reconnaissance aircraft to overfly Poland and Romania, in order to monitor the crisis. This aircraft will only use the air territory of alliance countries, said one NATO officer.

As the G8 summit is very likely to be cancelled or hosted in a different country, it would effectively mean that Putin had been thrown out of the powerful leaders group.

Russian Gas Pipelines in Europe

There´s a constant doubt if Germany and Great Britain are supporting the US initiative against Russia´s actions, due to their dependence (and whole Europe dependence) of the gas coming from Russia. Declarations from Moscow said that Russia could cut the supply of gas in Europe as a response of the sanctions. Reserves of gas in the pipelines seem to be only solution.

Putin, Stop!

Any move to starve Europe of gas would by a "lose-lose situation for everyone, most particularly for Russia. “Russia has a substantial financial interest in maintaining those exports," Carney said.


Comment

I agree with all the sanctions that the other countries of the G7 group are going to take against Russian government. It´s the only nonviolent way of pressing Russia to take out their troops from the Crimean peninsula. With the asset freezing and travel bans, may be the Russian people could demand for the withdrawal of the Russian Army.

I personally believe that what´s is doing Russia is a complete violation of the Ukraine’s sovereignty. They should respect them, and let them manage this situation. Besides, Russia´s interest in Crimea is not to find a solution for this conflict, but to take control of the Crimean peninsula, which would be an excellent strategic location, due to their geographical borders.

The NATO aircraft, I think that would contribute to increase the tension. There have to be other ways to monitor the conflict, but in my opinion, these kinds of aircrafts, could be misunderstood by the Russians and could be the excuse to begin a worse conflict.

Pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian activists argue

during a rally in Sevastopol on 9 March

A Ukrainian soldier patrols a checkpoint near the

village of Stavki, close to a Crimea region border.

Although I don’t want that Ukraine lost Crimea, the final word rests in the hands of the Crimea population. Let´s remember that Crimea is part of Ukraine, but it´s a region with more autonomy than the rest of regions of Ukraine, besides, it´s a region highly influenced by the Russian culture. That´s why this Sunday in the referendum, there are a lot of chances that Ukraine lose this peninsula. The question is, ¿would Crimea become in an autonomous state or would it become part of Russia? And depending from the result of this question, the international field could become really stressful.


And for the European leaders, I think that they shouldn’t hesitate and they should take a more serious involvement in this crisis. I mean, if they are going to support US initiative, they begin to save some reserves of gas, otherwise they would be in troubles. And I also think, that they shouldn´t be desperate, Russia also needs European buyers for its gas, it could be even worse for them. So I think that if this scenario happens, it wouldn’t last too much.

I hope that this conflict ends in a non-violent way.

Bibliography

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/western-officials-london-finalise-sanctions-russia