United Nations Security Council Summary / May 2, 2014

Posted May 2, 2014

Summary of statements from United Nations Security Council emergency meeting held May 2, 2014.

Diplomatic Solution Only Way Out, as Situation in Ukraine Deteriorates,


Under-Secretary-General Tells Security Council


The situation in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine had seen “further severe deterioration”, with fresh events — including the downing of two helicopters — threatening to destabilize the country and the region, the Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs told the Security Council today.

Jeffrey Feltman, briefing the Council three days after his most recent update, said that in more than a dozen cities in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk, armed groups had taken over a growing number of buildings.  The situation in the eastern city of Slovyansk, occupied by armed insurgents since 12 April, was of most immediate concern.

According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence, he said, two helicopters had been shot down overnight during operations by the authorities, with at least one pilot killed.  Other casualties had been reported on both sides.  In Donetsk Oblast and in the city itself, self-declared separatists had seized the regional prosecutor’s office on 1 May.  Other reports cited clashes during a pro-unity protest in the southern city of Odessa.

He understood that the President of the Russian Federation had dispatched a special envoy to help free the seven military monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and accompanying Ukrainian staff being held by gunmen in Slovyansk.  A diplomatic solution was the only way out of the crisis and all sides must redouble efforts to revive the spirit of compromise shown during the 17 April Geneva talks.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he had called today’s meeting because of the punitive operations being conducted in south-east Ukraine by the Kyiv Government, which was using military helicopters, striking at protestors and entrenching fighters.  Unless its criminal misadventures were stopped, dire consequences would be unavoidable.  Ukraine’s measures against its own people showed it had no desire to comply with the Geneva Statement.

While the Russian Federation was making efforts to de-escalate the crisis, Ukraine had started full-scale use of military force, annihilating any hope of agreement, he said.  Urging an end to outside interference in Ukraine’s affairs, he said that by supporting those who had perpetrated a coup d’état in Kyiv, the United States and the European Union were destroying the path to a peaceful solution.

The representative of Ukraine said his country was committed to implementing the Geneva Statement, noting that free and fair presidential elections on 25 May were a top priority.  The Russian Federation had made no effort to implement the Geneva accords.  Instead, it supported illegal militants in eastern Ukraine and had created an atmosphere of violence.

He said the counter-terrorist operation, renewed in Slovyansk, sought to isolate militants from civilians in the city.  Illegal militants were using heavy weapons against Ukrainian Special Forces, having shot down two helicopters and used the local population as shields.  Earlier today, Russian saboteurs had attempted to cross the border.  He urged the Russian Federation to stop supporting illegal militants.  Russian claims of English-speaking foreigner involvement were “cynical” and “false”, as only Russian saboteurs and mercenaries were involved.

Also speaking in today’s debate were the representatives of France, United Kingdom, United States, Luxembourg, Argentina, Australia, China, Chad, Lithuania, Nigeria, Jordan, Chile, Rwanda and the Republic of Korea.

The meeting began at 12:03 p.m. and ended at 1:50 p.m.


Meeting this afternoon to consider the situation in Ukraine, members of the Security Council had before them a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation (document S/2014/264) addressed to the Council President.  Dated 13 April, it requests a meeting to consider “alarming” developments in Ukraine.


JEFFREY FELTMAN, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, said that since the Council’s last meeting on 29 April, there had been a further, severe deterioration of the situation in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine.  Recent developments in those areas threatened a serious further destabilization of the country and the region, as well as Ukraine’s unity.  In more than a dozen cities in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk, an increasing number of buildings were being taken over by armed groups, he said, emphasizing that the situation in the eastern city of Slovyansk, occupied by armed insurgents since 12 April, was of most immediate concern.

According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence, he continued, two helicopters had been shot down overnight during ongoing operations by the authorities, with at least one pilot killed.  A number of other casualties had been reported on both sides, but the total could not be verified.  The acting Interior Minister had stated that a number of roadblocks had been removed from around the city, but it was understood from the media that tense standoffs continued, at least in parts of the city and around it.

At the same time, he continued, the seven military monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) accompanying Ukrainian military staff and held by gunmen in Slovyansk remained in detention amid repeated calls for their release.  To that end, it was understood that the President of the Russian Federation had dispatched a special envoy to help free the hostages, he said, reiterating the Secretary-General’s call to those responsible to release them immediately, unconditionally and unharmed.

The crisis had also escalated in the Donetsk Oblast region and in Donetsk itself, where self-declared separatists had seized the regional prosecutor’s office on 1 May, he said.  Other reports stated that the Ukrainian authorities had banned Russian passenger planes from flying to Donetsk and Kharkiv, while still others reported clashes during a pro-unity demonstration in the southern city of Odessa.  Reiterating elements of the Secretary-General’s statement today, in which he expressed his grave concern over the situation, he said the escalating violence and reported further loss of life in Slovyansk were a stark reminder of how dangerous the situation had become.  A diplomatic solution was the only way out of the crisis and all sides must redouble efforts to revive the spirit of compromise demonstrated during the 17 April Geneva talks, Mr. Feltman stressed, adding that during his meetings in Kyiv and Moscow next week, he would continue to reiterate a message of restraint and an immediate return to dialogue.


VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said he had called for today’s meeting because of the resumed punitive operations being conducted in south-east Ukraine by the Kyiv Government, which was using military helicopters, striking at protestors and entrenching fighters, leading to casualties.  Unless the criminal misadventures of the Kyiv clique were stopped, dire consequences would be unavoidable, he warned, adding that the Ukrainian Government’s criminal measures against its own people showed that it had no desire to comply with the 17 April Joint Geneva Statement.  It was now clear that the Kyiv Government’s many declarations in favour of dialogue were nothing less than hypocrisy.

At a time when the Russian Federation was making efforts to de-escalate the crisis, Ukraine had started full-scale use of military force, annihilating any hope of agreement, he continued.  On the radio waves, one could hear English-speaking foreigners among those carrying out assaults in Slovyansk.  Calling for an end to outside interference in Ukraine’s affairs, he urged the United States to end its double standards, adding that by supporting those who had perpetrated a coup d’état in Kyiv, that country and the European Union were in effect destroying the path to a peaceful solution.  He called upon signatories to the Geneva Statement not to commit a fatal error, and on the West to stop its destructive policy concerning Ukraine and halt its operations there.  An authentic political dialogue was needed, he emphasized.

GÉRARD ARAUD (France) said that the armed groups involved in progressively taking over cities in eastern Ukraine were being manipulated by Russian forces and refusing to implement the Geneva Statement.  Ukraine, which had shown great restraint all along, had now decided to use its army and police against armed groups creating a climate of insecurity, he said, emphasizing that the latter were not spontaneous local demonstrators, who would be incapable of shooting down a helicopter with surface-to-air missiles.  The Russian Federation had invoked the 21 February agreement, which it had not endorsed, while waiving the Geneva Agreement, to which it had consented but had made no effort to implement.  He described as “comical” the Russian Federation’s accusation blaming the European Union for the violence, emphasizing that the Russian Federation had opened a Pandora’s box and unleashed the demon of nationalism.  “We have a pyromaniac situation,” he said, stressing that the Russian Federation must disarm the groups that it had armed, free the OSCE monitors and negotiate with Ukraine.

MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) said the Russian Federation’s description of events in Ukraine as a punitive military operation against activists was a gross distortion of facts.  Ukraine had a duty to uphold the rule of law and to protect its territory, and should carry it out in a proportionate, measured way, he emphasized.  Its actions in and around Slovyansk were meant to relieve that city from armed groups sponsored by the Russian Federation who were terrorizing the population.  No Council member would allow its towns to be overrun by armed militants, he pointed out, stressing that the Russian Federation’s claims about “peaceful activists” were not credible given the use of sophisticated weapons against Ukrainian forces, including by professionals funded and equipped by the Russian Federation.  He urged the Russian Federation to refrain from inflammatory propaganda, throw its full weight behind the 17 April accord and rein in the armed groups that it supported.

SAMANTHA POWER (United States) described as false the Russian Federation’s claims that Ukraine was carrying out a large-scale attack on unarmed civilians, emphasizing that the latter’s actions were intended to contain Russian paramilitaries and protect Ukrainian citizens.  Russian-directed agents and paramilitaries were the source of the violence, she stressed.  Another falsehood was that the Russian Federation was concerned about instability in the east, while it was itself behind the instability.  With Russian troops massing along its border, Ukraine had shown “remarkable, almost unimaginable” restraint, implementing international agreements, refraining from military responses to aggression and committing to direct dialogue with Moscow.  Ukraine’s efforts to reclaim its cities were the same as any country would have made in the face of threats, she said, adding that 32 buildings in 17 eastern Ukraine towns were occupied by pro-Russian separatists.  The Council had heard the Russian Federation build its case for outright intervention, but there was no evidence that Ukraine had threatened the Russian Federation in any way, she said.  Ukraine’s steps to restore order were justified, but the fact that the Russian Federation had chosen to call an emergency Council meeting was another sign that it was trying to replicate the Crimea charade, she said, urging the latter to pull back its troops, stop its campaign of instability, and work to release international observers and journalists.

SYLVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg) expressed concern over the actions of pro-Russian, militant separatists intent on destabilizing Ukraine and preventing it from holding elections on 25 May.  Confronted with violations against its sovereignty, Ukrainian authorities had shown restraint.  Until Thursday, their response to the illegal seizure of public offices and the growing number of attacks and violence by armed groups against peaceful protests had been moderate.  The presence of impartial United Nations and OSCE monitors across Ukraine was vital to establish the facts and put an end to bellicose propaganda.  She condemned the taking of OSCE monitors as hostages and called on the pro-separatists to free them as soon as possible.

MARÍA CRISTINA PERCEVAL (Argentina) said that the spirit of compromise reached in Geneva must be restored.  Hate speech and incitement to violence had only lead to rising tensions, undermining the international community’s efforts.  All actors must work towards constructive diplomacy so the Geneva Statement could be implemented.  The Council’s calls for a de-escalation of tensions had not been consistent.  “It is not too late.  It is still possible to avoid the worst,” she said, calling on the Council to assume its responsibility to maintain international peace and security.

GARY QUINLAN (Australia) said the planned, coordinated destabilization of Ukraine could not happen without external support, as seen with the downing of two helicopters.  Armed groups had consolidated control in Donetsk and Kharkiv and had orchestrated violence which had spread to Odessa.  The actions of pro-Russian groups were not legitimate protests, but rather calculated, highly provocative actions intended to undermine Ukrainian authority.  They made a mockery of what the Russian Federation had committed to in the Geneva agreement.  The Ukraine Government was implementing its Geneva obligations and was committed to holding public debate on constitutional change.  In response to extreme provocation, Ukrainian authorities had a responsibility to restore public order.  It must take measures to ensure security and protect its citizens in its territory.  “We are at a very dangerous, manipulated moment,” he said, urging the Russian Federation to implement the Geneva Statement and demonstrate it had no further territorial ambitions in Ukraine.

LIU JIEYI (China), stressing that the situation in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine was of deep concern, urged parties to safeguard ethnic groups, keep calm, exercise restraint and avoid a further deterioration of conditions.  A political solution was the only way out of the crisis.  Ukraine must consider the full situation and accommodate the aspirations of various regions and ethnic groups in order to achieve a balance.  Noting his Government’s efforts towards promoting peace and facilitating negotiations, he expressed hope that the parties would pursue dialogue, implement the agreements reached, start a political settlement process and realize the stability of Ukraine.  China would continue to support good offices with the aim of promoting a political settlement.

MAHAMAT ZENE CHERIF (Chad) said that, despite repeated calls for restraint and calm, the situation continued to deteriorate, politically and in terms of security.  There was a risk of a war that carried incalculable consequences.  While a number of efforts had been made to open the way for dialogue, the results had been far from expectations.  Reiterating the call for an immediate halt to combat, he urged non-violence by the authorities and separatists alike, as well as for the release of the seven OSCE observers.  The solution must be political, sought in full respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.  Further, countries with influence should use all means possible to help establish direct dialogue.  He also encouraged the Secretary-General to step up efforts to bring about a rapprochement.

RAIMONDA MURMOKAITĖ (Lithuania) said Ukraine could not be blamed for taking steps against those trying to carve it up and parcel it out.  It had a right to protect its sovereignty.  The Russian Federation so far had not condemned the Syrian regime’s missile and bomb attacks this week in Aleppo or similar previous acts.  Today, two Ukrainian helicopters were downed by mobile air defence systems.  Militants, not protestors, had opened fire.  Had the separatists carried out the Geneva Statement or had the Russian Federation called on the separatists to enter into peace talks with the Ukrainian Government, such attacks, and today’s deadly provocations in Odessa, would not be happening.  The Russian Federation continued to blame Ukraine, the only side taking steps to implement the Geneva Statement.  She rejected all Russian attempts to validate its intentions or send Russian “peacekeeping” forces to Ukraine.  She noted that OSCE observers must be able to carry out their tasks.

U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria) expressed concern over the downing of a military helicopter and the seizure of Slovyansk.  All sides must refrain from violence, intimidation and provocative action, and all armed groups must vacate buildings they had seized.  Territorial integrity must be respected.  The alternative would be “falling dominoes” in Eastern Europe and every region of the world.  “The scenario is simply mortifying.  It is our collective responsibility to prevent the domino theory from being replayed in our times,” she said.

MAHMOUD DAIFALLAH MAHMOUD HMOUD (Jordan), expressing deep concern over events in Ukraine, called on all hostages held by rebels in Slovyansk to be released, including OSCE monitors.  An unfolding mutiny in eastern Ukraine, as rebels seized public and Government buildings and threatened civilians, had contravened both international law and the Geneva agreement.  Ukraine had a right to take appropriate measures to retain its unity and sovereignty, as well as uphold the constitutional and legal order.  It must work towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis, within international criteria, sparing no effort to engage in dialogue with all stakeholders.  He urged implementing the Geneva Statement and exerting pressure on the rebels to end the crisis.  Further, all stakeholders should refrain from racist or hate speech, he said, underscoring the importance of respecting Ukrainians’ aspirations, notably by ensuring that elections were held in May.

CRISTIÁN BARROS MELET (Chile), emphasizing that the crisis was quickly entering an unpredictable phase, expressed concern over events in Slovyansk and urged the Council to again call for all means to pursue a peaceful settlement through dialogue.  Parties must refrain from acting unilaterally and must support international mediation efforts, he said, condemning the kidnapping of OSCE observers and reiterating the call for their release.  It was vital to work in a spirit of compromise, he said, urging the disarmament of armed groups and returning illegally occupied buildings.  He reiterated the need to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, supporting both the Secretary-General’s efforts and visit to the Russian Federation by the Under-Secretary-General.

EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASANA (Rwanda) said the situation in Ukraine had escalated.  Pro-separatist forces had continued to occupy buildings and they had shot down helicopters.  OSCE observers had been detained.  He condemned the armed methods used by militants and called for a proportionate response by Ukraine’s armed forces.  He called on all Council members to give the Under-Secretary-General the meaningful backing necessary, and noted that only a genuine dialogue by the Ukrainian parties and a strong commitment by those with influence could resolve the crisis.  Otherwise, the conflict would become regional or worse, and the Council would continue holding emergency meetings on that matter.  “We need here to scale down the rhetoric,” he said.

OH JOON (Republic of Korea) expressed concern over continuing tensions in Ukraine, particularly over the violence in Slovyansk, which had included an attack on a military helicopter.  Dialogue among all parties was the only way to achieve a peaceful solution, and he called on all parties to the Geneva Statement to implement it.  With elections scheduled for May, it was all the more important to ensure an environment conducive to free and fair elections and without any outside interference.  He expressed hope for a transparent, Ukraine-led process.

OLEKSANDR PAVLICHENKO (Ukraine) said his country remained committed to implementing the 17 April Geneva Statement, adding that free and fair presidential elections on 25 May were a top priority.  The Russian Federation had made no effort to de-escalate the situation and implement the Geneva Statement, and had instead supported illegal militants in eastern Ukraine and created an atmosphere of violence.  Security for all Ukrainians was another top priority, and the purpose of the counter-terrorist operation renewed in Slovyansk was to isolate militants from civilians in the city, he said, adding that its commander required the militants to free all hostages and captured administration buildings, and to stop the violence.  Ukrainian authorities were ready to grant amnesty to all militant group members who had not committed serious crimes, he said.  Describing the Russian Federation’s claims that English-speaking foreigners were involved in the crisis as “cynical” and “false”, he said only Russian saboteurs and mercenaries were present.

He went on to note that the Russian Federation’s embassy in Kyiv had not been notified about the arrival of Special Presidential Envoy Vladimir Lukin.  Nonetheless, Ukraine was prepared to discuss with him practical contributions to resolving problems.  Due to the situation in Slovyansk, the National Security and Defence Council had launched a counter-terrorist operation, the active phase of which had been renewed in that city and elsewhere, he said.  The operation had taken control of nine terrorist checkpoints in Slovyansk.  Illegal militants were using heavy weapons against Ukrainian special forces, and had shot down two helicopters with man-portable air defence systems, killing two people and wounding seven others, he said, adding that they had not hesitated to use the local people as shields.  Russian saboteurs had tried to break through the border today but they had been stopped by Ukrainian guards, he said, calling upon the Russian Federation to stop supporting illegal militants and other actions that undermined his country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including the use of military threat as a form of pressure.

The representative of the Russian Federation took the floor a second time to refute the claim by his counterpart from France that his country had not endorsed the 21 February agreement.  On the contrary, it looked forward to implementing the accord and had helped to conclude the 17 April Geneva Statement, which, while simple, would pave the way out of the crisis.  People in eastern Ukraine merely wanted their rights guaranteed, he said.  Since the signing of the Geneva Statement, no one had taken up weapons, but there had never been a reasonable response from Kyiv.  The Council had heard that on 25 May Ukrainian officials would unveil some sort of decentralization process, he said, noting that his Western colleagues seemed to know about all the operations currently being carried out by the Kyiv Government.  He asked why the United States did not want OSCE efforts for dialogue, pointing out that the Russian Federation had suggested different formats for dialogue on several occasions during the course of the crisis, and suggested convening a constitutional assembly, while they had said they were not ready to organize such forums.  He also denied claims that his country was refusing to implement the Geneva Statement.

The representative of the United States also took the floor again, saying that for the Russian Federation to blame Ukraine for defending its own actions on Ukrainian territory was like the story of the boy who told his mother that a fight between him and another boy had started when the other had hit him back.  “We must be clear about cause and effect here,” she emphasized.  It was not true that the United States had never called on the Maidan protestors to leave buildings and renounce violence, and that it was exercising double standards.  On 10 January, it had condemned the actions of rioters outside Government buildings, and later that month it had condemned targeted attacks against journalists and called on all protestors to refrain from violence and destruction of property.  Those were among the many public statements by the United States Government aimed at ending the fighting.  The future was more important, she said, asking whether the Russian Federation would publicly urge the separatists to end their siege of public buildings.  It had repeatedly taken aim at the so-called illegitimate Government in Kyiv while refusing to acknowledge its failure to embrace the 21 February agreement after it had been negotiated.  Furthermore, the Russian Federation would not come out in support of the 25 May elections, she said, stressing that doing so would be best way to ensure that rights were more autonomous in eastern Ukraine.

The representative of the Russian Federation, responding to a question by the Council President about a possible presidential statement from today’s meeting, first addressed comments made by his United States counterpart.  He said that what had been heard from the United States, and the way that message had been delivered, showed everyone that it approved of the forceful change of power in Ukraine, which, in the end, did not serve Ukrainian interests.  As for a presidential statement, he said it would be good to end today’s meeting with a statement calling for a swift end to violence and serious implementation of the Geneva Statement.

OH JOON (Republic of Korea), Council President, said he would ask the coordinators to take up the matter.

OH JOON adjourned the meeting.



11 thoughts on “United Nations Security Council Summary / May 2, 2014

    1. David,
      I’ve heard of it but never done any research. Because in all the other research/information Agenda 21 hasn’t been mentioned, just guessing, but it may be a conspiracy theory – along the lines of Karen Hudes. To be honest on that topic it’s only speculation from here. Just never came across anyone speaking on Agenda 21; it hasn’t risen to any level of importance in all the men and women listened to or read, so what else is there to conclude (admittedly never having read it) but that it’s unimportant and a non-issue. That’s my 100%, absolute best guess, and I’m stickin’ to it. 🙂
      What’s your take on that and Ukraine? It’s astonishing that the questions about the Maidan Massacre aren’t brought up at these Security Council meetings. My guess is that the Eastern Ukraine people resent that those who carried out a violent coup d’état aren’t being held accountable, and that the new Ukraine prosecutors are covering up.


      1. Agenda 21 is an 18 year-old UN plan to encourage countries to consider the environmental impacts of human development that has become a conspiracy theory as Agenda 21 paranoia has swept through the tea party scene. There’s a PDF of UN Agenda 21 on the internet. It doesn’t sound bad at all to me. Some people just don’t like the UN I guess. I asked you cause I don’t know much about it either.


        1. From that tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist Albert Einstein: “This is the problem: Is there any of delivering mankind from the mance of war?… As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e. administrative) aspect of the problem; the setting up by international consent of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations… Thus I am led to my first axiom; the quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action, its sovereignty that is to say, and it is clear beyond doubt that no other road can lead to such security.”

          Einstein’s last written words: “Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace, the courage of supra-national security, since for a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide.”

          The UN has tremendous potential but has been dissed by people (Some people just don’t like the UN..) who would become constrained from their harmful to others/profitable to themselves actions. I’m in agreement with that whack-job Einstein. 🙂


  1. The escalating confrontation in Ukraine poses a serious danger. Unlike isolated hot-spots such as Egypt, this conflict in eastern Europe is pitting the world’s great powers against each other. A repeat of Sarajevo in 1914 is not out of the question. That occurred 100 years ago. What a coincidence.


    1. Robert,
      Haven’t found much on what the Eastern Ukrainians are demanding but a short piece on BBC where one Eastern fellow (maybe a farmer) who told the BBC reporter that “I’m ready to pick up a rifle to protect my land. We don’t want to be ruled by dictators.” The United Nations should organize a truth commission in Ukraine where any man or woman who has a concern or demand is allowed to state it. A town meeting of sorts for the entire nation. Will have to try and find out what those in Eastern Ukraine have become motivated enough by to take the actions they have. My guess, as mentioned to David, is the sniper coverup.


  2. I am having a hard to separating truth and propaganda. Russia is no different than the US or any other developed nation sucking on the IMF tit when it comes to disinformation. I would think Russia should get the hell out of there, but am interested in what brought the whole thing on. Sounds like a CIA/Psy-op/Financial hitman plot to me. But maybe not. idk It’s abnormal and strange.


    1. David,
      It seems that Ukraine’s crisis has as its genesis the violent coup d’état, where, because Yanukovych was born in Eastern Ukraine, those folks have simply got a big problem with the manner in which he was ousted. Now, if Barack Obama were to corruptly steal billions he would face an impeachment trial, according to constitutional law, and if guilty removed from office. What has the Eastern Ukrainians even more upset than a violent coup that took the lives of over 100 police and civilian protesters is that the massacre is being blamed on Yanukovych, instead of the new coalition group – he is being framed. IMO if the persons who were truly responsible for the sniper killings were identified and faced punishment, the Eastern Ukrainians would be satisfied. Until the Maidan Massacre is properly investigated, and it looks like a coverup is taking place (think JFK in a different variety), the differences between East and West Ukraine will not become resolved. Simply put, it’s a truth war. Now, when one adds in the rich natural resources (fracking, agriculture (Ukraine the “breadbasket of Europe”)), energy industry competition between Russia and Qatar and Iran – where Syria signed a deal with Iran in around 2010-11 for a multi-billion pipeline for natural gas (when Syrian war took off) and turned down Qatar for a similar pipeline to Europe that HAS TO cross Syria – one sees both Syria and Ukraine are about oil, gas and other markets. Now, Saudi Arabia is sending mercenaries from Syria to Ukraine, mercenaries whose extreme killing style makes Ukraine’s Right Sector look like bullies on the elementary schoolyard. In response to your difficulty separating truth from propaganda, a truth commission in Ukraine among its people, as well as one at the UN among the world’s people, is absolutely necessary. Any concerned Ukrainian should be allowed to specifically speak out on the essential issues that raised his or her concerns, then those concerns must be fairly addressed. In particular the Maidan Massacre. It sounds simplistic, but there is no other satisfactory, peaceful resolution.


Comments are closed.