Power on Stall: February 2014

Friday, February 28, 2014

Ukraine crisis: 'Russians' occupy Crimea airports

from bbc

Ukraine has accused Russia of carrying out an armed invasion by sending naval forces to occupy Sevastopol airport in the Crimea region.

Russia's Black Sea Fleet denies its servicemen are blocking the airport.

Another Crimean airport, Simferopol, has also been occupied by armed men, thought to be pro-Russia militia.

Relations between the two countries have been strained since Viktor Yanukovych was ousted as Ukrainian president last week.

At the Scene

Christian FraserBBC News, near Sevastopol airport

Sevastopol is by name an international airport, but civilian flights stopped some years ago, and it is owned by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.

So it would be of no real consequence that soldiers are guarding a military base were it not for the fact no-one knows whose orders they are obeying.

There are roadblocks springing up from here to the administrative capital Simferopol.

The local parliament is in session there, but is sharing the municipal building with a paramilitary unit, and Simferopol airport is also under protection.

The interim interior minister, however, is quite clear on his Facebook page who he thinks these units are.

They are answering to the Russian Federation he said - and this, he adds, is a military takeover.

Mr Yanukovych is now in Russia and expected to hold a news conference later in the city of Rostov-on-Don, near the Ukrainian border.

He disappeared after leaving office but resurfaced in Russia on Thursday, asserting that he is still Ukraine's lawful president.

Ukraine's general prosecutor has said he will ask Russia to extradite Mr Yanukovych, if it is confirmed that he is still there.

In other developments:

The BBC has seen eight trucks with the black plates of the Russian army moving towards Simferopol
Unconfirmed reports say eight Russian military helicopters have arrived in Sevastopol
Ukraine's central bank has put a 15,000 hryvnia (1,000 euro; £820) limit on daily cash withdrawals
Armed Forces chief Yuriy Ilyin, appointed earlier this month by Mr Yanukovych, is sacked
Ukraine's parliament calls on the UN Security Council to discuss the unfolding crisis in Crimea

Lynchpin of struggle

These tensions between Russia and Ukraine in the wake of Mr Yanukovych's departure have been particularly evident in Crimea, Ukraine's only Russian-majority region.

The BBC's Bridget Kendall, in Moscow, says the Crimea is becoming the lynchpin of a struggle between Ukraine's new leaders and those loyal to Russia.

Armed men patrol at the airport in Simferopol, Crimea on 28 February 2014.

Armed men carrying Russian navy flags arrived at Simferopol airport in several trucks

They have declined to say who they are, and are wearing no identifying insignia

Unidentified men - whom the Ukrainian interior minister says are Russian Naval troops - block a road to a military airport Belbek not far from Sevastopol

Men whom Ukraine says are Russian naval troops have also blocked roads to Sevastopol airport

The protesters' camp at Independence square in central Kiev

Meanwhile people are still reeling from the violence in Kiev, which led to the ousting of Mr Yanukovych.

Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said Russian soldiers had arrived in Sevastopol military airport near Russia's Black Sea Fleet Base on Friday morning.

The men were patrolling outside, backed up by armoured vehicles, but Ukrainian military and border guards remained inside, Mr Avakov said.

"I consider what has happened to be an armed invasion and occupation in violation of all international agreements and norms," Mr Avakov said on his Facebook page.

Christian Fraser says barriers and armed men are blocking Sevastopol airport

Armed men also arrived at Simferopol airport overnight, some carrying Russian flags.

A man called Vladimir told Reuters news agency he was a volunteer helping the group there, though he said he did not know where they came from.

Crimea's airports

Simferopol is the main international terminal, serving the regional capital
Sevastopol, home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, has a Soviet-era military airport (Belbek) which was also used for civilian flights until some years ago. Ukrainian air force jets are stationed there
The Russian Black Sea Fleet has aircraft stationed at other air bases in Crimea (Gvardeyskaya and Kacha)

"I'm with the People's Militia of Crimea. We're simple people, volunteers," he said.

Andriy Parubiy, acting chairman of Ukraine's National Security Council, has claimed that both airports are now back under the control of Ukrainian authorities.

The airport occupation is latest in a series of moves to raise fears of unrest in Crimea, which traditionally leans towards Russia.

On Thursday, a group of unidentified armed men entered Crimea's parliament building by force, and hoisted a Russian flag on the roof.

The Crimean parliament later announced it would hold a referendum on expanding the region's autonomy from Ukraine on 25 May.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has urged his government to maintain relations with Kiev, but he is also giving the Crimean government humanitarian aid.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has called on all sides to "step back and avoid any kind of provocations".

Financial strain

On top of its political problems, Ukraine also faces huge financial hurdles.

It says it needs $35 billion over the next two years to avoid default on its loans.

Russia has suspended the next instalment of a $15bn loan because of the political uncertainty.

Switzerland and Austria announced on Friday that it had launched an investigation against Mr Yanukovych and his son Aleksander for "aggravated money laundering".

Austria also said it had frozen the assets of 18 Ukrainians suspected of violating human rights and involvement in corruption. It did not give any names.

Crimea - where ethnic Russians are in a majority - was transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954.

Ethnic Ukrainians loyal to Kiev and Muslim Tatars - whose animosity towards Russia stretches back to Stalin's deportations during World War Two - have formed an alliance to oppose any move back towards Moscow.

Russia, along with the US, UK and France, pledged to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine in a memorandum signed in 1994.

Only invest what you can afford to lose, Bitcoin executive says of digital currency

from cnn

By CNN Wires

February 28, 2014 -- Updated 1543 GMT (2343 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Bitcoin's executive director Jon Matonis tells CNN people should only invest what they can lose
His comments come after the meltdown of Mt Gox, one of the biggest Bitcoin exchanges
Matonis says Bitcoin is still considered experimental, even though it's very successful
Since its inception in 2009, Bitcoin has fluctuated wildly in value

(CNN) -- Bitcoin is still in beta, and users should only invest what they can afford to lose, executive director Jon Matonis says.

"It's still experimental, even though it's five years old and very successful, it still is considered experimental," Matonis told CNN's Jim Boulden at the world's biggest mobile tech trade show in Barcelona.

"I don't think that people should treat it as non-experimental. You should only invest in trade what you can afford to lose," he said.

Matonis' comments to CNN at Mobile World Congress come just days after Mt. Gox, one of the world's largest Bitcoin exchanges, was taken offline, putting millions of dollars of investors' money at risk and shaking confidence in the digital currency.

On Friday, Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy protection at a Tokyo court on Friday with debts of 6.5 billion yen ($64 million), Japanese media reported.

Matonis, speaking before Mt. Gox's bankruptcy filing, told CNN the melt-down represented the opposite of "too big to fail capitalism" because it was not bailed out. "If this had been a traditional financial institution, the losses would probably be papered over with tax payer money. We didn't see that in this case," he said.

Mt. Gox has been mired in problems since February 7, when it halted withdrawals from its accounts.

The company's computer programmers hadn't accounted for a quirk in the way Bitcoin works, allowing cyber attackers to dupe Mt.Gox with a scheme resembling receipt fraud.

When Mt. Gox discovered it was under attack, it stopped any investors from pulling their money out of their trading platform. Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles resigned from the Bitcoin Foundation's board of directors on Sunday.

Matonis remained bullish about Bitcoin's future, telling CNN the currency was "massively resilient." Further, he said, "the exchanges that are still in existence and operating will tend to be stronger because of this."

Matonis said the currency would move out of beta in the next few years. "I would say in about three to five years we'll start seeing user-friendly apps which really will complete the transition to mainstream. It should be as easy to download and use Bitcoin apps as it is to download something like Skype," he said.

The currency has fluctuated wildly in value since its inception in 2009, shooting to $1,000 in December as investors began leaping into the currency. It is now around $545.

Some traditional businesses, including online retailer Overstock.com, some Subway sandwich shops and Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, have begun accepting Bitcoin.

But the anonymous nature of the currency also has linked it with less reputable outlets. Bitcoin and other digital "cryptocurrencies" have been the de facto payment system on underground websites that deal in drugs, weapons and other illegal merchandise.

RUSSIA INVADES CRIMEA UKRAINE, BLOCKADED AIRPORTS!

from youtube 2-28-14 14:17

Thursday, February 27, 2014

What is so dangerous about Crimea?

from bbc

27 February 2014 Last updated at 09:26 ET

Pro-Russian protesters, right, clash with Crimean Tatars in front of a local government building in Simferopol, Crimea

Pro-Russian protesters and Tatars have clashed over the future of Crimea

Ukraine crisis

In the aftermath of the revolution in Ukraine - in which pro-Western and nationalist Ukrainians have taken power after the fall of President Viktor Yanukovych - there are fears that the southern region of Crimea could become a battleground between forces loyal to Ukraine and Russia.

Armed men have raised flags over government buildings declaring "Crimea is Russia", while separatist and pro-Ukrainian groups have clashed with each other in the streets.

Why has Crimea become a flashpoint?

Crimea is a centre of pro-Russian sentiment, which can spill into separatism. The region - a peninsula on Ukraine's Black Sea coast - has 2.3 million inhabitants, most of whom identify themselves as ethnic Russians and speak Russian.

The region voted heavily for Viktor Yanukovych in the 2010 presidential election, and many people there believe he is the victim of a coup - leading to attempts by separatists in Crimea's parliament to push for a vote on whether it should leave Ukraine.

Map: Ukraine's political and linguistic divide

Crimea: Ukraine's next flashpoint?

Is Crimea truly Ukrainian?

Watch a short history of the Republic of Crimea

Russia has been the dominant power in Crimea for most of the past 200 years, since it annexed the region in 1783. However, it was transferred by Moscow to Ukraine - then part of the Soviet Union - in 1954. Some ethnic Russians see that as a historical wrong.

However, another significant minority, the Muslim Crimean Tatars, point out that they were once the majority in Ukraine, and were deported in large numbers by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in 1944 for alleged collaboration with Nazi invaders in World War Two.

Ethnic Ukrainians made up 24% of the population in Crimea according to the 2001 census, compared with 58% Russians and 12% Tatars.

Tatars have been returning since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 - causing persistent tensions with Russians over land rights.

Crimea profile

What's its legal status?

It remains legally part of Ukraine - a status that Russia backed when pledging to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine in a memorandum signed in 1994, also signed by the US, UK and France.

It is an autonomous republic within Ukraine, electing its own parliament. However, the post of Crimean president was abolished in 1995, shortly after a pro-Russian Crimean separatist won the post with a big majority. It now has a presidential representative, and a prime minister, but both are appointed by Kiev.

What could Russia do?

Russian missile cruiser Moskva moored in the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol

Russia's lease on the Sevastopol base lasts until 2042

Russia keeps a major naval base in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, where its Black Sea Fleet is based. Some Ukrainians are therefore nervous about Russia's military might being brought to bear.

The lease stipulates that Russian personnel should not take military equipment or vehicles outside the base area without Ukrainian permission. Olexander Turchynov, Ukraine's acting president, warned that any move by Russian troops off of their base in Crimea "will be considered a military aggression".

There are reports of Russian envoys distributing Russian passports in the peninsula. Russia's defence laws allow military action overseas to "protect Russian citizens". This has sparked fears of Russia using this as a pretext for invasion.

Has that happened before?

Russia used a similar justification for sending troops into Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia in 2008, routing Georgian forces which had tried to take back control.

As with Georgia, Moscow resents what it sees as EU and Nato overtures to Ukraine. And after all, Nato decided not to come to Georgia's defence.

But Crimea is bigger than South Ossetia, Ukraine bigger than Georgia, and the Crimean population more divided than in pro-Russian South Ossetia - making Russian intervention in Ukraine a bigger gamble.

Comparing Crimea and South Ossetia (Eurasianet)

Wasn't there once a war in Crimea?

24th January 1856: The storming of the Malakoff leaving the remains of the Tower in Sevastopol, during the Crimean War. Original Artwork: Drawn by Simpson and lithographed by E Morin

Crimea has been fought over - and changed hands - many times in its history.

The occasion many will have heard of is the Crimean War of 1853-1856, known in Britain for the Siege of Sevastopol, the Charge of the Light Brigade, and the medical advances made by Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole.

The war was a result of rival imperial ambitions, when Britain and France, suspicious of Russian ambitions in the Balkans as the Ottoman Empire declined, sent troops to Crimea to peg them back. Russia lost.

The Crimean War

Florence Nightingale - early celebrity

Mary Seacole

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Kerry: Russian intervention in Ukraine 'would be a grave mistake

from latimes

Ukraine unrest

A Russian army officer on Tuesday helps guide an armored personnel carrier on a street in Sevastopol, the Ukrainian Black Sea port that hosts a major Russian navy base. (Andrew Lubimov / Associated Press / February 25, 2014)

By Paul Richter

February 26, 2014, 3:28 p.m.

WASHINGTON — With Russian troops beginning military exercises near Ukraine, Secretary of State John Kerry warned Wednesday that a Russian intervention in the Eastern European nation would rip Moscow’s international standing “into shreds.”

While insisting that the Obama administration is determined to avoid a U.S.-Russian conflict over Ukraine, Kerry said that a military move would cost Moscow “hugely in a world where they’re trying to assert a greater legitimacy…. It would be a grave mistake.”

Kerry emphasized that the administration does not see the issue in Cold War terms, and was trying to avoid portraying the crisis in ways that could increase tension.

“This is not Rocky IV,” he said.

In an interview with a group of reporters, Kerry said U.S. officials are considering providing a $1-billion loan guarantee, plus a direct grant of unspecified size, to supplement an aid package that the International Monetary Fund is discussing with leaders in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital. He said Europe is considering a $1.5-billion supplement to the IMF package.

A major U.S. aid package to a post-revolutionary government in Ukraine, a corrupt and nearly bankrupt state, probably would face congressional resistance. But Kerry said Washington needs to do more than “applaud” the efforts of the Ukrainian opposition, which Saturday forced former President Viktor Yanukovich into hiding.

Kerry declined to specify how the U.S. military would respond to action by Russia’s army or its Black Sea fleet based in southern Ukraine. But he disputed that Russia holds all the cards in the unfolding effort to determine Ukraine’s fate, despite Moscow’s huge economic leverage and military presence.

If Russia intervened, “it would be an egregious step against the will of the Ukrainian people, and it would require an appropriate response from a lot of different people in a lot of different places.... I think the U.N. and others would react very adversely to that,” he said.

U.S. officials, eager to avoid a potentially costly struggle, have been working to persuade Moscow to cooperate in helping form a new government in Ukraine that would represent both the country’s pro-European west and its pro-Russian east.

But Russian officials have denounced the leaders in Kiev as “coup plotters,” and stepped up their harsh rhetoric in an apparent effort to intimidate the opposition.

Kerry said that Russia, which has condemned foreign intervention in Libya, Syria and elsewhere, should follow its own advice in Ukraine.

He said the United States has some responsibility for safeguarding Ukraine under a 1994 treaty that says both the United States and Russia are “guarantors” of its integrity.

“That’s a viable treaty,” he said.

A State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said later Wednesday that no decision has been made on the aid package, and that the next step toward such assistance is for the Ukrainians to form a “multiparty, technical government.”

Western officials want to make sure a responsible government is in place before they write checks, analysts say.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Obama Tells Karzai He Is Moving Ahead Without Him

from nytimes

By MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPERFEB. 25, 2014

WASHINGTON — President Obama, apparently resigned to President Hamid Karzai’s refusal to sign a long-term security agreement with the United States before he leaves office, told him in a phone call on Tuesday that he had instructed the Pentagon to begin planning for a complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistanby the end of the year.

But in a message aimed less at Mr. Karzai than at whoever will replace him, Mr. Obama said that the United States was still open to leaving a limited military force behind in Afghanistan to conduct training and counterterrorism operations.

Noting that Mr. Karzai had “demonstrated that it is unlikely that he will sign” the agreement, Mr. Obama told him, in effect, that the United States would deal with the next Afghan leader. He warned Mr. Karzai that the longer it took for Afghanistan to sign the pact, known as a bilateral security agreement, or B.S.A., the smaller the residual force was likely to be.

It was the first time the leaders had spoken since last June, and for all intents and purposes, it marked the end of a relationship that had long since broken down in acrimony.

While Mr. Obama’s message was not a surprise — administration officials had concluded weeks ago that any agreement would probably come only after elections in April — the White House’s blunt description of his call with Mr. Karzai underscored the depth of the president’s frustration and the erosion of trust in the Afghan leader.

But the call also confirmed that the White House has retreated from its earlier insistence that the Afghan government sign the agreement before the elections or face the threat of a total pullout. Mr. Obama made clear that he views a residual force as a way to prevent Afghanistan from becoming once again a haven for terrorist groups.

“Should we have a B.S.A. and a willing and committed partner in the Afghan government, a limited post-2014 mission focused on training, advising, and assisting Afghan forces and going after the remnants of core Al Qaeda could be in the interests of the United States and Afghanistan,” the White House said in a statement issued after the call.

The White House had hoped to seal the security pact before a meeting this week of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, where Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to discuss the logistics of the reduction of American forces in Afghanistan and the shape of a potential postwar force with other alliance partners.

Military planners have faced deep uncertainty in preparing for a mission to train, advise and assist Afghan forces after combat operations officially end this year. The governments of nations that contribute troops must approve any sustained deployments months in advance.

The major candidates for president in Afghanistan have all signaled they would sign the security agreement. But if history is any guide, the April election might necessitate a runoff, which could lead to months of political uncertainty, further delaying the security deal.

A senior administration official said Mr. Obama was sending a message to Mr. Karzai that there would be a cost to further delays, both in the rising chance that the United States might go down to zero troops and in the more limited size and scope of a residual force.

Mr. Obama’s decision to look beyond Mr. Karzai, the official said, was driven by Mr. Karzai himself, who has told the administration that he believes his successor should sign the agreement because the future government will have to live with its consequences.

Appearing before troops at Fort Eustis and Langley Air Force Base near Newport News, Va., Mr. Hagel said the military would now engage seriously in contingency planning for a complete troop withdrawal, known as the “zero option.” While he held open the option of a continued troop presence after 2014, he told reporters that as long as the agreement goes unsigned, “our options narrow and narrow.”

But he declined to give another deadline for when the United States must decide that it will go down to zero. Some Afghanistan experts have criticized Mr. Obama for imposing deadlines, given the mercurial nature of the relationship between him and Mr. Karzai.

For all the tough talk, few people in the Obama administration are willing to say publicly that they believe leaving no residual force behind is a good idea, in large part because of the fear that without any American or NATO troops, Afghanistan could revert to its status as a staging ground for terrorist plots against the West.

“The preponderance of opinion across the government is that some reasonable post-2014 presence in Afghanistan is necessary to lock in our very hard-fought gains,” Michelle Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official , said in an interview.

Faced with continued uncertainty, American and NATO commanders have drawn up plans to deploy a force this summer that is tailored to assume a training mission in 2015 but also small enough to withdraw, if no deal for an enduring presence is reached. The plan would give Mr. Obama and other political leaders maximum flexibility.

“Clearly, the president is putting pressure on Karzai without closing the door on B.S.A. just as he is preparing the ground for the possibility that B.S.A. may not happen,” said Vali Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Some analysts said the administration erred by tying the decision on troops too closely to its relationship with Mr. Karzai, which become toxic earlier this month after Afghanistan released 65 prisoners that the United States said had the blood of American soldiers on their hands.

“Making it about President Karzai is simply not the right thing to do,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States. “President Obama needs to decide what’s in America’s interest, and whether America can continue to fight global terrorism without an effective military presence in the central and south Asian theater of war.”