Local media has reported that the suspect, who has been identified as a German-Armenian man who lives in the city, is co-operating with investigators. However, Ms Giffey cautioned that he has made a series of “confused statements”.

(Photograph by Adam Berry/Getty Images.)

Speaking at the Davos, former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger counseled Ukraine to cede Russia territory in order to end the war. “Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” he said last month. “Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.” Make no mistake: Kissinger is wrong. Rather than bring peace, his advice would spark future conflict by teaching Russia that aggression brings rewards. Kissinger’s remarks did not come from nowhere, however. He has spent more than two decades excusing Moscow’s abuse of its neighbors while forging a personal friendship with Vladimir Putin.

Kissinger has long been the prince of so-called “realism.” For decades before his secret 1971 visit, Communist China was an international pariah. Kissinger brokered rapprochement, however, to make common cause against the Soviet Union. He later argued China was simply the lesser of two evils. “The difference between [China] and the Russians is,” he quipped, “if you drop some loose change, when you go to pick it up, the Russians will step on your fingers and the Chinese won’t.”

After the Cold War, Kissinger began to advocate a far softer line toward the Russians. More than two decades ago, Kissinger said, “I believed that the Soviet Union should not abandon Eastern Europe so quickly.” Russian President Vladimir Putin seized upon the comment as intellectual sustenance.  The two men then met regularly. Kissinger, who called Putin a “great patriot,” hosted the Russian leader at his house in New York for dinner. Putin reciprocated and flattered Kissinger for his knowledge of Russian culture and made him honorary professor of the Diplomatic Academy of Russia.

For Putin, Kissinger became a useful tool given the esteem with which so many in Washington held the former secretary. Before Russia’s invasion of Georgia, Kissinger characterized the Kremlin’s foreign policy under Putin “as driven in a quest for a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice” and urged America to “show greater sensitivity to Russian complexities.” When Putin invaded the former Soviet Republic in August 2008, Kissinger dismissed it as a “crisis,” not a war, and advised that “isolating Russia is not a sustainable long-range policy.” Kissinger’s trust in Putin appears to have colored President Barack Obama’s embrace of a “reset” with Russia that, in turn, allowed Russia to act with impunity and obscured the threat Putin posed. 

In 2014, as Russia began its encroachment on Ukraine, Kissinger advised that “to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country.” The United States should be more deferential to Putin’s point of view, he warned, and “avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington.” In effect, compromise with the Kremlin trumped the post-World War II European order, based on prohibiting armed aggression against sovereign neighbors.

Unfortunately, accommodating aggressive dictatorships is a staple of Kissinger’s wisdom. While he often warns about the dangers of a nuclear Iran, his policy prescriptions often undercut pressure on Tehran. In 2006, less than five years after George W. Bush labeled Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil,” Kissinger turned repeatedly to the Washington Post to urge compromise. Two years later, he suggested Washington could do business with Tehran. Iran’s state-controlled press headlined counsel that the Bush administration “should be prepared to negotiate about Iran.” Here, too, his soft spot for Russia undercut his analysis. He repeatedly argued, for example, that Russia would be America’s ally against Iran’s nuclearization. In reality, the Kremlin has been among its greatest facilitators.

If Kissinger undermined pressure against Iran’s leaders, his lackadaisical attitude toward China’s rise has been even more bizarre. A half-century ago, he ingratiated himself to Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai by badmouthing Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, leader of the world’s most populous democracy. To this day, Indians resent how he threw them under the bus less than a decade after China’s land grabs in Kashmir and Ladakh.  Zhou, meanwhile, cultivated friends to be unwitting intelligence assets and agents of influence. As the Spectator observed in its exposé of Kissinger’s subsequent relationship with China, “The best agents … are the ones who don’t know they are agents.”

Kissinger’s friendship with China was multifaceted and profitable. Five years after leaving Foggy Bottom, Kissinger formed Kissinger Associates in part to facilitate the entrance of American business into China. He gathered top diplomats and national security officials and used his and their collective influence among the foreign policy and business elite—especially those who aspired a share of the China gold rush—to launder the Communist regime’s image. This was crucial in the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy uprising that China crushed. For a short time, there was bipartisan recognition of the threat an authoritarian China prosed. Behind the scenes, though, Kissinger urged George H.W. Bush to mute his response, avoid sanctions, and cease efforts to isolate China. Soon, American investment resumed.

Kissinger is not the first statesman to make moral compromises after leaving office. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder famously joined Gazprom, the Russian energy firm, after leaving office, not only cashing in on his former office but also using his stature to downplay concerns about the Kremlin’s intentions. Kissinger might have served honorably, but it is time that Americans who prioritize democracy and liberalism ask whether Kissinger has effectively become the American Schröder.

Ivana Stradner is an adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

By Éric Denécé / Cf2R.org

Alongside the continuation of the military conflict in eastern Ukraine, the media war continues to be in full swing and those who are at the origin of it – as well as their relays, conscious or unconscious – give more and more in the disproportion, as illustrated by the false and scandalous reaction of representatives of the pro-Russian forces following the death of Frédéric Leclerc-Imhoff, journalist of BFM TV . But this camp is not the only one to be excessive in terms of communication, Zelensky and his entourage particularly excel in this area.

After the adoption by the European Union of a “sixth set” of sanctions against Russia, the Ukrainian president declared “unacceptable” the delay which was necessary for the Europeans to decree the embargo on Russian oil. “About fifty days separate the sixth train from the fifth, it’s a situation that is not acceptable for us,” he exclaimed during a press conference in Kiev on May 31. Once again, while he plunged his country into war, as much by his reckless policy as by having followed American directives, Zelensky still allows himself to criticize the Europeans.

Similarly, on June 4, Dmytro Kouleba, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, castigated France – which nevertheless supplies arms to Kiev – following Emmanuel Macron’s declaration that “we should not humiliate Russia in order to to retain a diplomatic option. Zelensky himself openly criticized the French president’s remarks, retorting, “Humiliating Russia? They have been killing us for eight years” (sic).

This permanent attitude of giving lessons and reinterpreting the history of the Ukrainian authorities is beginning to exasperate their support and public opinion.

THE UNDENIABLE RESPONSIBILITY OF KYIV IN THE CONFLICT

If Russia is clearly the aggressor in this conflict, those who pushed it to this attack are undoubtedly the United States, NATO and the Zelensky government. It is essential never to forget it. If the American leaders had not reneged on the promises made in Moscow, if NATO had not been constantly expanding, if France and Germany had been able to force Kyiv to respect the Minsk agreements and if Zelensky and his clique had not listened to the disastrous advice of their American mentors, we would not be here. If there is no question of excusing Russia, to blame it alone for this conflict is a misrepresentation of reality, if not deliberate misinformation.

Since 2014, Kyiv has conducted a completely reprehensible policy towards the Russian-speaking populations of the Donbass, to whom it has prohibited the use of their language and refused any autonomy within Ukraine, multiplying harassment, embargoes and bombardments against them without let no one in Europe denounce this scandalous situation, on the pretext that it would have been in line with Russia’s arguments.

Similarly, the West has allowed Zelensky and the oligarchs who sponsor him – notably Kolomoïski – to finance neo-Nazi groups and reinforce his army in order to take over the autonomist regions by force, rejecting any attempt at conciliation. Worse, on February 17, Kyiv deliberately launched into military action in order to reconquer the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk with the support of NATO, knowing full well that Moscow could not remain without reacting, thus triggering the crisis. current.

If it must be recognized that the Russian discourse is excessive concerning the denazification of Ukraine, it is however not without foundation. Individuals and units with extremist values – Azov and Aidar “battalions”, Svoboda and Pravy Sektor parties, etc. – are a reality that the West seeks to minimize in its support for Kyiv, despite the fact that their abuses since 2014 have been proven.

Europeans have therefore become unashamed allies and donors of a regime that protects and finances neo-Nazi groups while we fight in each of our countries against the extreme right. Because these Ukrainian extremists are not harmless nationalists as they would have us believe. Their speech is clearly anti-Semitic and their fighters wear on their uniform the insignia of the infamous Das Reich division , made up of a majority of Ukrainians, responsible for the massacres of Oradour sur Glane in 1944.

Let us note in passing the most glaring paradox: the support of Germany – in particular of its very militant Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock of the Greens party – to the Zelensky regime even though the latter integrates to the highest level of its army of supporters of an ideology born across the Rhine and believed to have been eradicated since 1945. But we are no longer on the verge of a contradiction…

It should be remembered above all that Ukraine supported politically and through its arms sales the totalitarian and genocidal regime of Azerbaijan in its military operation against the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020, who were demanding their independence after decades of persecution. Kiev even celebrated Baku’s victory by adorning its cities with the colors of Azerbaijan even though this country has resorted to thousands of Syrian jihadists during this conflict, who have committed numerous atrocities on Armenian soldiers and civilians [ 1] .

Thus, we have recklessly taken up the cause of a dubious regime, very undemocratic and shamelessly violating the right of peoples to self-determination. Under Zelensky’s injunctions, Europe thus found itself embroiled in a conflict which we continue to affirm should not concern us given the share of responsibility of the Kyiv government which knowingly played with fire …

A PARTICULARLY INFURIATING COMMUNICATION

On March 3, the Ukrainian president declared that if his country were defeated, “Russia will go to the Berlin wall” . He also kept harassing Berlin with his repeated demands to cut off Russian gas, infuriating the German leaders.

March 13, the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament posted on its Twitter account a video-montage of about forty seconds where Paris was the victim of a bombardment in which the Eiffel Tower was in particular taken as a target and Russian planes flew over the French capital by sowing terror among the population. The clip ended with an announcement from Zelensky stating “If we fall, you fall too.”

On March 14, the Ukrainian President declared that it was only a matter of time before Russia attacked NATO. In a video address, he warned members of the Atlantic Alliance that Moscow was likely to invade their territory at any time, urging them to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. “If you don’t close our skies, it’s only a matter of time before Russian missiles fall on your territory,” he asserted without blushing.

Since the start of the conflict, Kyiv’s strategy, with the support and advice of the United States, has been to make the European Union feel guilty and to seek to involve it more in this war, placing it today in a situation of co-belligerence. Zelensky’s main argument is to make people believe that Russian aggression “is not a war in Ukraine but a war in Europe” and that Ukraine is the “shield of Europe” against Russia. The Europeans, devoid of any objective vision, thus support, consciously or not, an American strategy whose effects are particularly negative for them, politically and economically.

The Ukrainian president, a talented comedian led by screenwriters never short of ideas, persists in dressing in military costume and sporting a beard for several days – even though Kyiv is no longer in danger as evidenced by the many visitors high-level people who go there safely – and strive by all means to impose their point of view on the West and to denounce those who do not adhere to it.

Communicators from Kyiv and Washington have thus succeeded in installing in public opinion the idea that everything Zelensky says is true, and that the declarations of Putin and Lavrov are necessarily lies. This is a Manichaean and false vision of things that need to be called into question.

Consequently, for three months any objective analysis of this conflict has become impossible. The simple fact of proposing a different reading of the events from that which Kiev and Washington seek to impose on the Western world, of having a lucid appreciation of this sad conflict – which inevitably leads to a finding that is not at all in favor of Ukraine militarily – is unbearable for Zelensky, his sponsors and his henchmen, who systematically accuse those who dare to formulate an independent opinion, or who do not blindly and fully repeat their Story Telling, of being relays of propaganda Russian [2] .

Fortunately, more and more experts, in Europe but also in the United States, rise up against this version of the facts in spite of the omerta media which reigns, and express the growing exasperation which Zelensky arouses by his speeches at all -goes playing on crude emotion, his regular criticism of Europeans, his ukases and his calls for help even as he forbids his troops to fall back against the Russian army.

A RECKLESS STUBBORNNESS

Likewise, the hard-line policy shown by Kiev – everything shows that it is decided in Washington with the support of the very pro-American Baltic States [3] and especially of Poland, which finds advantages there and dreams to recover part of Ukrainian territory – is completely ineffective and dangerous, because it increases the risk of a major conflict.

Yet the United States and NATO deliberately push Zelensky down this disastrous path, encouraging him to refuse any negotiations or concessions vis-à-vis Moscow, thus contributing directly to prolonging a conflict that Ukraine cannot win and which daily increases the number of civilian and military casualties and the destruction of the country far more than it weakens Russia.

That is why it is urgent to achieve a rapid cessation of hostilities and a return to peace. We call for negotiations between the various parties (Ukrainians, populations of Donbass, Russians) and for their respective interests to be taken into account.

We recall that there is a geopolitical law that no one can flout without consequence: no State can ensure its security to the detriment of its neighbour, especially when the latter is more powerful. The United States has always applied it without anyone finding fault with it [4] . By ignoring it, probably deceived by the Machiavellian encouragement of Washington, Zelensky and his entourage were misguided.

We maintain that:

– this war should never have taken place if NATO, an organization which should have been dissolved at the end of the Cold War, had not violated the promises made in Moscow and extended its influence to its borders;

– it is a war that the Ukrainians cannot win, despite financial, political and material support from the West [5]  ;

– Kyiv’s stubbornness only increases the civilian and military losses, the destruction of the country and the territorial gains of Moscow.

Unfortunately, it is clear that the way out of the crisis is today compromised because all Europeans are in a situation of more or less pronounced co-belligerence which does not allow them to act as mediators. Above all, the Americans have no interest in seeing this conflict end quickly because it is profitable to them. They have also just added fuel to the fire by delivering to Ukraine four long-range M142 HIMARS rocket launchers, capable of reaching Russian territory [6] . The equally hawkish British also announced on June 6 that they would deliver M270 multiple rocket launchers to Kyiv.

*

To criticize Zelensky and his sponsors is not to ignore the sufferings of the civilian populations and the Ukrainian soldiers because they are the ones who pay, every day, the price of the obstinacy of their leaders. However, it should be remembered that almost all of the fighting is taking place in areas with a majority or large Russian-speaking population and not in western Ukraine, whose inhabitants have nevertheless fled en masse to neighboring countries.

If it is legitimate for the Ukrainians to take up arms in the face of the Russian attack and for the military to fight to defend their homeland, it was and remains so just as much for the populations of Donbass in the face of the intolerable aggression of Kyiv. and its neo-Nazi units since 2014.

That Zelensky has become a political symbol for part of the Ukrainian people is understandable. But let us never lose sight of the fact that he is only an actor and the spokesperson for a few oligarchs and the Americans, and that the communication war that he leads cannot hide his responsibilities, nor the growing rout of the Ukrainian army.

[1] Turkey, Baku’s main supporter, was grateful to Kiev, supplying it in return with plenty of combat drones.

[2]  https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/29/7349214/

[3] These three states, which admittedly had to suffer from Soviet domination, have between them less than 7 million inhabitants (Estonia: 1.3 – Latvia: 1.9 – Lithuania: 2.7), including many Russian speakers, that is to say that none of them has the importance of a French region. However, with Poland, they guide the policy of the European Union in this conflict.

[4] Cf. Cuba 1962. Moreover, the Americans, who proclaim loud and clear that any State can freely join the security organization of its choice, have just threatened the Solomon Islands if they signed a military cooperation agreement with Beijing.

[5] The States of the European Union have, since the start of the conflict, paid Ukraine 500 billion euros worth of military materials and equipment and must replenish their stocks (which the industry intends to benefit from). American armament). They have also spent 200 billion on setting up energy supply solutions to overcome their dependence on Russian gas and oil, 17 billion on welcoming refugees and 9 billion on emergency aid in Kyiv. , or nearly 726 billion euros (https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/guerre-en-ukraine-le-cout-eleve-de-l-autonomie-strategique-europeenne-20220529).

[6]  https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/what-himars-rocket-systems-can-and-cant-do-for-ukraine?

На 105-й день полномасштабного военного вторжения России в Украину – в среду, 8 июня – российские войска продолжают попытки захватить населенные пункты соседней страны. Вооруженные силы Украины и ее отряды территориальной обороны сопротивляются агрессии. Проверить заявления представителей обеих сторон конфликта по независимым источникам невозможно.

Генштаб ВСУ: ВС РФ готовят дальнейшее наступление на Славянск

По данным Генштаба ВСУ, российские войска сосредоточили усилия на подготовке дальнейшего наступления на Славянск и нанесли по нему авиаудар, тогда как украинские военные успешно противодействуют попыткам улучшить тактическое положение близ этого города. На Северском направлении россияне обстреляли из минометов гражданскую инфраструктуру в районах Ходыно, Рыжевки и Большой Писаревки и выполнили провокационные пролеты военной авиации вдоль украинской границы.

На Северодонецком направлении российские подразделения обстреливали гражданскую инфраструктуру в районах Приволья, Северодонецка, Лисичанска, Вороново, Тошковки, Горного и других, указывается в опубликованной в Facebook вечерней сводке. На Бахмутском направлении совершены артиллерийские обстрелы Камышевахи, Врубовки, Николаевки, Семигорья и Нью-Йорка, нанесены авиаудары вблизи Новой Каменки, Покровского и Клинового, сообщили в ВСУ.

Северодонецк: украинские силы контролируют лишь окраины

В свою очередь Минобороны Украины сообщило, что РФ развернула близ Херсона ракетные комплексы “Искандер – М”. По словам официального представителя ведомства Александра Мотузяника, сохраняется угроза нанесения россиянами ракетных ударов по военным и гражданским объектам с территории аннексированного Крыма. “В готовности к применению ракетного вооружения в акватории Черного моря находятся пять носителей КРМБ типа “Калибр” (суммарный залп – до 36 ракет)”, – заявил он.

В одном из нынешних центров боевых действий – Северодонецке – украинские силы оттеснены российскими ударами и теперь контролируют только его окраины, заявил глава Луганской областной военной администрации Сергей Гайдай в интервью агентству “РБК-Украина”. По его данным, ситуация в городе развивается очень динамично: несколько дней назад украинские силы “действительно зашли и зачистили почти полностью половину города”, но затем российские войска “просто начали ровнять его с землей авиаударами и артиллерией”. “Но бои еще идут, Северодонецк наши защищают, говорить, что россияне полностью контролируют город, нельзя”, – добавил Гайдай.

Обмен телами погибших в Запорожской области и девять новых подозреваемых военных РФ

На линии фронта в Запорожской области проведен очередной обмен телами погибших военнослужащих по формуле “50 на 50”, сообщило украинское министерство по вопросам реинтеграции временно оккупированных территорий. Среди 50 возвращенных тел павших украинских героев – 37 защитников металлургического комбината “Азовсталь” в Мариуполе, говорится в заявлении Киева.

Агентство ТАСС сообщило, что оккупационные власти захваченной российскими властями Запорожской области намерены в этом году провести референдум о присоединении к России. Член так называемого “главного совета военно-гражданской администрации” области Владимир Рогов заявил, что голосование будет действительно с явкой выше 50 процентов.

Тем временем генпрокурор Украины Ирина Венедиктова сообщила об идентификации девяти российских военнослужащих, причастных к убийствам в Черниговской области с 9 по 28 марта. По ее словам, россияне согнали в подвал школы в селе Ягодное более 300 человек и долгое время удерживали их в нечеловеческих условиях, в результате чего умерли десять мирных жителей. Кроме того утверждается, что в то же время российские военные убили в Ягодном еще 17 человек. Венедиктова опубликовала список подозреваемых. Все они служат в разных подразделениях 55-й горной отдельной мотострелковой бригады в Туве, им предъявлены подозрения в совершении преступления.

Депутат Верховной рады признал сотрудничество с россиянами в Херсонской области

Депутат Верховной рады Алексей Ковалев признался в сотрудничестве с оккупировавшими Херсонскую область российскими силами. В опубликованном в Facebook посте он указал, что накануне был на “очень важном” мероприятии – встрече с херсонскими фермерами первого заместителя главы администрации президента РФ Сергеем Кириенко. “Было заявлено, что Россия здесь всерьез и навсегда”, – написал он.

После этого в Верховной раде призвали лишить Ковалева депутатского мандата. “Последние заявления Ковалева, сделанные в соцсетях после “совещания” в Херсоне с заместителем руководителя кремлевской администрации Кириенко, убедительно свидетельствуют о том, что наш бывший коллега стал коллаборантом агрессора. Он предал украинский народ, предал своих избирателей, предал Украину”, – заявила спикер фракции “Слуга народа” Юлия Палийчук и сообщила, что руководство фракции обратится к руководству Рады с соответствующим предложением.

Новые санкции Канады и ухудшение прогноза ОЭСР

Канада объявила, что вводит санкции против российской нефтяной, газовой и химической промышленности. Новые штрафные меры включают запрет на экспорт 28 услуг, необходимых для функционирования этих видов промышленности, заявил МИД в Оттаве и пояснил, что это ответ на путинское “вопиющее” вторжение в Украину.

Европарламент рекомендовал Совету ЕС предоставить Украине статус кандидата на вступление в Европейский Союз, приняв соответствующую резолюцию.

Организация экономического сотрудничества и развития (ОЭСР) значительно понизила прогноз развития мировой экономики из-за войны в Украине. “Вторжение России в Украину сразу же замедлило восстановление ослабленной пандемией экономической конъюнктуры”, – говорится в сообщении ОЭСР. Теперь организация ожидает, что рост мировой экономики в этом году составит всего 3 процента, в декабре 2021 года ОЭСР прогнозировала рост в 4,5 процента. “Нападение России на Украину уже дорого обходится миру”, – заявила главный экономист ОЭСР Лоуренс Бун.

Конфликт вокруг экспорта зерна

В Анкаре прошли переговоры министров иностранных дел РФ и Турции Сергея Лаврова и Мевлюта Чавушоглу. По их итогам глава МИД Турции назвал законным требование России об отмене санкций против российской сельхозпродукции, введенных из-за вторжения РФ в Украину. “Совершенно законно в обмен на согласие пропускать грузы с зерном и подсолнечным маслом из Украины на мировой рынок добиваться устранения препятствий для российского экспорта продовольствия. Считаем, что это было бы справедливо”, – заявил он. Лавров со своей стороны указал, что Россия готова гарантировать безопасность судов, вывозящих зерно из заблокированных портов Украины.

В свою очередь глава Еврокомиссии Урсула фон дер Ляйен (Ursula von der Leyen), выступая в Европарламенте в Страсбурге, заявила о необходимости “разоблачить дезинформацию России” о виновности Запада в мировом продовольственном кризисе. По ее словам, “продовольствие стало частью кремлевского арсенала террора”, и с этим нельзя мириться. Отвечая на утверждения Москвы о том, что во взлете мировых цен на продовольствие виновны западные санкции, фон дер Ляйен подчеркнула, что эти меры “не затрагивают основные продовольственные товары” и не влияют на торговлю продовольствием между Россией и третьими странами. Она напомнила, что в Украине застряли 20 миллионов тонн зерна.

Мэр Мелитополя Иван Федоров в ходе телемарафона сообщил, что российские войска начали вывозить зерно из контролируемого ими города поездами. “Два дня назад они начали вывозить наше зерно по железной дороге. Так они делают это быстрее и ясно, что они долго не планируют оставаться на территории нашего города, потому что хотят украсть все как можно быстрее и уйти”, – указал он.

Канцлер ФРГ Олаф Шольц (Olaf Scholz) проинформировал президента Украины Владимира Зеленского о своем последнем телефонном разговоре с президентами РФ и Франции Владимиром Путиным и Эмманюэлем Макроном 28 мая. Шольц и Зеленский согласны в том, что “необходимо сделать все возможное, чтобы обеспечить экспорт зерна из Украины, в первую очередь морским путем”. Лидеры двух стран продолжат обсуждать возможности поддержки Украины и будут “оставаться в тесном контакте”, сообщила пресс-служба правительства Германии.

Смотрите также: