This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/europe/russia-ukraine-crimea-annexation.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Moscow Was Urged to Annex Crimea Before Ukraine President’s Fall, Report Says Early Memo Urged Moscow to Annex Crimea, Report Says
(about 5 hours later)
MOSCOW — The Kremlin was advised to annex Crimea and a large swath of southeastern Ukraine weeks before the Ukrainian government fell, a Russian newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing what it said was a memo that was presumably presented to the presidential administration. MOSCOW — A memo drafted in the weeks leading up to the collapse of the Ukrainian government last year recommended that Russia take advantage of the chaos next door to annex Crimea and a large portion of southeastern Ukraine, a Russian newspaper reported on Wednesday, printing what it said was a document that had been presented to the presidential administration.
Russia has long contended that it acted without premeditation in Crimea, and was only seeking to protect Russian speakers who it said were under threat of attack, and to stave off what it suspected was an attempt by NATO to move its forces into the region. Russia has long contended that it acted spontaneously to reclaim Crimea, mainly to protect Russian speakers who it said were threatened, and to stave off what it suspected was an attempt by NATO to colonize the Black Sea region.
But a report in Novaya Gazeta, one of the few independent voices still publishing in Russia, said that well before the Ukrainian government fell in February 2014, the memo the newspaper had obtained advised the Kremlin to adopt the policy it has since pursued in Ukraine. The memo appears to have been drafted under the auspices of a conservative oligarch later suspected of funding the separatists, the report said. The report in Novaya Gazeta, one of the few often-critical voices still published in Russia, said that before the Ukrainian government collapsed on Feb. 21, 2014, the memo had already advised the Kremlin to adopt the policy it has since largely pursued in Ukraine.
The memo lays out what it says is the inevitable disintegration of Ukraine and suggests a series of logistical steps that Russia should take to make sure it remains in control of the situation, steps not far off from what actually occurred. The memo appears to have been drafted under the auspices of a conservative oligarch, Konstantin V. Malofeev, the report said. The memo laid out what it called the inevitable disintegration of Ukraine and suggested a series of logistical steps through which Russia could exploit the situation for its own good — steps not far from what actually occurred, though Russia has not annexed any territory in eastern Ukraine.
As early as Feb. 4, 2014, well before President Viktor F. Yanukovych resigned, on Feb. 21, the memo predicted his overthrow and suggested that Russia use the European Union’s own rules on autonomous areas to try to bind both Crimea and eastern Ukraine to Russia. Sometime between Feb. 4 and Feb. 12 — while Russia was still voicing staunch support for its ally in Kiev, President Viktor F. Yanukovych — the memo predicted Mr. Yanukovych’s overthrow and suggested that Russia use the European Union’s own rules on self-determination to pry away Crimea and a significant chunk of eastern Ukraine.
Dimtry S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, suggested that the memo was a hoax. “It seems like a fake,” he said. Dmitry S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, dismissed the memo as a hoax. “I don’t know whether this document exists at all,” he said. “I don’t know who might be the author, but for sure, the document has nothing to do with the Kremlin.”
“I don’t know whether this document exists at all, I don’t know who might be the author, but for sure the document has nothing to do with the Kremlin,” Mr. Peskov said. The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. The newspaper did not publish any pictures of the memo or provide any proof that the policy described in it had actually been adopted.
The memo proposes a detailed strategy, one that the Kremlin seems to have largely followed, though it does not seem eager to annex large areas of southeastern Ukraine, as the memo urges. The loss of Crimea had been a sore point in Moscow since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. In addition, President Vladimir V. Putin suggested last year that much of southeastern Ukraine, from Kharkiv to Odessa, actually formed a distinct area known in czarist times as New Russia.
With Ukraine likely to break into two — a European-aligned west and a pro-Russian east combined with Crimea — Moscow had to act quickly, the report said, particularly given that the Yanukovych government could soon fall. That talk faded as it became clear that only a minority of the population in and around just two cities, Luhansk and Donetsk, had any interest in joining Russia. But Russia has pushed for federalization of Ukraine, another recommendation in the memo, since the beginning.
Russia should take advantage of the “centrifugal forces” tearing the country apart in order to merge the east with the rest of Russia, the memo said. “The dominant regions for the application of force should be Crimea and the Kharkiv region,” it said, particularly given that strong groups there endorsed the idea of joining Russia. In February, with the Yanukovych government teetering, the memo’s author recommended that Russia take advantage of the “centrifugal forces” tearing Ukraine apart to merge its east with Russia.
Novaya Gazeta said that a conservative Russian oligarch, Konstantin V. Malofeev, could have been the mastermind behind the document. The newspaper quoted Mr. Malofeev’s communications team as denying any involvement by him. “The dominant regions for the application of force should be Crimea and the Kharkiv region,” it said, noting that strong groups there endorsed the idea of joining Russia.
The report said that oligarchs in Ukraine, who are not tempered by bureaucracy as much as their Russian counterparts, had lost control of the demonstrations in the central square in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, known as the Maidan. It said the commanders in the square were “presumably controlled not by the groups of oligarchs, but to a great extent by Polish and British secret services.” Oddly, the memo left out the Donetsk region, now the separatists’ main center of power, speculating that the links between Kiev and the most powerful local oligarch, Rinat L. Akhmetov, were too strong for the region to break away.
Russia has since switched tactics, blaming the United States for the protests. Novaya Gazeta identified Mr. Malofeev as the mastermind behind the document, though it also quoted his communications team as denying any involvement by him.
The memo was also dismissive of the Ukrainian leader’s chances of bringing the situation under control. The European Union has imposed sanctions on Mr. Malofeev over his support for the separatists, including his statements that eastern Ukraine, but not the whole country, could be incorporated into Russia.
The memo was dismissive of Mr. Yanukovych’s chances of bringing the situation under control.
“President Yanukovych is not a very charismatic person,” it said. “He is afraid to give up the presidential post and at the same time is prepared to trade the security officers for guarantees of keeping the post and of immunity after resignation.”“President Yanukovych is not a very charismatic person,” it said. “He is afraid to give up the presidential post and at the same time is prepared to trade the security officers for guarantees of keeping the post and of immunity after resignation.”
Moscow should abandon the Ukrainian leader, the report suggested. “There is no sense in further Russian political, diplomatic, financial or media support for the regime,” it said.Moscow should abandon the Ukrainian leader, the report suggested. “There is no sense in further Russian political, diplomatic, financial or media support for the regime,” it said.
The report emerged as the cease-fire in southeastern Ukraine seemed to be taking hold. Among other reasons for keeping control over Ukraine, it said, was to maintain the gas supply routes that help Russia dominate European supplies. Russia again criticized Ukraine over the gas issue on Wednesday, with Mr. Putin saying Kiev was trying to decimate its own people by cutting off supplies to the southeast.
In Kiev, the military said that for a second night in a row cease-fire violations had “significantly decreased,” and that the previous 24 hours had been the quietest since the Feb. 12 signing of a cease-fire in Minsk, Belarus. He spoke as a cease-fire in southeastern Ukraine seemed to be taking hold, at least for a day. “A cease-fire exists, but it is very fragile,” said Mr. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, referring to the truce signed Feb. 12 in Minsk, Belarus. “If we all manage to make the parties concerned take the second and third steps in accordance with the Minsk agreement, then there is a chance for a sustainable cease-fire.”
Donetsk, Luhansk and the Mariupol area experienced no shooting, it said. In the past 24 hours, separatist forces have fired mortar rounds or other shells just 15 times and light weapons four times, the Ukrainian military said. Those steps include withdrawing heavy weapons from the front lines and beginning a political dialogue on the future of the separatist areas in Ukraine.
Yet concerns about the strength of the truce remained, with the Ukrainian military spokesman saying it could not move to the next stage — the withdrawal of heavy weapons — as long as the separatists continued fighting. The Ukrainian military said that for a second night in a row, cease-fire violations had “significantly decreased,” and that the previous 24 hours had been the quietest since the signing of the cease-fire.
“For now, there is still no order on the withdrawal of weapons, as the fighters have not yet fulfilled the first point of the Minsk agreement, to cease-fire,” said Andriy Lysenko, the military spokesman. Yet concerns about the strength of the truce remained, with the Ukrainian military spokesman saying it could not move to the next stage, the withdrawal of heavy weapons, as long as the separatists continued fighting.
The unease was also reflected elsewhere, with France, which helped negotiate the cease-fire, threatening new sanctions if fighting erupted around the strategic southern Ukrainian port of Mariupol. Rebel forces said they had already begun withdrawing weapons, including 100 howitzers, from the front on Tuesday. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe issued a statement saying it could not confirm withdrawals by either side because it did not have a thorough accounting of the weapons that were there before the cease-fire.
“The problem today is particularly around Mariupol,” the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told France Info radio. “We’ve told the Russians clearly that if there was a separatist attack in the direction of Mariupol, things would change completely, including in terms of sanctions.”
The comments came after the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine met in Paris on Tuesday but made little progress in solidifying the agreement known as Minsk II. Violations on the ground would mean that Europe would again raise the question of sanctions, Mr. Fabius said.
Rebel forces said that they had already begun withdrawing heavy weapons, including 100 howitzers pulled back from the front during the first day of operations on Tuesday. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe issued a statement saying it could not confirm withdrawals from either side because it did not have a thorough accounting of the weapons there before the cease-fire.
But the rebel forces said the organization would soon be able to monitor the withdrawal.
There has been a kind of unspoken contest in Ukraine about whether the economic situation or the low-grade war was the worst news, and the economy seemed to edge out the conflict on Wednesday.
With the Ukrainian currency falling precipitously against the dollar, the central bank on Wednesday banned banks from buying foreign currency for the rest of this week, Reuters reported.