Connect with us

Conflicts

Ukraine parliamentarians: 'The best chance for peace' in the East European country

SHARE:

Published

on

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. You can unsubscribe at any time.

YuriSenior Opposition parliamentarians from Ukraine say the Minsk agreement offers "the best chance for peace" in the war-torn East European country.

The MPs were speaking during a visit to the European Parliament where they met leading MEPs to discuss issues related to the conflict.

Yuriy Boyko (pictured left), a former deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, who led the delegation, said he believes the peace deal agreed in Minsk offered the best chance for a "lasting" solution to the war.

Advertisement

Under the ceasefire reached in the Belarus capital in February both sides in the Ukraine conflict were due to pull back heavy weapons by the beginning of March.

The two sides are due to create a buffer zone between them of at least 50km for artillery of 100mm calibre or more, 70km for multiple rocket systems and 140km for the heaviest rockets and missiles.

The ceasefire appears to be taking hold despite continuing clashes. The opposing sides have accused each other of breaking the truce or using it as a cover to regroup.

Advertisement

Boyko, who is better known as the Minister of fuel and energy in Ukraine in 2010 to 2012, said the Opposition bloc, a newly created entity representing six political parties in the country, supported the terms of the Minsk agreement.

Addressing a briefing with journalists  in Parliament on Tuesday, he said, "The military conflict has got to stop in order to avoid further tragedy. It is also not in the interest of Europe to have such military insecurity so close to its borders so, yes, this (Minsk) is our best chance for peace."

He said, "I was in Eastern Ukraine last week and I saw people starting to return to their homes. Step by step the military conflict is decreasing to the point where, hopefully, it will finally end. I also believe Russia wants to stop the military action."

The two-day visit to Brussels comes on the eve of a key summit of EU leaders, who meet in Brussels on Thursdayand Friday (20 March) to discuss the crisis in Ukraine and, possibly, increasing sanctions against Russia.

As well as Boyko, the delegation is made up of Oleksandr Vilkul, also a former vice PM and ex-chairman of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration and MPs Vadim Rabinovych, chairman of the political party "Center" and president of the All-Ukrainian Jewish Congress, Julia Lyovochkina and Volodymyr Husak.

"Opposition Bloc" was formed in November by six political parties that took part in parliamentary elections last October.

The alliance took fourth place in the poll, winning 1,486,203 votes, nearly 10% of the popular vote. It led in the regions of Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, Lugansk and Kharkiv.

During their visit to Brussels the delegation highlighted a "peace plan", including a peace keeping mission, put forward by the Opposition Bloc on 27 January.

This was subsequently rejected by the Ukrainian parliament but the fact that it has since been adopted by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko illustrates, say the MPs, how the opposition in Ukraine is "totally overlooked."

The package of proposals first initiated by Opposition Bloc at the start of the year acknowledges the "impossibility" of solving the conflict by military means and calls for "all measures" to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those most in need, mostly in Eastern Ukraine.

Most of the proposals are, the MPs point out, covered by the ceasefire deal agreed in Minsk and state that the Ukrainian government "must appeal to the UN for a military peacekeeping contingent to ensure lasting peace."

In the news briefing in the European Parliament, Rabinovych underlined that Opposition bloc is "pro-Ukrainian", adding that it wanted to see a "united, not divided" country.

He said, "We have come to Brussels basically to introduce ourselves and bring forward a plan on how we want things to change in Ukraine."

 

Opposition bloc is not aligned with any political groupings in the European parliament and Rabinovych added, "This short visit is an also an opportunity find political partners though it is too early to talk about that."

He decried the fact that the Ukrainian government budget does not currently allocate funding to the Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine, the region which is most affected by the war.

 

"They say that it is not their territory so why provide funding for the reconstruction? This is probably the biggest separation in Ukraine at the moment. What we are calling for is an equal approach for all regions in Ukraine, including Donbas."

 

UK MEP Charles Tannock, ECR spokesman on foreign affairs, also spoke at the briefing, saying he looked forward to a "stable, peaceful and prosperous" Ukraine.

 

He said he "better undestood" the differences between the Opposition and government parties in Ukraine after meeting the delegation.

 

Tannock also called for an economic aid programme in order to stabilise the economy in Ukraine which he said was in a "perilous" state.

 

At least 6,000 people are believed to have been killed and more than one million have fled their homes since conflict erupted last April in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The U.S. EU and Ukraine say Russia is supplying the separatists with troops and weapons. Russia denies the allegations.

 

More than 80 trucks with humanitarian aid crossed into rebel-held areas on Sunday. Ukraine has begun receiving the first €4.72 billion tranche of €16.5bn aid from the International Monetary Fund aid.

 

The loan is part of a €37.7bn package to rescue the nation's economy as it buckles under a plunging hryvnia currency and the fighting which has crippled its industrial heartland.

Belgium

British Legion seeks story behind World War II casualties

Published

on

Two Britons, killed during the WW2 Blitzkrieg, rest in the pretty Flemish cemetery of Peutie, among countless Belgian ex-combatants. Former UK journalist Dennis Abbott recently put crosses on the graves on behalf of the Royal British Legion during the Armistice commemoration week in November.

But he is also looking for answers.

What were those two young British boys actually doing in Peutie? And above all: who are Lucy and Hannah, the two Belgian women who maintained their graves for years?

Advertisement

Abbott has been living in Belgium for 20 years. He is a former journalist for, among others, The Sun and The Daily Mirror in London and was subsequently a spokesman for the European Commission. He is also a member of the Royal British Legion, a charity which raises money to support serving and former serving members of the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force facing hardship, as well as their families.

One of their tasks is also to keep alive the memory of those who died for our freedom. Indeed, Abbott was a reservist in Iraq for British troops in 2003.

"On the occasion of the annual commemoration of the Armistice, I looked into stories related to the Battle of Belgium in May 1940," says Abbott. "I discovered the graves of two British soldiers of the Grenadier Guards in Peutie. They are Leonard 'Len' Walters and Alfred William Hoare. They both died on the night of 15 to 16 May. Len was barely 20 and Alfred 33. I was curious why their last resting place was in the village cemetery and not in one of the big war cemeteries in Brussels or Heverlee.

Advertisement

“I found an article in a British provincial newspaper explaining that the two soldiers were first buried in the grounds of a local castle - presumably Batenborch - and then taken to the village cemetery.”

Abbott added: "The case won't let me go. I have looked into how the soldiers ended up in Peutie. Apparently, the 1st Battalion of the Grenadier Guards fought alongside the Belgian 6th Regiment Jagers te Voet. But nowhere is a specific mention of the German attack on Peutie to be found.

“The Belgian and British troops fought a rearguard action during a phased withdrawal beyond the Brussels-Willebroek Canal and then to the Channel coast.

"It seems that Peutie was the divisional headquarters of the Jagers te Voet Regiment. My guess is that the staff of the regiment and the British Guardsmen might have been housed at Batenborch Castle. So the castle was a target for the Germans.

"Were Walters and Hoare guarding the place? Were they seconded to the Jagers te Voet to ensure the rearguard in the steady retreat towards Dunkirk? Or were they cut off from their regiment during the fighting?”

"The date on the memorial stone, 15-16 May 1940, is also strange. Why two dates?

“My suspicion is that they died at night during enemy shelling or as a result of a night raid by the Luftwaffe. In the chaos of war, it cannot be ruled out either that they were victims of 'friendly fire'.”

Abbott has also discovered that two women from Peutie, Lucy and Hannah, looked after Len and William's graves for years.

"That intrigues me. What was their relationship with the fallen soldiers? Did they know them? I think Lucy died. The question is whether Hannah is still alive. Their relatives are probably still living in Peutie.  Does anyone know more? On both graves someone has laid some beautiful chrysanthemums.”

Continue Reading

Conflicts

Youth football peace initiative for Georgian conflict zone

Published

on

A widely praised peace initiative in Georgia has launched an appeal for vitally needed fresh investment. The international peace project on the Georgian conflict zone has been lauded for helping to reconcile all sides in a dispute dubbed Europe’s “forgotten war.” In an effort to bring long term peace to the area, an ambitious project was launched to set up football infrastructure in the conflict zone of Gori municipality.

Spearheading the initiative is Giorgi Samkharadze, originally a football referee (pictured center)  who has now made an appeal for international donors to help finance his plans.

He said, “Our project has been partly financed by several business companies but it is definitely not enough to tackle our tasks.  On the contrary the situation became worse, tension is just increasing since the beginning of a conflict.”

Advertisement
Georgian and South Ossetian teams

Georgian and South Ossetian teams

Some $250,000 has been raised so far from a couple of investors and this has gone on drainage and an artificial pitch but more investment from donors is urgently needed for his proposals to come to full fruition.  Backing has also come from the EU/Georgia Business Council and Samkharadze  hopes aid may come from both the public and private sectors.

Support for what is still a charity has come from the Georgian Parliament which has written an open letter, appealing for investment for what is seen as a vitally important local peace initiative.

The Parliament of Georgia has given priority to the international peace project Ergneti, a state document was drawn up to seek donor organizations, the finances needed to develop children in the conflict zone with the help of appropriate infrastructure and to promote the systematic development of peace through sport and culture.

Advertisement
Giorgi Samkharadze explains the peace project

Giorgi Samkharadze explains the peace project

The letter, written by the Chairman of the parliament’s Committee of European Integration, senior Georgian MP David Songulashvili, strongly recommends the project which, he says, “touches on reconciliation of the societies of Georgia and Tskhinvali Region - a very prominent issue for Georgia, as well as its international partners.”

Development of the existing project, he says, “would facilitate people-to-people contact, dialogue processes, and reconciliation of the youth from both sides of the Administrative Boundary Line.”

He writes that the Committee “firmly believes that the goals and expected outcomes of this project are truly in line with the western direction of the country’s development, as peaceful resolution of conflicts and territorial integrity within the internationally recognized borders are values we and our international partners are strongly committed to.”

Songulashvili reaffirms the Parliament’s support to the project and recommends Samkharadze as a “valuable potential partner.”

He concludes, “We truly hope to see this project develop and progress in line with the country’s interests.”

Cup final celebrations!

Cup final celebrations!

Samkharadze  told this site he welcomes the intervention by the Georgian parliament, adding, “Georgia is a country of parliamentary rule and, when the Parliament of Georgia and the European Integration Committee supports such an international peace project, I would hope that the European Commission will feel compelled to provide some financial backing for our project.”

He said he now hopes to see “practical help” from the EU for the initiative.

He says such efforts are all the more important now because of a worrying recent upsurge in tensions in the region.

Ergneti is one of the numerous villages located next to the administrative boundary line (ABL), the demarcation between Georgia and Tskhinvali region or South Ossetia. Following the Georgia-Russia War in August 2008, barbed wire fences were installed on the ABL hindering the freedom of movement of people and goods.

In the past, the EU has applauded the efforts of the project but the hope is that this support will translate into financial aid.

Georgian TVs have broadcast news about the  project while the President of the European Commission, Ms. Ursula von der Leyen, and the leadership of the European Parliament have sent letters of support.

Samkharadze said, “This international peace project needs the practical involvement of investors"

 

Giorgi Samkharadze give post match TV interviews

Giorgi Samkharadze give post match TV interviews

One obvious success so far has been the construction of a temporary football stadium for use by locals, located 300 meters from the temporary demarcation line in Ergnet. Recently, there was a friendly football match composed of the locals from the conflict zone. It took place near the Ossetian border and 300 hundred meters from Tskhinvali and local families of those taking part all chipped in to pay the costs of staging the event.

The event itself was highly symbolic and, so too, was the date when it took place, in August – it was in August 2008 that the bitter, albeit short, war started. Representatives from local government and the EU monitoring mission in Georgia (EUMM) were among those present.

Samkharadze  said, “They told us many warm wards and encouraged all of us to continue our activities.”

He told EU Reporter the aim now is to coordinate with different partners “to build the necessary infrastructure in the conflict zone so as to engage young people in sports and cultural activities.”

He adds, “it is necessary to have a good infrastructure for all events and an environment conducive to teachers and children, so as not to lose the enthusiasm they now have but to develop in search of a better future.”

Ergenti was severely damaged in 2008 and a temporary dividing line runs through the village.

“That,” he adds, “ is why we need to create a good infrastructure for all. We do not want war, on the contrary, we are committed to peace.”

He adds, “We are people of different professions committed to one big goal - to develop  both young people and employment in the conflict zone.”

In the longer term he wants to see other sports and activities take place such as rugby, athletics and cultural, artistic and religious events.

 

Presentation of the Cup

Presentation of the Cup

“It is  necessary to have a good infrastructure for all such events, and an environment conducive to teachers of sports and cultural events and children, so as not to lose the enthusiasm they now have but to develop in search of a better future,” he states.

The exciting project – located on one just hectare of land - that he heads will, he says, also continue to facilitate the reconciliation between Ossetians and Georgians along with the development of villages close to the neighbourhood.

The area, as snow, has been a source of tension since the break-up of the Soviet Union. After a short war between Russia and Georgia in 2008, Moscow subsequently recognised South Ossetia as an independent state and began a process of closer ties that Georgia views as effective annexation.

Some 20% of Georgian territory is occupied by the Russian Federation, and the European Union does not recognize the territories occupied by Russia.

Children from both sides of the conflict line united by football

Children from both sides of the conflict line united by football

Before the war, many persons in Ergneti used to trade their agricultural products with the nearby territory now under occupation. Moreover, the market in Ergneti represented a crucial socio-economic meeting point where both Georgians and Ossetians used to meet each other to do business.

Samkharadze hopes, with his pioneering project, to bring the good times back, at least to this part of his native country. The project is, he argues, a model for other similar conflicts around the globe.

It is to be hoped now that, despite the world being gripped by a global health pandemic and the corresponding financial impact, the positive soundings coming out of this small but troubled part of Europe will have some resonance in the corridors of power in Brussels - and beyond.

 

Continue Reading

Conflicts

When truth hurts: How US and British taxpayers ensured Soviet victory in the 'Great Patriotic War'

Published

on

On 8 May, when the rest of the civilized world was remembering the victims of World War II, the official twitter account of the White House published a tweet about the victory of the US and UK over Nazism that took place 75 years ago, writes Janis Makonkalns, Latvian freelance journalist and blogger.

The tweet attracted notable criticism from Russian officials who were infuriated that the US had the audacity to believe it had somehow helped achieve the victory, ignoring Russia as the main – or even the only – victor in the war it itself had caused. According to Russian officials, this is the US attempting to rewrite WWII history.

Interestingly, this sentiment was also backed by anti-Kremlin opposition activist Aleksandr Navalny who also criticized Washington for “wrongly interpreting history”, adding that 27 million Russians (!) lost their lives in the war – not Soviet citizens of different nationalities.

Neither the official Moscow, nor Navalny, who is quite respected in the West, attempted to provide any real facts for their arguments that would refute what the official White House twitter account had stated. In American words, Russia’s arguments over the history of WWII is nothing more than a pile of bullshit.

Advertisement

What is more, such an attitude from Russian officials and politicians is completely natural, because modern Moscow still sees WWII exclusively through a prism of historical myths made up during the Soviet era. This has resulted in Moscow (and others) refusing to open their eyes to a multitude of facts – facts Moscow is so very afraid of.

In this article, I will provide four facts about the history of World War II that make Russia uncomfortable and scared of the truth.

Fact #1: WWII would not have taken place if the USSR had not signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Germany.

Advertisement

Despite Moscow’s attempts to cover this up, nowadays practically everyone is well aware that on 23 August 1939 the USSR signed a non-aggression treaty with NAZI Germany. The treaty contained a secret protocol defining the borders of Soviet and German spheres of influence in Eastern Europe.

Hitler’s main concern before attacking Poland was to find itself fighting in the Western and Eastern fronts simultaneously. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact ensured that after attacking Poland, there will be no need to fight the USSR. As a result, the USSR is directly responsible for causing WWII, in which it actually fought on the side of Nazis, which Moscow now so strongly despises.

Fact #2: The unimaginable number of casualties on the USSR side was not a sign of heroism or decisiveness, but the consequences of neglect from Soviet authorities.  

Speaking of the USSR’s decisive role in WWII, Russian representatives usually stress the huge number of casualties (up to 27 million soldiers and civilians died) as proof of heroism of the Soviet nation.

In reality, the casualties do not represent heroism or the willingness of people to defend their motherland whatever the cost, as often argued by Moscow’s propaganda mouthpieces. The truth is that this unimaginable number was only because the Soviet leadership was indifferent towards the lives of its citizens, as well as the fact the strategies chosen by the Soviets were thoughtless.

The Soviet army was utterly unprepared for war, because up until the last moment Stalin believed that Hitler will not attack the USSR. The army, which required developed defensive capabilities, instead continued preparing for an offensive war (perhaps hoping that together with Germany it will be able to divide not only Eastern Europe, but Western Europe as well). Additionally, during the Great Purge of 1936-1938 the USSR intentionally eliminated most the Red Army’s most capable military leaders, because Stalin simply did not trust them. This resulted in the Soviet leadership being so detached from reality that it couldn’t perceive the threat posed to it by Nazi Germany.

A great example of this is the utter failure of the Red Army in the Winter War. Soviet intelligence was so afraid from Stalin’s political requirement to attack Finland that it deliberately lied about its weak defenses and alleged pro-Kremlin and pro-Bolshevik sentiments shared by the Finnish people. USSR leadership was certain it would crush the small Finland, but the reality turned out to be one of 20th century’s most disgraceful military campaigns.

After all, we cannot forget that the system of the USSR did not care whatsoever for its people. Because of being so far behind technologically and strategically, the USSR could only fight Germany by throwing the bodies its soldiers at the Nazis. Even in the final days of the war, when the Red Army was approaching Berlin, Marshal Zhukov, instead of waiting for the enemy to surrender, kept sending thousands of Soviet soldiers to a meaningless death on German minefields.

Therefore, it is almost not too late for Russian officials to understand that the fact that the US and UK had much less casualties than the USSR does not mean that they contributed less to the outcome of the war. It actually means that these countries treated their soldiers with respect and fought more skillfully than the USSR.

Fact #3: Soviet victory in WWII would not have been possible without material assistance from the US, known as the Lend-Lease policy.

If on 11 March 1941 the US Congress had not decided to provide material assistance to the USSR, the Soviet Union would have suffered even greater territorial losses and human casualties, even as far as losing control over Moscow.

In order to understand the extent of this assistance, I will provide some figures. American taxpayer money provided the USSR with 11,000 airplanes, 6,000 tanks 300,000 military vehicles and 350 locomotives. In addition, the USSR also received phones and cables to ensure communication on the battlefield, ammunition and explosives, as well as raw materials and tools to help the USSR’s military production and some 3,000,000 tons of foodstuffs.

Other than the USSR, the US provided material assistance to a total of 38 countries that fought against Nazi Germany. Adjusting for modern times, Washington spent 565 billion dollars to do this, out of which 127 billion were received by the USSR. I think no one will be surprised knowing that Moscow never repaid any of the money.  

What is more, Moscow also cannot admit that it was not only the US, but also the UK that provided assistance to the USSR. During WWII, the Brits delivered to the USSR more than 7,000 airplanes, 27 warships, 5,218 tanks, 5,000 anti-tank weapons, 4,020 medical and cargo trucks and more than 1,500 military vehicles, as well as several thousand radios and radar equipment pieces and 15,000,000 boots that the Red Army soldiers so desperately lacked.

Fact #4: Without the campaigns of the US and UK in the Pacific Ocean, Africa and Western Europe the USSR would have capitulated to the Axis powers.  

Considering the aforementioned facts proving how weak and pathetic the USSR was during WWII, it is more than clear that it wouldn’t have been able to stand against the Nazi war machine without both material assistance from the US and UK and also their military support.

US engagement in WWII and the beginning of its Pacific campaign against Japan on 7 December 1941 was the prerequisite for the USSR to defend its Far East borders. If Japan would not have been forced to focus on fighting US forces in the Pacific Ocean, it would most likely be able to seize the larger Soviet cities located in the border area, thus acquiring control over a considerable part of the USSR’s territory. Taking into account the great size of the USSR, its badly developed infrastructure and the overall unpreparedness of its army, Moscow would not have lasted even a couple of months if it was forced to war on two fronts simultaneously.  

It should also be stressed that Germany’s assault on the USSR was also hindered by British activity in North Africa. If the UK had not spent huge resources to fight Germany in this region, the Nazis would be able to concentrate their forces on seizing Moscow and would most likely have succeeded.

We cannot forget that WWII concluded with the Normandy landings that finally fully opened the Western front, which was Hitler’s greatest nightmare and the reason for signing the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. If the Allies had not began their assault from French territory, Germany would have been able to focus its remaining forces in the east to hold back Soviet forces and not let them further into Central Europe. As a result, the WWII could have ended without total capitulation on the side of Berlin.

It is obvious that without assistance from the US and UK, Soviet victory in WWII would not have been possible. Everything suggested that Moscow is about to lose the war, and only because of enormous material and financial resources provided by the Americans and the Brits was the USSR able to recover from the shock of summer of 1941, recover its territories and finally seize Berlin, which was weakened by the Allies.

Politicians in modern Russia pretend to not see this, and – instead of at least admitting that the victory was possible because of the engagement of the entire Europe (including Eastern European nations that were not mentioned here – ones that Moscow now often accuses of glorifying Nazism) – they continue standing by the now ridiculed myths about WWII created way back by Soviet propaganda.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's alone.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending