Today, the well-known liar and part-time Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov denied Yanukovych's request to send troops to Ukraine, made by him in March 2014. Declaring that they say, no letter was officially received by the presidential administration. Maybe Peskov lost his memory and he doesn’t remember anything? Then we will refresh his memory and remind him once again of those events.
1. In the video below you see a shortened speech by the then Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Security Council, Vitaly Ivanovich Churkin, at a meeting of the UN Security Council on March 3, 2014, dedicated to Ukraine, where the deceased shook this piece of paper. Churkin, as luck would have it, is no longer alive. So there is no one to ask. I will return to his death in the course of the article. Until then, I'll continue.
2. Of course, Vitaly Ivanovich is no longer alive. But Vladimir Putin is in full health. Which on March 4, 2014, at a memorable press conference, also touched on this appeal of Yanukovych. You can see an excerpt from his speech below. Pay attention to the phrase "and we already have the official appeal of the current legitimate president." If the same Peskov's memory has faded again, then I remind you that then Russia, in the person of Putin, considered Yanukovych the legitimate president.
3. And of course, despite the death of Churkin, this letter has not gone away. On January 17, Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko announced that Kiev had received an appeal from Yanukovych from the UN Secretariat. And it was published on many Ukrainian and Russian sites. In fact, you can also see it in the title picture.
And now we are back to the "mysterious" death of Vitaly Churkin on February 20 this year. I draw your attention to one important pattern that followed after his death. Two days after him, Yanukovych spoke and officially announced that it turns out that Putin did not ask to send troops to Ukraine. Next, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office denied the very fact of Yanukovych's appeal to Putin with such an appeal. Well, today Peskov declares for the second time that allegedly there was no letter. I have two questions about this:
1. Why did Vitaly Churkin die: from a heart attack, or from poison, as Andrey Piontkovsky claims?
2. And why haven't we heard these denials. when was the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the UN alive?
I don't know the answer to the first question. I can only speculate on the information available on the network. I'll try to answer the second one. The fact is that if Vitaly Ivanovich were still alive, he would have been bombarded with questions from journalists like this: if there was no letter from Yanukovych, then what kind of piece of paper did you show to the UN Security Council? Then he would have to either lie, following the Kremlin, losing face, or tell the truth. And then bam, his heart can not stand it. And now it can be argued that there was no letter. Then Yanukovych, who is accused of treason, can not be extradited to Ukraine. Otherwise, he can tell a lot of interesting things about the Kremlin. Which is very undesirable for them.
But what about the fact that Putin himself claimed that there was an official appeal from Yanukovych? Or what to do with copies of these letters? Surely in this case, and Yanukovych's heart will fail in the near future? But how then to persuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to rent a house next door to Yanukovych in Rublyovka or Rostov? He can refuse, knowing that former presidents who have taken refuge in Russia are dying of heart attacks. Do you understand the heart is such a thing with which they do not joke. Especially when you consider that in Russia a heart attack can overtake you very quickly. So let's wish good health to Viktor Yanukovych. And to follow his heart. And to regularly go to the cardiologist and all that sort of thing. And then Churkin in the next world can tell you what a liar you are.
Original taken from
Moscow convened a meeting of the UN Security Council to finally convey to the international community. Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin explained: we are talking about protecting the interests of the citizens of a fraternal country with which we are connected by a common centuries-old history.
This time, at the meeting of the UN Security Council, Russian was heard more often than usual. The fact is that the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the UN suddenly spoke in Russian. And although this is one of the six working languages of the Security Council, Yuri Sergeev used to look for a common language with colleagues more and more in English.
The Ukrainian diplomat expressed the point of view of the new government in Kiev, which many even in Ukraine itself consider illegitimate.
And the permanent representative of Russia showed a copy of the letter that President Viktor Yanukovych sent. The document says that due to the illegal seizure of power, Ukraine was on the verge of a civil war, the life and safety of people, especially in the southeast and in Crimea, are under threat.
"I appeal to Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with a request to use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to restore law, peace, law and order, stability, and protect the population of Ukraine. Viktor Yanukovych, March 1, 2014," Vitaly Churkin, Russia's permanent representative to the UN, read out the document.
At the same time, Russia does not at all set the task of returning Yanukovych to power, Vitaly Churkin said. The goal is to normalize the situation and protect the Russian-speaking population.
"Russia has so many ways to guarantee the rights of ethnic Russians! There are so many ways besides the military," said US Representative to the UN Samantha Power.
"The United States sent troops and captured Grenada. At the same time, President Reagan said that he was protecting the American citizens who live there. And there are one thousand of them. And there were no threats from the authorities. And we have millions of citizens there who fear such atrocities," - retorted Vitaly Churkin.
Why can't Moscow, the representatives of Western countries were perplexed, because it is possible to send an OSCE mission.
“Here in Kosovo, not just some international forces were deployed, but NATO armed forces. And what did they do in 2004 in order to prevent Serbian pogroms? As a result, thousands of Serbs were forced to leave the region. They did nothing. so that an OSCE observation mission goes there. Yes, these radical nationalists know what they think about this OSCE observation mission? They don’t want to hear anything about it," Russia's permanent representative to the UN replied.
The Ukrainian permanent representative publicly acquitted the Ukrainian nationalists-Bandera in the UN, stating that the accusations against them, presented by the USSR at the Nuremberg trials, were falsified. And he assured that today there is no threat to national minorities. But the question is: why is Crimea defending itself then?
“These people in Crimea have been incited to this since the beginning of our independence. Because these are people who were not born there. - considers the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the UN Yuriy Sergeev.
After that, the assistant to the Ukrainian diplomat apologized to reporters for the answer in Russian. For some reason, he was not embarrassed by the question from French journalists and the answer of the Ukrainian Permanent Representative in French.
Yesterday, the fugitive President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych was again taken out of the deep naphthalene and released with some on the occasion of the third anniversary of the Maidan. In particular, Vegetable said that he did not ask Putin to send Russian troops to Ukraine in 2014.
Yanukovych added that there was no letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin on this score. “This is not a letter, but a statement, firstly. Secondly, there are laws,” the ex-president added. “I did not cheat on my people, I tried to protect my people, and to do it within my powers.”
And he made this statement two days after the death of Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN. How it is connected with the death of Churkin and whether it was a letter, we will analyze in today's article.
And we'll start with his assertion that there was no letter. But those who have been following the events in Ukraine since 2014 remember Churkin's memorable speech at the UN Security Council, where he shook this paper. Below in the video you can watch his speech on March 4, 2014 in the UN Security Council.
Here is the letter for closer inspection. Plus a copy of it in English. So that these photos do not take up most of the screen, I decided to hide them under the spoiler. And just recently, Ukraine received from the UN this letter from Yanukovych with a request to send troops. And a copy of it was published on Ukrainian sites.
If this is not enough for you as evidence, here is Putin's speech at a press conference on March 4, 2014, where he openly admits that there was an official appeal from the current and legitimate at that time President Yanukovych. You can also watch selections of Russian TV reports.
In short, Yanukovych's request was. Another thing is why he began to deny it right now, after the death of Churkin? The fact. that a criminal case of treason was opened against him in Ukraine precisely for his appeals to Putin to send troops to Ukraine. For example, yesterday it was reported that the indictment in Yanukovych's treason case would be submitted to court on March 14. And as soon as Yanukovych's guilt is found guilty, they will demand his extradition to Ukraine. In case of refusal, Ukraine can apply to international courts regarding the illegal detention of a criminal in Russia. And she will win these trials. Then the Kremlin will face a dilemma of two evils:
1. Do not extradite him by rejecting all extradition requests. Then sanctions are imposed against Russia. All agreements of the Russian Federation with other countries are also collapsing. For example, on the mutual extradition of criminals
2. Gritting your heart, give it away. But in this case, the Kremlin elite should prepare for The Hague, since Yanukovych can tell a lot of interesting things about them. For example, about the role of the same Putin in the Ukrainian events.
You ask, what does Churkin have to do with it? And despite the fact that it was after his mysterious death that he claims that he did not turn to Putin to send troops to Ukraine. This partly removes the charge of treason. Now his word will be against the word of Kiev. And if Vitaly Churkin were still alive, he would have been bombarded with questions like this: if there was no official appeal from Yanukovych to Russia about the introduction of troops, then what kind of piece of paper did he shake at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council dedicated to Ukraine? Then he had to either openly lie that there was no letter. And what they say, he was misunderstood. Or else continue to insist on his own, that there was a letter. Not to ruin your reputation. But in this case, Vegetable could not openly deny his request. to avoid criminal punishment.
And then, to the delight of some, Russia's permanent representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin dies. And now no one will have to rack their brains over the questions: to extradite Yanukovych to Ukraine or not? Or what to do if Churkin starts asking uncomfortable questions? And the dead, as we all know, don't talk. And they don't answer journalists' questions. Well, now think for yourself, Churkin himself died or he was helped to do it.
An official letter from Viktor Yanukovych with a request to send Russian troops to Ukraine has not been received by the administration of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov said. “No letter has been officially received by the administration of the President of the Russian Federation, no such letter has been registered with the administration,” TASS quoted him as saying. Denis Voronenkov, a former State Duma deputy, recently testified that Yanukovych, who was removed from his post as president of Ukraine, in March 2014 asked President Vladimir Putin to send troops to Ukraine. In the spring of 2014, Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, confirmed the existence of such a request.
Peskov did not comment on Churkin's words about the existence of such an appeal. "I do not know this. I can only state the situation de facto and de jure, that is, what I have already said, ”Interfax quotes him.
Yanukovych did not ask Putin to send troops to Ukraine
The ex-president of Ukraine made a package of proposals on the Ukrainian settlement and addressed Trump separately
Politics
On February 22, 2017, Yanukovych stated that he did not ask to send troops and there was no letter to the President of Russia in this regard. “This is not a letter, but a statement, firstly. Secondly, there are laws, - TASS quotes him. “I did not betray my people, I tried to protect my people and do it within the framework of my authority.” At that time, he considered the main goal "to stop gangs of illegal immigrants (illegal armed formations. - TASS), who did not obey anyone, began to destroy people in the Donbass." “That was my goal. It may be emotional, but I was looking for ways to protect people,” Yanukovych concluded.
On March 3, 2014, Vitaly Churkin at a meeting of the UN Security Council said that he was authorized to report that Putin received an appeal from President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych with a request to use Russian troops to restore the rule of law and protect the population of Ukraine. He read out this appeal and showed the members of the Security Council a photocopy of it.
“Today I am also authorized to announce the following. The President of Russia has received the following appeal from President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. I am quoting. Statement of the President of Ukraine. As the legally elected president of Ukraine, I declare: the events on the Maidan, the illegal seizure of power in Kiev led to the fact that Ukraine was on the verge of a civil war. Chaos and anarchy reign in the country. The life and safety of people, especially in the southeast and in Crimea, is under threat. Under the influence of Western countries, open terror and violence are carried out. People are being persecuted on political and linguistic grounds,” RIA Novosti quotes Churkin. The transcript of the meeting is available on the website of the UN Security Council, there is also
That Yanukovych sent a letter to Putin with a request to send troops. And now the press service of the Kremlin and Yanukovych are saying that there was no request for the introduction of troops. Like, somehow, someone is lying.
Here you need to understand a simple thing, as Comrade Bismarck said - "Never lie so much as during the war, after the hunt and before the elections." If we consider this particular conflict, which includes the Cold War with the United States and hot wars in Ukraine and Syria, then I would say that it would be the height of naivety to believe that Russian officials in the current conditions always and everywhere speak the pure truth. As well as any other officials, because, as another no less famous comrade Sun Tzu said, "War is a way of deception." All participants in the ongoing conflict, among other tasks, solve the tasks of disinforming the enemy at different levels and banal deception, in the interests of achieving the goals of the war. Therefore, Putin can lie, and Obama, and Merkel, and even more so some Poroshenko. For those who believe that the leaders of states always and everywhere tell the truth, including the people, I would recommend watching less TV shows about little colored ponies.
Therefore, what was recently officially recognized as true in one situation ceases to be so in another, as the military-political situation has changed. In some circumstances, the existence of such a letter (regardless of whether it existed or not) was beneficial. In the current conditions, it has become unprofitable, because in 2014 Russia pursued one policy towards Ukraine, and in 2017 it was completely different. For example, in 2014, the United States in every possible way denied its involvement in the coup d'etat in Ukraine, and then Obama took it and directly admitted that, yes, they helped change the government in Ukraine. Here we can also observe a typical example of a changed political situation, which also changes the official position. Or we can recall an example of an official denial of the participation of Russian troops in the Crimean Spring, which was then just as officially recognized, regardless of previous denials. Or, for example, official European denials of the presence of fascist formations in Ukraine and subsequent official recognition of this fact. And there were many such moments during the 3 years of the war in Ukraine on both sides, especially if you start comparing what the parties said in 2014 with what they said and did in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Yes, and if you take it in general, then you can just to cite as an example the story with guarantees on non-expansion of NATO to the East, when we prove that there were guarantees, and in the West they say in a blue eye that there were no guarantees.
For the current conflict, proceeding in the format of a hybrid war, with increased attention to the conduct of information and psychological operations, such an ambiguity in the official position sometimes creates such conflicts, when on the one hand there was a letter, and on the other, it seemed not to be. And without the original letter, one can only guess how, in what form and to whom exactly Yanukovych addressed and whether he addressed at all. I would bet that I applied one way or another, but now in the light of the changed role of Yanukovych and the changed policy of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, this topic is no longer very interesting for the party line and therefore the existence of the letter is denied. The main problem with such contradictions is that when they are identified (as was the case, for example, with Obama's confessions), they provide abundant ground for the implementation of outreach activities, where by comparing conflicting statements, they try to convey to the audience the idea that in a particular case , the state deceives, and if it deceives in small things, then in the rest too. In general, the usual routine of information and psychological warfare waged against each other by both sides.
Accordingly, regardless of the fact of the existence of Yanukovych's letter, on our part, most likely they will try to hush up this topic or block it with a similar topic with the transfer of arrows to opponents. On the contrary, the enemy will seek to promote this topic to the maximum through the mass media, because for routine propaganda, it is quite a win-win, regardless of the fact of the existence of the letter. The letter, which in 2014 could have had real military and political significance, can now only have historical and propaganda interest, although personally for Yanukovych, this issue is far from abstract, since the junta uses this letter as an argument to prove Yanukovych's villainous plans . It was not possible to prove the fact that the order to shoot the Euromaidan was given, and therefore the subject of the letter surfaced, a copy of which Churkin showed. Since Churkin is dead, he naturally will not clarify this issue in any way. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has so far refrained from commenting, although it is quite obvious that Churkin would not show the UN Security Council a document that was not agreed with the higher authorities, who certainly should know exactly what was shown on March 4, 2014. But by the way, judging by the statements from the Kremlin and from Yanukovych, there was no letter, and without having the original of such an appeal in hand, this letter cannot have any legal consequences in any case, because statements from Europe that "you see , Churkin showed the letter, the Kremlin will say “we don’t have such a letter.” Therefore, from a legal point of view, there is a guaranteed dead end, but from an information and propaganda point of view, there is room for action.
In my opinion, there is a kind of white spot here, due to the fact that many details of the Russian strategy in Ukraine carried out in January-April 2014 are not completely clear, and without knowing all the circumstances of plans to work with the South-East and the role of Yanukovych, it is difficult draw reasonable conclusions. I would bet that there was an appeal in one form or another, since it can be logically linked to the right granted by the Federation Council to send troops to the territory of Ukraine. There is a request, there is a permission. But since the plans changed in April 2014 and the meaning of Yanukovych changed, the permission was not used (and later completely withdrawn), which leveled the value of the request, there really was one and Churkin showed a real document, and not just paper, with which Russia tried to put pressure on opponents in the UN Security Council.