Klaus Hart Brasilientexte

„Der russische Präsident Putin hat in seiner jährlichen Rede zur Lage der Nation die Annexion der Krim verteidigt. Der Anschluss der Halbinsel an Russland sei in völligem Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht geschehen.“ FAZ

 „Vor den Abgeordneten beider Kammern des Parlaments rechtfertigte Putin insbesondere die Annexion der Krim.“ TS

Klare Vermischung von Fakt und Kommentar – denn Putin sprach natürlich nicht von Annexion. Deutsche Medien verzichten darauf, alle völkerrechtlichen Schritte zu nennen, die zum Anschluß der Krim an Rußland führten. 

Putin:„Wie bekannt hat im März dieses Jahres auf der Krim ein Referendum stattgefunden, bei dem die Bewohner der Halbinsel klar ihren Wunsch, sich Russland anzuschließen, bekundet haben. Danach folgte eine Entscheidung des Krim-Parlaments – ich betone, eines absolut legitimen, schon 2010 gewählten Parlaments – über die Unabhängigkeit. Und schließlich erfolgte die historische Wiedervereinigung der Krim und Sewastopols mit Russland. Für unser Land, für unser Volk besitzt dieses Ereignis eine besondere Bedeutung. Eben weil auf der Krim unsere Menschen leben, und selbst das Territorium ist strategisch wichtig, auch deshalb, weil sich gerade dort der geistige Quell der Herausbildung der multiethnischen, aber monolithischen russischen Nation und des zentralisierten Russischen Staates befindet.“

 http://german.ruvr.ru/2014_12_04/

http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/11/27/kreml-putin-laut-illustrierte-der-spiegel-identisch-mit-privatbankder-kreml-leiht-dem-franzosischen-front-national-laut-einem-zeitungsbericht-40-millionen-euro-laut-faz-ist-es-indessen/

Bemerkenswert ist, wenn deutsche Medien indessen beispielsweise den NATO-Irakkrieg erwähnen, der immerhin rund 1,5 Millionen Iraker das Leben kostete. Dann wird fast ausnahmslos nie klargestellt, daß es sich um eine völkerrechtswidrige Aggression westlicher Länder gehandelt hatte, wird von den Medien, was Bände spricht, jegliche Bewertung unterlassen. 

 http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/putin-krim-so-heilig-wie-der-tempelberg-13301910.html

Rechtsexperte Reinhard Merkel in der FAZ:

“Hat Russland die Krim annektiert? Nein. Waren das Referendum auf der Krim und deren Abspaltung von der Ukraine völkerrechtswidrig? Nein.”

 http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/11/26/nichts-rechtfertigt-oder-entschuldigt-die-annexion-der-krim-durch-russland-bundeskanzlerin-angela-merkel-ausert-sich-nicht-zu-ihrer-befurwortung-der-volkerrechtswidrigen-nato-aggression-gegen-den/

“Die Merkel hat keine Ahnung.“… “Diese Dame ist ja wenig vom Charakter heimgesucht”, hatte Kohl im Jahr 2001 dem Ghostwriter seiner Memoiren, Heribert Schwan, anvertraut. Da könne man sich “nur bekreuzigen”. DIE ZEIT

Merkel-Kandidatur 2017, völkerrechtswidriger Irakkrieg, Syrienkrieg:

http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2016/11/21/angela-merkel-was-auftraggebenden-machteliten-westdeutschlands-sowie-der-nato-an-ihr-gefaellt/

–

Helmut Kohl(1930-2017):http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2017/07/02/helmut-kohl1930-2017/

Die bedenkliche Rolle des sog. „Tendenzschutzes“ – vielen Medienkonsumenten garnicht bekannt:

Tendenzschutz und journalistische Freiheit in Deutschland, laut Wikipedia: Tendenzschutz in deutschen Medien: Wikipedia zu üblichen sehr starken Beschränkungen journalistischer Freiheit:  …Unter Tendenzschutz wird verstanden, dass dem Verleger eines Mediums (z. B. einer Zeitung) ausdrücklich das Recht gewährt wird, die politische Meinung der jeweiligen Publikation festzulegen. Seine Macht erstreckt sich also nicht nur auf wirtschaftliche Entscheidungen (etwa zur Betriebsorganisation), sondern auch, wegen der besonderen Rolle derMassenmedien, auf politische Entscheidungen, die andere Unternehmen nicht treffen können, da sie nicht selbst publizieren.

Tendenzschutz bedeutet also konkret, dass der Verleger berechtigt ist, die politische Richtung der ihm gehörenden Medien zu bestimmen und seine Redakteure und freie Journalisten zu verpflichten, in einer bestimmten Art und einem bestimmten Stil Texte, Bilder und Filme in einer bestimmten politischen Sichtweise zu produzieren. Ein Recht von Redakteuren, journalistisch und inhaltlich vom Verleger unabhängig zu sein, besteht nicht…

Wandbehang in idyllischer deutscher Kleinstadt.

FAZ-Tendenzschutz: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/nationalistisches-feuer-putins-rede-an-die-nation-13302190.html

Rußland-Sanktionen – Gewinner, Verlierer: http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/11/05/wirtschaftssanktionen-gegen-rusland-segen-fur-brasiliens-rindfleischerzeuger-rusland-importiert-nur-noch-aus-nicht-feindlich-gesinnten-landern-brasilien-kann-garnicht-soviel-liefern-wie-moskau-b/

Absturz von MH 17: http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/12/03/absturz-der-mh-17-von-malaysia-airlines-im-juli-2014-erst-halbes-jahr-spater-greifen-medien-uralt-argumente-auf-warum-wurde-luftraum-uber-kriegsgebiet-nicht-gesperrt-wurden-zahlreiche-zivilmaschin/

 http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/05/05/ukraine-2014-die-manipulations-und-propagandamethoden-deutscher-medien-und-westlicher-politiker-deutsche-medienkonsumenten-weisen-auf-gangige-methoden-der-letzten-monate/

Nachdenkseiten: http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/

Putin-Website, englisch: http://eng.kremlin.ru/

 Putin, 4.12. 2014, Wortlaut – was fehlte in der deutschsprachigen Berichterstattung, was wurde falsch interpretiert, umgedeutet?:

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Citizens of Russia, members of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma,

Today’s address will be related to the current situation and conditions, as well as the tasks we are facing. But before delivering it I’d like to thank all of you for the support, unity and solidarity you have shown during the landmark events that will seriously influence the future of our country.

This year we faced trials that only a mature and united nation and a truly sovereign and strong state can withstand. Russia has proved that it can protect its compatriots and defend truth and fairness.

Russia has done this thanks to its citizens, thanks to your work and the results we have achieved together, and thanks to our profound understanding of the essence and importance of national interests. We have become aware of the indivisibility and integrity of the thousand-year long history of our country. We have come to believe in ourselves, to believe that we can do much and achieve every goal.

Of course, we will talk about this year’s landmark events. You know that a referendum was held in Crimea in March, at which its residents clearly expressed their desire to join Russia. After that, the Crimean parliament – it should be stressed that it was a legitimate parliament that was elected back in 2010 – adopted a resolution on sovereignty. And then we saw the historical reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia.

It was an event of special significance for the country and the people, because Crimea is where our people live, and the peninsula is of strategic importance for Russia as the spiritual source of the development of a multifaceted but solid Russian nation and a centralised Russian state. It was in Crimea, in the ancient city of Chersonesus or Korsun, as ancient Russian chroniclers called it, that Grand Prince Vladimir was baptised before bringing Christianity to Rus.

In addition to ethnic similarity, a common language, common elements of their material culture, a common territory, even though its borders were not marked then, and a nascent common economy and government, Christianity was a powerful spiritual unifying force that helped involve various tribes and tribal unions of the vast Eastern Slavic world in the creation of a Russian nation and Russian state. It was thanks to this spiritual unity that our forefathers for the first time and forevermore saw themselves as a united nation. All of this allows us to say that Crimea, the ancient Korsun or Chersonesus, and Sevastopol have invaluable civilisational and even sacral importance for Russia, like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for the followers of Islam and Judaism.

And this is how we will always consider it.

Dear friends,

We cannot fail to mention today our perspective on the developments in Ukraine and how we intend to work with our partners around the world.

It is well known that Russia not only supported Ukraine and other brotherly republics of the former Soviet Union in their aspirations to sovereignty, but also facilitated this process greatly in the 1990ies. Since then, our position has remained unchanged.

Every nation has an inalienable sovereign right to determine its own development path, choose allies and political regimes, create an economy and ensure its security. Russia has always respected these rights and always will. This fully applies to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

It is true that we condemned the government coup and the forceful takeover of power in Kiev in February of this year. The developments we are currently witnessing in Ukraine and the tragedy unfolding in the country’s southeast prove that we were right to take such a stand.

How did it all begin? I will have to remind you what happened back then. It is hard to believe that it all started with a technical decision by President Yanukovych to postpone the signing of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union. Make no mistake, he did not refuse to sign the document, but only postponed it in order to make some adjustments.

As you recall, this move was fully in line with the constitutional authority vested upon an absolutely legitimate and internationally recognised head of state.

Against this background, there was no way we could support this armed coup, the violence and the killings. Just take the bloody events in Odessa, where people were burned alive. How can the subsequent attempts to suppress people in Ukraine’s southeast, who oppose this mayhem, be supported? I reiterate that there was no way we could endorse these developments. What’s more, they were followed by hypocritical statements on the protection of international law and human rights. This is just cynical. I strongly believe that the time will come when the Ukrainian people will deliver a just assessment of these developments.

How did the dialogue on this issue begin between Russia and its American and European partners? I mentioned our American friends for a reason, since they are always influencing Russia’s relations with its neighbours, either openly or behind the scenes. Sometimes it is even unclear whom to talk to: to the governments of certain countries or directly with their American patrons and sponsors.

As I mentioned, in the case of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, there was no dialogue at all. We were told that it was none of our business or, to put it simply, we were told where to go.

All the arguments that Russia and Ukraine are members of the CIS free-trade zone, that we have deep-rooted cooperation in industry and agriculture, and basically share the same infrastructure – no one wanted to hear these arguments, let alone take them into account.

Our response was to say: fine, if you do not want to have a dialogue with us, we will have to protect our legitimate interests unilaterally and will not pay for what we view as erroneous policy.

So what’s came out of it all? The agreement between Ukraine and the European Union has been signed and ratified, but the implementation of the provisions regarding trade and economy has been postponed until the end of next year. Doesn’t this mean that we were the ones who were actually right?

There is also a question of why all this was done in Ukraine? What was the purpose of the government coup? Why shoot and keep shooting and killing people? In fact, the economy, finance and the social sector were destroyed and the country ruined.

What Ukraine currently needs is economic assistance in carrying out reforms, not petty politics and pompous empty promises. However, our Western colleagues don’t seem eager to provide such assistance, while the Kiev authorities are not willing to address the challenges their people are facing.

By the way, Russia has already made a major contribution to helping Ukraine. Let me reiterate that Russian banks already invested some $25 billion in Ukraine. Last year, Russia’s Finance Ministry extended a loan worth another $3 billion. Gazprom provided another $5.5 billion to Ukraine and even offered a discount that no one promised, requiring the country to pay $4.5 billion. Add it all up and you get as much as $ 32.5-33.5 billion that were provided only recently.

Of course, we have the right to ask questions. What was this Ukrainian tragedy for? Wasn’t it possible to settle all the issues, even disputed issues, through dialogue, within a legal framework and legitimately?

But now we are being told that this was actually competent, balanced politics that we should comply with unquestionably and blindfolded.

This will never happen.

If for some European countries national pride is a long-forgotten concept and sovereignty is too much of a luxury, true sovereignty for Russia is absolutely necessary for survival.

Primarily, we should realise this as a nation. I would like to emphasise this: either we remain a sovereign nation, or we dissolve without a trace and lose our identity. Of course, other countries need to understand this, too. All participants in international life should be aware of this. And they should use this understanding to strengthen the role and the importance of international law, which we’ve talked about so much lately, rather than bend its standards to suit someone’s strategic interests contrary to its fundamental principles and common sense, considering everyone else to be poorly educated people who can’t read or write.

It is imperative to respect the legitimate interests of all the participants in international dialogue. Only then, not with guns, missiles or combat aircraft, but precisely with the rule of law will we reliably protect the world against bloody conflict. Only then, will there be no need to scare anyone with imaginary isolation, and without any self-deception in the process, or sanctions, which are, of course, damaging, but damaging to everyone, including those who initiate them.

Speaking of the sanctions, they are not just a knee-jerk reaction on behalf of the United States or its allies to our position regarding the events and the coup in Ukraine, or even the so-called Crimean Spring. I’m sure that if these events had never happened – I want to point this out specifically for you as politicians sitting in this auditorium – if none of that had ever happened, they would have come up with some other excuse to try to contain Russia’s growing capabilities, affect our country in some way, or even take advantage of it.

The policy of containment was not invented yesterday. It has been carried out against our country for many years, always, for decades, if not centuries. In short, whenever someone thinks that Russia has become too strong or independent, these tools are quickly put into use.

However, talking to Russia from a position of force is an exercise in futility, even when it was faced with domestic hardships, as in the 1990ies and early 2000ies.

We remember well how and who, almost openly, supported separatism back then and even outright terrorism in Russia, referred to murderers, whose hands were stained with blood, none other than rebels and organised high-level receptions for them. These “rebels” showed up in Chechnya again. I’m sure the local law enforcement authorities will take proper care of them. They are now working to eliminate another terrorist raid. Let’s support them.

Let me reiterate, we remember high-level receptions for terrorists dubbed as fighters for freedom and democracy. Back then, we realised that the more ground we give and the more excuses we make, the more our opponents become brazen and the more cynical and aggressive their demeanour becomes.

Despite our unprecedented openness back then and our willingness to cooperate in all, even the most sensitive issues, despite the fact that we considered – and all of you are aware of this and remember it – our former adversaries as close friends and even allies, the support for separatism in Russia from across the pond, including information, political and financial support and support provided by the special services – was absolutely obvious and left no doubt that they would gladly let Russia follow the Yugoslav scenario of disintegration and dismemberment. With all the tragic fallout for the people of Russia.

It didn’t work. We didn’t allow that to happen.

Just as it did not work for Hitler with his people-hating ideas, who set out to destroy Russia and push us back beyond the Urals. Everyone should remember how it ended.

Next year, we will mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Our Army crushed the enemy and liberated Europe. However, we should not forget about the bitter defeats in 1941 and 1942 so as not to repeat the mistakes in the future.

In this context, I will touch on an international security issue. There are many issues related to this. These include the fight against terrorism. We still encounter its manifestations, and of course, we will participate in the joint efforts to counter terrorism on the international level. Of course, we will work together to deal with other challenges, such as the spread of infectious diseases.

However, in this case I would like to speak about the most serious and sensitive issue: international security. Since 2002, after the US unilaterally pulled out of the ABM Treaty, which was absolutely a cornerstone of international security, a strategic balance of forces and stability, the US has been working relentlessly to create a global missile defence system, including in Europe. This poses a threat not only to Russia, but to the world as a whole – precisely due to the possible disruption of this strategic balance of forces.

I believe that this is bad for the US as well, because it creates the dangerous illusion of invulnerability. It strengthens the striving for unilateral, often, as we can see, ill-considered decisions and additional risks.

We have said much about this. I will not go into details now. I will only say this. Maybe I am repeating myself. We have no intention to become involved in a costly arms race, but at the same time we will reliably and dependably guarantee our country’s defence in the new conditions. There are absolutely no doubts about this. This will be done. Russia has both the capability and the innovative solutions for this.

No one will ever attain military superiority over Russia. We have a modern and combat ready army. As we say, a polite but formidable army. We have the strength, will and courage to protect our freedom.

We will protect the diversity of the world. We will tell the truth to people abroad, so that everyone can see the real and not distorted and false image of Russia. We will actively promote business and humanitarian relations, as well as scientific, education and cultural relations. We will do this even if some governments attempt to create a new iron curtain around Russia.

We will never enter the path of self-isolation, xenophobia, suspicion and the search for enemies.

All this is evidence of weakness, while we are strong and confident.

Our goal is to have as many equal partners as possible, both in the West and in the East. We will expand our presence in those regions where integration is on the rise, where politics is not mixed with economy, and where obstacles to trade, to exchange of technology and investment and to the free movement of people are lifted.

Under no conditions will we curtail our relations with Europe or America. At the same time, we will restore and expand our traditional ties with South America. We will continue our cooperation with Africa and the Middle East.

We see how quickly Asia Pacific has been developing over the past few decades. As a Pacific power, Russia will use this huge potential comprehensively.

Everyone knows the leaders and the drivers of global economic development. Many of them are our sincere friends and strategic partners.

The Eurasian Economic Union will start working in full on January 1, 2015. I’d like to remind you about its fundamental principles. The topmost principles are equality, pragmatism and mutual respect, as well as the preservation of national identity and state sovereignty of its member countries. I am confident that strong cooperation will become a powerful source of development for all of the Eurasian Economic Union members.

To conclude this part of my address, I’d like to say once again that our priorities are healthy families and a healthy nation, the traditional values which we inherited from our forefathers, combined with a focus on the future, stability as a vital condition of development and progress, respect for other nations and states, and the guaranteed security of Russia and the protection of its legitimate interests.

Dear friends,

To be able to implement all our plans and to meet the basic social commitments set forth in the presidential executive orders of May 2012, we must decide what we will do in the economy, finance and social spheres. But most importantly, we must choose a strategy.

I repeat that Russia will be open to the world, cooperation, foreign investment and joint projects. But we must above all see that our development depends primarily on us.

We will only succeed if we work towards prosperity and affluence, rather than hope for an opening or a favourable situation on foreign markets.

We will succeed if we defeat disorder, irresponsibility and our habit of burying good decisions in red tape. I want everyone to understand that in today’s world this is not simply an obstacle to Russia’s development but a direct threat to its security.

The period ahead will be complex and difficult, when much will depend on what each one of us do at our workplaces. The so-called sanctions and foreign restrictions are an incentive for a more efficient and faster movement towards our goals.

There is much we need to do. We need to create new technologies, a competitive environment and an additional margin of strength in the industries, the financial system and in the training of personnel. We have a large domestic market and natural resources, capital and research projects for this. We also have talented, intelligent and diligent people who can learn very quickly.

The most important thing now is to give the people an opportunity for self-fulfilment. Freedom for development in the economic and social spheres, for public initiatives is the best possible response both to any external restrictions and to our domestic problems. The more actively people become involved in organising their own lives, the more independent they are, both economically and politically, and the greater Russia’s potential.

In this context, I will cite one quote: “He who loves Russia should wish freedom for it; above all, freedom for Russia as such, for its international independence and self-sufficiency; freedom for Russia as a unity of Russian and all other ethnic cultures; and finally, freedom for the Russian people, freedom for all of us: freedom of faith, the search for faith, creativity, work, and property.” Ivan Ilyin. This makes a lot of sense and offers a good guideline for all of us today.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Conscientious work, private property, the freedom of enterprise – these are the same kind of fundamental conservative values as patriotism, and respect for the history, traditions, and culture of one’s country.

We all want the same thing: wellbeing for Russia. So the relations between business and the state should be built on the philosophy of a common cause, partnership, and equal dialogue.

Naturally, responsibility and compliance with the law and obligations are essential in the business world, as it is in other areas of life. And this is exactly how the overwhelming, absolute majority of our business people work. They value their business and social reputation. Like genuine patriots, they want to be a benefit to Russia. These are the kind of people to look to, providing conditions for their productive work.

This is not the first time we are speaking about the need for new approaches to the activities of oversight, supervisory, and law enforcement agencies. Nevertheless, things are changing very slowly here. The presumption of guilt is still very much alive. Instead of curbing individual violations, they close the path and create problems for thousands of law-abiding, self-motivated people.

It is essential to lift restrictions on business as much as possible, free it from intrusive supervision and control. I said intrusive supervision and control. I will consider this in more detail later. I propose the following measures in this regard.

Every inspection should become public. Next year, a special register will be launched, with information on what agency has initiated an inspection, for what purpose, and what results it has produced. This will make it possible to stop unwarranted and, worse still, ‘paid to order’ visits from oversight agencies. This problem is extremely relevant not only for business, but also for the public sector, municipal institutions and social NGOs.

Finally, it’s crucial to abandon the basic principle of total, endless control. The situation should be monitored where there are real risks or signs of transgression. You see, even when we have already done something with regard to restrictions, and these restrictions seem to be working well, there are so many inspection agencies that if every one of them comes at least once, then that’s it, the company would just fold. In 2015, the Government should make all the necessary decisions to switch to this system, a system of restrictions with regard to reviews and inspections.

Concerning small business, I propose establishing ‘supervisory holidays’. If a company has acquired a good reputation and if there have not been any serious charges against it for three years, then for the next three years it should be exempted from routine inspections by government or municipal supervisory agencies. Of course, this does not apply to emergencies, when there is a danger to people’s health and life.

Businessmen talk about the need for stable legislation and predictable rules, including taxes. I completely agree with this. I propose ‘freezing’ the existing tax parameters as they are for the next four years. Not revisiting the matter again. Not changing them.

Meanwhile, it is important to implement the decisions that have already been made to ease the tax burden. First of all, for those who are just setting up their operations. As we have agreed, two-year tax holidays will be provided to small businesses registering for the first time. Production facilities that are starting from scratch will be entitled to the same exemptions.

Another thing. I propose a full amnesty for capital returning to Russia. I stress, full amnesty.

Of course, it is essential to explain to the people who will make these decisions what full amnesty means. It means that if a person legalises his holdings and property in Russia, he will receive firm legal guarantees that he will not be summoned to various agencies, including law enforcement agencies, that they will not “put the squeeze” on him, that he will not be asked about the sources of his capital and methods of its acquisition, that he will not be prosecuted or face administrative liability, and that he will not be questioned by the tax service or law enforcement agencies. Let’s do this now, but only once. Everyone who wants to come to Russia should be given this opportunity.

We all understand that the sources of assets are different, that they were earned or acquired in various ways. However, I am confident that we should finally close, turn the “offshore page” in the history of our economy and our country. It is very important and necessary to do this.

I expect that after the well-known events in Cyprus and with the on-going sanctions campaign, our business has finally realised that its interests abroad are not reckoned with and that it can even be fleeced like a sheep.

And that the best possible guarantee is national jurisdiction, even with all of its problems. We will continue to deal with those problems with conviction, together with our business community, of course.

Russia has already made significant headway in improving its business climate. A new legislative framework has for the most part been developed on the federal level. Now the focus should be shifted to the quality of law enforcement, promoting so called best practices in the regions in partnership with business, using the national investment climate ratings to this end. From next year, the ratings system will be introduced in all the regions. We will review the progress at a State Council meeting without fail.

We need properly developed construction sites and transport infrastructure in order to be able to expand businesses and accommodate new production sites. Our regions must focus on fixing regional and local roads. To enable them to do so, we have introduced additional sources for regional road funds. Overall, we should seek to double the volume of road construction across Russia.

Of course, what I have just said has been verified by the relevant government agencies. They all confirmed that this is a feasible project. We’ll be expecting to see the results of your work, colleagues.

In 2015, we will launch a programme to reimburse the regions’ expenses involved in creating technology parks. I hope that the regions will make good use of this opportunity to develop their own industrial capacity. These additional measures are being taken in order to support economic and industrial growth in strategically important Russian regions.

The law on a special economic zone in Crimea has been adopted. Favourable conditions will be created here for businesses, agriculture and tourism, manufacturing industries and maritime transport, including taxation, customs and other procedures.

As you may be aware, customs preferences for Kaliningrad Region will expire in 2016. It is imperative that alternative measures to support this region, which have already been prepared, be implemented in order to maintain a comfortable entrepreneurial climate.

I’d like to ask the Government to complete this work as soon as possible. I’d also like to ask the deputies not to delay their review of the law on priority development areas (PDA).

In addition, I propose extending PDA regulations to new projects in a number of single-industry cities with the most difficult socioeconomic situations, rather than waiting three years, as provided by the draft law (I believe it has passed its first reading). Instead, we should amend it and start working on single-industry cities right away.

Of course, PDAs should play a key role in developing the Russian Far East. We have announced ambitious plans for developing this region, and we will, of course, implement them. I’d like to ask the Government to consider recapitalising the Far East Development Fund. We can allocate a portion of federal tax increments, which will be obtained from new businesses opening in the region, for these purposes.

As is often the case in such matters, we had a tough conversation on this issue with the Finance Ministry. We agree that initially this can be done with an exception for VAT. Then, we’ll see how well this system works.

I propose providing a free port status to Vladivostok, with an attractive and easy customs regime. As you may be aware, Sevastopol and other Crimean ports have already been given this status.

We also need a comprehensive project for modern and competitive development of the Northern Sea Route. It must operate not just as an effective transit route, but also promote business activity on the Russian Pacific coast and the development of Arctic territories.

Colleagues, the quality and the size of the Russian economy must be consistent with our geopolitical and historical role. We must escape the trap of zero-level growth and achieve an above-average global growth rate within the next three to four years. This is the only way to increase Russia’s share in the global economy, and thus strengthen our influence and economic independence.

The national economy should also be more effective. It’s imperative that labour productivity be increased by no less than five percent annually. The Government should find reserves for this and come up with a plan for the best way to use them. At the same time, it’s important to maintain a stable macroeconomic environment and reduce inflation in the medium term to four percent, but, importantly, not through suppressing business activity. We must at last learn to harmonise two goals: containing inflation and stimulating growth.

Today we are faced with reduced foreign exchange proceeds and, as a consequence, with a weaker national currency, the ruble. As you are aware, the Bank of Russia has switched to a „floating“ exchange rate, but this does not mean that the Bank of Russia has withdrawn from controlling the exchange rate, and that the ruble may now be the object of unchecked financial speculation.

I’d like to ask the Bank of Russia and the Government to carry out tough and concerted actions to discourage the so-called speculators from playing on fluctuations of the Russian currency. In this regard, I’d like to point out that the authorities know who these speculators are. We have the proper instruments of influence, and the time is ripe to use them.

Of course, a weaker ruble increases the risk of a short-term surge in inflation. It’s imperative that we protect the interests of our people, first and foremost, those with low incomes, and the Government and the regions must ensure control over the situation on the food, medicine and other basic goods markets. I’m sure this can be done without any problem, and it must be done.

A weaker national currency also increases the pricing environment and the competitiveness of our companies. We take this factor into account in our policy of import substitution (at least, where it’s appropriate and necessary). Within three to five years, we must provide our customers with high-quality and affordable medicines and food that are produced mostly in Russia.

The grain crop in Russia in 2014 was one of the best in recent history. The overall output growth across our agro-industrial complex currently stands at about 6 percent. We now have efficient large agricultural enterprises and farms, and we will support them. Let’s thank our agricultural workers for their performance this year.

We must also lessen our critical dependence on foreign technology and industrial goods, including in the machine-tool building and instrument-making industries, power engineering, and the production of equipment for field development, including on the Arctic shelf. Our commodities and infrastructure companies can seriously help our producers in this sphere. When implementing large oil, energy and transport projects, they must rely above all on domestic producers and promote demand for their products.

At this point, it’s mostly the other way around: we buy everything abroad, leaving the domestic industries and science empty-handed. I suggest creating a special governmental coordination centre and giving the Government more authority in this sphere. This centre would dovetail the implementation of large projects with placement of contracts at Russian companies, with further development of the national production and research facilities, and production localisation.

As for imports, we must only buy distinctly unique equipment and technology abroad. I’d like to add that we must also cooperate with domestic producers when upgrading the housing and utility sector, public transport, agriculture and other industries.

I am instructing the Government to take the necessary decisions to expand small and medium-sized businesses’ access to purchases by state companies, and in particular to determine the volume of state-owned companies’ mandatory annual purchases from small and medium firms. This is tens and hundreds of billions of rubles that must be used to boost the development of national businesses.

It goes without saying that their products must satisfy the strictest quality and price conditions. Next, we must prevent internal monopolism. I want to stress that reasonable import substitution – reasonable is the key word here – is a long-term priority that we need in order to change, irrespective of external conditions.

Moreover, import substitution programmes must encourage the creation of a large group of industrial companies that can be competitive not only domestically but also on foreign markets. These companies exist in Russia. They are highly efficient and have export potential – very good potential. But they are short of capital, technology, personnel and equipment. We must remove as many of these restrictions as possible. We must provide investment incentives so that these companies can increase growth, increase their capitalisation and production severalfold and become established on foreign markets.

I am instructing the Agency for Strategic Initiatives to join forces with Vnesheconombank, the Russian Direct Investment Fund and other development institutions to draft a relevant programme and system. The first pilot programme for the support for non-commodity companies must be launched already next year.

The integrated credit and insurance export support centre, which will start operating in 2015, will stimulate domestic exports. Its services will be available to all non-commodity companies, both big and small.

In the next three years the capitalisation of Roseximbank, which was created for this purpose, should reach approximately 30 billion rubles. In the next three years, the volume of Russian high value-added exports should grow by 50 percent.

Of course, considerable funds will be needed for the development of the non-commodity and other economic sectors. Russia has these funds. We have large domestic savings, which must be used for this.

Despite any external restrictions, we must increase our annual investment to 25 percent of GDP by 2018. What does this mean? I’ll explain it with just a few words.

It means that we must invest as much as we save. Our savings must work for the national economy and development, rather than the export of capital. To be able to do this, we must seriously strengthen the stability of our banking system – the Central Bank has been working towards this end quite persistently – and also reduce the dependence of the national financial market on external risks.

 http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/10/08/putin-62-the-guardian/

Zentralbankgebäude, Moskau.

„… das Land ist politisch weitgehend isoliert…“ FAZ über Rußland(natürlich u.a. keinerlei Hinweis auf Rußlands engen Partner China)

„Putin isoliert“ – die Manipulationstricks:  http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/11/22/putin-isoliert-deutsche-medien-trommeln-bereits-seit-marz-2014-verschweigen-ua-gewicht-der-brics-staaten-wie-china-indien-brasilien/

Putinrede, Medienkonsumenten:  1.

Mümax heute, 16:07 Uhr

Nanu? Putin auf Konfrationskurs? Wer hat denn die Osterweiterung der NATO betrieben? Wer Wirtschaftssanktionen verhängt? Wer hat den Sturz der legitimen ukrainischen Regierung organisiert? Putin?

10. Was für eine imkompetenter Kommentar?

Ohnesorg77 heute, 16:35 Uhr

Anpassung an westliche Werte zu Jelzin-Zeit? Ob die russische Wirtschaft sich durch alte Gauner wiederbeleben lässt? Was schreibt der Autor hier für einen nicht einmal zur üblichen Propaganda taugenden, aber selbstredend anti-russischen, Unfug zusammen? Nichts, aber auch gar nichts scheint Herr Klußmann über die Jelzin-Zeit oder über Russland zu wissen. Der Text wirkt so, als hätte jemand irgendwelche geistlosen Tweets oder Headlines zusammencollagiert, für ein Publikum, das er augenscheinlich für dumm oder leicht manipulierbar hält. Peinlich, peinlich!

Vergleich Obama-Putin: http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/12/04/friedensnobelpreistrager-barack-obama-uber-putin-2014/

Ukraine-Finanzministerin aus den USA: http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/12/03/ukrainekrieg-und-neue-kiewer-marionettenregierung-finanzministerin-ist-praktischerweise-in-den-usa-geboren-und-aufgewachsen-kiew-vollig-von-steuergeldern-ua-aus-deutschland-abhangig/

Deutsche Steuerzahler finanzieren Kiewer Marionettenregierung, Terrorangriffe gegen antinazistische Regierungsgegner: http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2014/04/14/ukraine-2014-deutsche-steuerzahler-finanzieren-putschregierung-in-kiew-zu-der-nazis-und-antisemiten-gehoren-eu-beschlos-finanzhilfe/

Wer ist Präsident der Ukraine?

Präsident Janukowitsch war vom sog. “Parlament” der Kiewer Putschregierung mit 72,88 % “abgewählt” worden – die Verfassung der Ukraine schreibt aber 75 % vor…

Nachdenkseiten:

4. Dezember 2014 um 9:50 Uhr

Der verdrängte Verfassungsbruch

Verantwortlich: Jens Berger

Die Ukraine ist ein europäisches Land. Diese geografische Selbstverständlichkeit beinhaltet für viele westlich orientierte Ukrainer auch ein Bekenntnis zum „europäischen Wertesystem“. Zu diesen Werten gehört nach allgemeiner Auffassung die Rechtsstaatlichkeit.[1] Doch dass die Geburt der neuen pro-europäischen Ukraine mit einem mehrfachen Verfassungsbruch bei der Absetzung Viktor Janukowitschs begann, wird gerade in diesem rechtsstaatlichen Europa bis heute verdrängt. Von Stefan Korinth.

Diese seit neun Monaten evidente Diagnose bestätigte sich zuletzt bei Anne Will in ihrer Talkshow am Mittwochabend.[2] Der russische Botschafter Wladimir Grinin erinnerte zu Beginn der Sendung an den „Staatsstreich“ vom 22. Februar. Die Moderatorin wirkte, als habe sie davon noch nie gehört. „Was meinen Sie damit? Die Ablösung Janukowitschs? Oder was meinen Sie mit ‚Staatsstreich‘?“ Nach einem kurzen kaum verständlichen Erklärungsversuch des Botschafters wechselte Anne Will dann zur „Annexion“ der Krim.

Bei einem weiteren Einwand Grinins etwas später in der Sendung antwortete Grünen-Politikerin Marieluise Beck: „Janukowitsch ist geflohen. Und das kann man nun wirklich nicht als Staatsstreich bezeichnen. Als der Präsident weg war, ist aus dem Parlament heraus ein neuer Übergangspräsident ernannt worden.“ Es seien „Propagandafiguren“, die Grinin aufbaue. Damit war das Thema erledigt.

Doch es hätte sich gelohnt, noch etwas länger über das von Will als „Ablösung“ bezeichnete Ereignis zu sprechen. Denn ein Blick auf die Ereignisse Ende Februar und in die ukrainische Verfassung ergeben ein eindeutiges Ergebnis: Janukowitschs Absetzung war verfassungswidrig. Dieses Resultat ist bis heute wichtig, weil es die Glaubwürdigkeit der Verfechter des „europäischen Wertesystems“ in der Ukraine und in der EU stark beschädigt.

Der Rechte Sektor droht mit Angriff, Janukowitsch flieht

Am Nachmittag des 21. Februar 2013, einem Freitag, einigten sich der amtierende Präsident Viktor Janukowitsch und Oppositionspolitiker auf eine „Vereinbarung über die Beilegung der Krise in der Ukraine“.[3] Es sollte eine Regierung der nationalen Einheit und vorgezogene Präsidentschaftswahlen geben. Die Polizeitruppen zogen sich in ihre Standorte zurück.

Auf dem Maidan kam die Einigung jedoch schlecht an. Die Oppositionspolitiker Jazenjuk, Klitschko und Tjagnibok wurden dafür ausgepfiffen. Direkt im Anschluss drohte Dmitro Jarosch vom Rechten Sektor mit der Erstürmung von Regierungsgebäuden. Janukowitsch musste durchaus um sein Leben fürchten und floh noch am selben Tag aus Kiew. In der Nacht besetzten bewaffnete „Maidan-Selbstverteidiger“ dann unter anderem seinen Amtssitz. Maidan-Unterstützerin Marieluise Beck hatte vergessen, das zu erwähnen.

Die Rada setzt Janukowitsch ab

Am 22. Februar enthob das nationale Parlament (Werchowna Rada) Viktor Janukowitsch mit einer einfachen Abstimmung vom Amt des Präsidenten. 328 von 450 Abgeordneten (72,9 Prozent) stimmten für die Absetzung. Die Rada begründete ihren Schritt damit, dass sich Janukowitsch selbst von seinem Amt zurückgezogen habe. Parlamentsvorsitzender Alexander Turtschinow wurde Übergangspräsident.

In einem TV-Interview aus der Ostukraine am selben Tag weigerte sich Janukowitsch jedoch zurückzutreten und bezeichnete die Vorgänge als „Staatsstreich“. Er sei weiter der rechtmäßige Präsident des Landes. Für Marieluise Beck ist das Propaganda. Doch um herauszufinden, wer Recht hat, ist ein Blick in die ukrainische Verfassung hilfreich:

Artikel 108. „Die Befugnisse des Präsidenten der Ukraine enden vorzeitig in folgenden Fällen:

1. Rücktritt;
2. Verhinderung der Amtsausübung aus gesundheitlichen Gründen:
3. Amtsenthebung in einem Amtsenthebungsverfahren;
4. Tod.

Da Janukowitsch seinen Rücktritt verneinte, blieb der Rada durch diese Verfassungsvorgaben als einzige realistische Möglichkeit nur das Amtsenthebungsverfahren. Dieses ist in Artikel 111 näher geregelt.

Artikel 111. Der Präsident der Ukraine kann wegen des Begehens von Hochverrat oder eines anderen Verbrechens vom Parlament der Ukraine in einem Amtsenthebungsverfahren vorzeitig des Amtes enthoben werden. (…)[4]

Zur Durchführung der Untersuchung bildet das Parlament der Ukraine eine besondere nichtständige Untersuchungskommission, der einSonderstaatsanwalt und Sonderermittler angehören. (…)

Der Beschluss über die Amtsenthebung des Präsidenten der Ukraine im Amtsenthebungsverfahren wird vom Parlament der Ukraine mit der Mehrheit von mindestens drei Vierteln der durch die Verfassung bestimmten Anzahl seiner Mitglieder nach der Prüfung der Sache durch das Verfassungsgericht der Ukraine und nach Erhalt seines Gutachtens bzgl. der Einhaltung des verfassungsmäßigen Verfahrens der Untersuchung und Behandlung des Amtsenthebungsverfahrens und des Gutachtens des Obersten Gerichts darüber, dass die Handlungen, deren der Präsident der Ukraine angeklagt wird, den Tatbestand des Hochverrats oder eines anderen Verbrechens erfüllen, gefällt.

Die Verfassung beschreibt präzise die Vorgehensweise bei einer Amtsenthebung. Die politischen Sieger des Maidan-Aufstandes haben jedoch keine einzige dieser eindeutigen Vorgaben im Falle Janukowitschs eingehalten. Es gab keine Untersuchungskommission, es gab kein gerichtliches Urteil zur Bestätigung des Hochverrats oder eines anderen Verbrechens, es gab keine Prüfung durch das Verfassungsgericht und die parlamentarische Drei-Viertel-Mehrheit kam ebenfalls nicht zustande.[5]

Rechtsexperten bestätigen Verfassungswidrigkeit

Rechtswissenschaftler bestätigen diesen Befund[6]: In der Stuttgarter Zeitungbezeichnet Matthias Hartwig vom Heidelberger Max-Planck-Institut für Völkerrecht die Machtübernahme der Opposition als „Staatsstreich“. Der Bonner Rechtsprofessor Stefan Talmon spricht bei tagesschau.de von einer „rechtswidrigen Regierung“, die nach Janukowitschs Flucht Ansprechpartner der internationalen Gemeinschaft geworden sei. Selbst Spiegel-Onlinebestätigt den zumindest „rein juristisch“ unrechtmäßigen Präsidentschaftswechsel.

Die deutschen Rechtsexperten legitimieren den Machtwechsel aber häufig mit der „revolutionären Situation“ dieser Februartage. Auch hiesige Leitmedien schwenken in ihren wenigen Artikeln zum Thema auf diese Argumentationslinie. Allerdings gibt es hierbei mehrere Probleme: Zum einen ließen sich so auch gewalttätige Machtübernahmen wie in Donezk oder Lugansk rechtfertigen.[7] Zum anderen werden Verfassungen bei dieser Rechtfertigung ihrer grundsätzlichen Gültigkeit beraubt.

Revolutionäre Lage?

Und schließlich bleibt es sogar bei Annahme dieser Argumentation sehr fraglich, ob damals in Kiew tatsächlich eine „revolutionäre Lage“ herrschte. Im Wortsinn stehen Revolutionen für grundlegende Umwälzungen. Aber allein die ernüchternden Erfahrungen nach der letzten „Revolution“ – der wiederholten Präsidentschaftswahl 2004 („Orange Revolution“) – machten auch im Februar 2014 skeptisch.

Aber vor allem wegen des siegreichen Oligarchen- und Politpersonals waren auch diesmal keine tiefgreifenden innergesellschaftlichen oder gar weltgeschichtlichen Umbrüche zu erwarten. Bis heute hat lediglich der erwartbare Elitenwechsel stattgefunden. Die Praktiken in der ukrainischen Politik sind hingegen dieselben geblieben wie unter Janukowitsch.[8]

Staatsstreich?

Bis heute spricht wenig für eine Revolution und viel für einen Staatsstreich. DieBundeszentrale für Politische Bildung versteht unter „Staatsstreich“ einen „verfassungswidrigen (gewaltsamen) Umsturz, mit dem es bereits an der Macht Beteiligten (z. B. Militärs) gelingt, die gesamte Staatsgewalt zu übernehmen“. Im ukrainischen Falle übernahmen zwar keine Offiziere die Macht, aber durchaus auch davor schon etablierte „pro-westliche“ Politeliten und milliardenschwere mächtige Wirtschaftsbarone. Letztlich liegt Wladimir Grinin also deutlich näher an der Wahrheit als Marieluise Beck.

Völkerrechtlich unerheblich

Juristisch gesehen hat Janukowitschs Absetzung allerdings nur staatsrechtliche Relevanz. Aus völkerrechtlicher Sicht spielt der ukrainische Verfassungsbruch keine Rolle. Am deutlichsten führt dies der Rechtswissenschaftler Jasper Finke am 5. März im Interview mit tagesschau.deaus:

„Es ist völlig unerheblich, ob Janukowitsch noch rechtmäßiger Präsident der Ukraine ist nach dem ukrainischen Verfassungsrecht. Denn hier greift der sogenannte Effektivitätsgrundsatz – das heißt, völkerrechtlich kommt es darauf an, ob die neue Regierung effektiv Herrschaftsgewalt in der Ukraine ausübt. Das heißt, selbst wenn der Umsturz verfassungswidrig war, dann sind wir doch zumindest jetzt an einem Punkt, an dem die neue Regierung eindeutig die Ukraine nach außen vertritt.“

Europäisches Wertesystem

Übernimmt also eine Bewegung verfassungswidrig die Macht in einem Land und verhindert dadurch auch ihre rechtmäßige Bestrafung durch nationale Rechtsinstitutionen – folgt dem eben keine ersatzweise Sanktionierung durch das internationale Rechtssystem, sondern im Gegenteil die juristische Anerkennung der neuen Machthaber. Von dieser praktizierten Rechtsstaatlichkeit, dürfe man sich als Jurist nie frustrieren lassen, erläutert der schon erwähnte Matthias Hartwig im Interview.

Dementsprechend erkannte die Europäische Union die Absetzung Janukowitschs umgehend an. Statt auf die Gültigkeit der Verfassung zu beharren, bezeichnete EU-Kommissionssprecher Olivier Bailly die Rada am Montag nach der Absetzung als „Garant von Demokratie und Gesetzlichkeit“. Ihre Entscheidung müsse respektiert werden.

Die Ukraine scheint im Europäischen Wertesystem angekommen zu sein.

[«1] So steht etwa in einem Beschluss der CDU vom 8. Februar 2014 [PDF – 40,9 KB] mit dem Titel „Für Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der Ukraine“: „Deutschland und die Europäische Union wollen, dass die Ukraine wieder einen Platz im Europa der gemeinsamen Werte einnehmen kann. Durch das ausgehandelte Assoziierungsabkommen im Rahmen der Östlichen Partnerschaft hat die Ukraine eine klare europäische Perspektive. Voraussetzung für dessen Unterzeichnung ist ein glaubwürdiges Bekenntnis der ukrainischen Führung zu Freiheit, Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit.“ Wichtig bleibt hier noch zu erwähnen, dass dieses „Europa der gemeinsamen Werte“ i.d.R. als Abgrenzung zu Russland formuliert wird – obwohl auch Russland sowohl geografisch als auch ideengeschichtlich ein europäisches Land ist.[«2] Anne Will, Sendung vom 26. November 2014: „Alles dreht sich um Putin – Bleibt die Ukraine auf der Strecke?“ Der Titel klingt erstmal wie Selbstkritik. Will die ARD nun weniger auf Putin-Personalisierung setzen und sich dafür mehr mit der Ukraine beschäftigen? Immerhin war sogar ein Gesandter der ukrainischen Botschaft eingeladen. Doch die tatsächliche Lage zwischen Karpaten und Donbass spielte auch in dieser Sendung kaum eine Rolle.[«3] Teil der Abmachung war auch die Wiedereinführung der Verfassung von 2004. Noch am selben Tag realisierte die Rada die Rückkehr zu dieser Version. Die Verfassung von 2004 überträgt etwa dem Parlament das Recht auf die Wahl des Regierungschefs und schwächt damit die Position des Präsidenten. Außerdem bestimmt diese Version bei einer Amtsenthebung des Präsidenten den Vorsitzenden des Parlaments zum Übergangspräsidenten. In der Version von 2010 war hierfür noch der Regierungschef vorgesehen.[«4] Die ausgesparten Passagen und alle restlichen Verfassungsartikel lassen sich hier auf Ukrainisch, Englisch und Deutsch nachlesen.[«5] Und selbst die einfache Abstimmung am 22. Februar war unrechtmäßig. Zahlreiche Bewaffnete waren im Parlament und schufen die notwenige Drohkulisse für das „richtige“ Abstimmungsverhalten. Die Regierungskoalition hatte ja schließlich immer noch die Mehrheit im Parlament. Weitere Parlamentarier wurden vor der Rada verprügelt und erreichten die Abstimmung gar nicht erst.[«6] Bezeichnend für diese Interviews ist, dass sie allesamt die „Annexion“ der Krim zum Thema hatten. Den verfassungswidrigen Machtwechsel in Kiew bestätigten die Experten nur am Rande. Gesondert wurde dazu in den Leitmedien kein Experte befragt.[«7] Auch der Verweis der Maidan-Sieger auf die verfassungswidrige Unabhängigkeitserklärung der Krim wirkt unglaubwürdig.[«8] So schreibt etwa Andreas Stein, freier wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung in Kiew und Herausgeber des Internetmagazins Ukraine-Nachrichten, zur Durchsetzung des Lustrationsgesetzes im September: „Die gesetzeswidrige Verabschiedung und der offensichtlich verfassungswidrige Inhalt des Gesetzes zeugen zum wiederholten Male davon, dass auch die neuen Machthaber für den Machterhalt gewillt sind, sich über jegliche Regeln hinwegzusetzen. Auch nach den Opfern des Maidans und des Krieges im Osten hat somit kein generelles Umdenken in der politischen Klasse der Ukraine stattgefunden.“  http://www.hart-brasilientexte.de/2008/05/19/es-gibt-trends-und-moden-in-der-berichterstattung-die-so-ubermachtig-sind-das-es-vollkommen-egal-ist-was-wirklich-passiert-ist-dagobert-lindlau-im-deutschlandfunk-uber-wege-zur-desinformierten/

Volksempfänger-Journalismus heute.