Stephen: Edward Snowden spoke at a major technology conference in Texas yesterday – ‘punched in’ from Russia via seven proxy servers! – at which he admitted he would “do it all again’ when commenting on his role in the NSA leaks. The full speech he gave and the Q&A he participated in are in the video..

By Jon Swaine in New York and Jemima Kiss in Austin, The Guardian – March 11, 2014

http://tinyurl.com/nff833p

Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower whose unprecedented leak of top-secret documents led to a worldwide debate about the nature of surveillance, insisted on Monday that his actions had improved the national security of the United States rather than undermined it, and declared that he would do it all again despite the personal sacrifices he had endured.

In remarks to the SXSW culture and technology conference in Texas, delivered by video link from his exile in Russia, Snowden took issue with claims by senior officials that he had placed the US in danger. He also rejected as demonstrably false the suggestions by some members of Congress that his files had found their way into the hands of the intelligence agencies of China or Russia.

By Andrew Osborn and Alastair Macdonald

SEVASTOPOL/KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine's government appealed for Western help on Tuesday to stop Moscow annexing Crimea but the Black Sea peninsula, overrun by Russian troops, seemed fixed on a course that could formalize rule from Moscow within days.

With their own troops in Crimea effectively prisoners in their bases, the new authorities in Kiev painted a sorry picture of the military bequeathed them by the pro-Moscow president overthrown two weeks ago. They announced the raising of a new National Guard to be drawn from volunteers among veterans.

The prime minister, heading for talks at the White House and United Nations, told parliament in Kiev he wanted the United States and Britain, as guarantors of a 1994 treaty that saw Ukraine give up its Soviet nuclear weapons, to intervene both diplomatically and militarily to fend off Russian "aggression".

But despite NATO reconnaissance aircraft patrolling the Polish and Romanian borders and U.S. naval forces preparing for exercises in the Black Sea, Western powers have made clear that, as when ex-Soviet Georgia lost territory in fighting in 2008, they have no appetite for risking turning the worst East-West crisis since the Cold War into a military conflict with Moscow.

Diplomacy seemed restricted to a war of words. The U.S. and Russian foreign ministers did speak by telephone. But the U.S. State Department said Moscow's position offered no room for negotiation and the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement condemning U.S. financial aid to the "illegitimate regime" in Kiev, which it calls ultra-nationalists with "Nazi" links.

That language echoed ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich, who gave a news conference in Russia insisting that he was still the legitimate head of state. Toppled by protests sparked by his rejection of closer ties with the European Union in favor of a deal from Russian President Vladimir Putin, Yanukovich blamed his enemies for provoking Crimean secession.

Parliament in Kiev, whose position is backed by Western governments, dismisses plans for a referendum on Sunday to unite the region with Russia as illegitimate and resolved on Tuesday to dissolve Crimea's regional assembly if by Wednesday it had not scrapped the plebiscite. There seems no chance that it will.

Lavrov: Russia has proposals to resolve Ukrainian …Play video

Moscow, which to widespread scorn denies its troops have any role in the takeover of the once Russian-ruled region, says people in Crimea, a small majority of whom are ethnic Russians, should have the right to secede. It has made much of anti-Russian sentiment among some Ukrainian nationalists - though many native Russian speakers in Ukraine are wary of Putin.

SANCTIONS, REFERENDUM

U.S. lawmakers are preparing sanctions against Russia and European Union leaders could impose penalties, such as bans on visas for key officials, as early as Monday.

By then, however, Crimea could already have voted - in a referendum not recognized by Kiev or the West - to seek union with Russia. The ballot paper offers no option to retain the status quo of autonomy within Ukraine.

Voters among the two million population must choose either direct union with Moscow or restoring an old constitution that made Crimea sovereign with ties to Ukraine. On Tuesday, the regional assembly passed a resolution that a sovereign Crimea would sever links to Kiev and join Russia anyway.

The Russian parliament has already approved the accession in principle of Crimea, which was handed to Ukraine by Soviet rulers 60 years ago. Still, it is not clear whether or how soon Putin would formalize such a union as he engages in a complex confrontation with the West for geostrategic advantage.

In disputes with Georgia, Russia has granted recognition to small breakaway states on its borders, a process critics view as annexation in all but name. It fiercely criticized Western recognition of the independence of Kosovo from its ally Serbia - a process which Crimea's parliament nonetheless cited as a legal precedent for its own forthcoming declaration of independence.

U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine: Discussion "over& …Play video

There seems little chance that Crimea's new leaders, who emerged after Yanukovich's overthrow as Russian-backed forces took control of the peninsula, will fail to get the result they want. A boycott by ethnic Tatars, 12 percent of the regional population and deeply wary after centuries of persecution by Moscow, will have little effect as there is no minimum turnout.

In Sevastopol, the Crimean home port of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Valery Medvedev, the chairman of the city's electoral commission, made no pretence at concealing his own preference:

"We're living through historic times. Sevastopol would love to fulfil its dream of joining Russia. I want to be part of Russia and I'm not embarrassed to say that," he told reporters.

There is little sign of campaigning by those opposed to the government line. Billboards in Sevastopol urge people to vote and offer a choice of two images of Crimea - one in the colors of the Russian flag, the other emblazoned with a swastika.

UKRAINIAN TROOPS

It is unclear whether thousands of Ukrainian servicemen, many of whom are native Crimeans but are effectively trapped on their bases and ships by Russian troops and local militia allies, will take part in the referendum.

One sailor, who declined to be named, said he would only vote if he got the order from his commander to do so, a position echoed by many other servicemen spoken to by Reuters. They all said they would vote for Crimea to remain part of Ukraine.

Russians rally in Moscow to support annexation of …Play video

Elena Prokhina, an ethnic Russian planning to vote for union with Moscow, said she feared the referendum could lead to conflict with others in Ukraine, notably nationalists in the Ukrainian-speaking west of the country of 46 million.

"Knowing what I know about the fanaticism of the western Ukrainians, we will have to defend our rights after the referendum," she said. "They won't just let us leave."

Around Sevastopol, Ukrainian military facilities remained under virtual siege on Tuesday. At an air defense base outside Sevastopol, dozens of men who looked like Russian soldiers were camping outside the gate, while an armed Ukrainian serviceman could be seen pacing the base's roof keeping a wary eye on them.

In the port, two Ukrainian warships remained on alert but unable to set sail because of Russian vessels and a cable strung across the harbor by Russian forces. Relatives of the sailors come to the dockside every day to converse and provide food.

A Ukrainian officer said there was a fragile understanding between the two fleets not to escalate the situation, but he said nerves were frayed: "The Russians have not troubled us until now," he said. "But all it takes is one order and they will open fire. We won't be able to hold out long".

CALL FOR HELP

In parliament, the acting defense minister said that of some 41,000 infantry mobilized last week, Ukraine could field only about 6,000 combat-ready troops, compared to over 200,000 Russians deployed on the country's eastern borders. The prime minister said the air force was outnumbered 100 to one.

Acting president Oleksander Turchinov warned against provoking Russia, saying that would play into Moscow's hands, as he announced plans to mobilize a National Guard, though he gave little detail of its size or expected functions.

Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk, who will visit the White House and United Nations Security Council this week, said the 1994 treaty under which Ukraine agreed to give up its Soviet nuclear weapons obliged Russia to remove troops from Crimea and also meant Western powers should defend Ukraine's sovereignty.

"What does the current military aggression of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory mean?" he said.

"It means that a country which voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons, rejected nuclear status and received guarantees from the world's leading countries is left defenseless and alone in the face of a nuclear state that is armed to the teeth.

"I say this to our Western partners: if you do not provide guarantees, which were signed in the Budapest Memorandum, then explain how you will persuade Iran or North Korea to give up their status as nuclear states."

Parliament passed a resolution he had proposed calling on the United States and Britain, co-signatories with Russia of that treaty to "fulfil their obligations ... and take all possible diplomatic, political, economic and military measures urgently to end the aggression and preserve the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine".

But Western powers have been careful to note that Ukraine, not being a member of NATO, has no automatic claim on their help and Ukrainian officials gave no details on what they hoped for. The wording of the 1994 treaty indicates that help is only required if Ukraine is threatened by a nuclear attack.

(Additional reporting by Natalia Zinets, Pavel Polityuk, Richard Balmforth and Ron Popeski in Kiev; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Peter Graff)

Ukraine pleads for Western assistance

Kiev says it has only 6,000 combat-ready infantry and an air force that is outnumbered 100 to 1 by Russia's.
An independent Crimea?

The Secret Pope Francis Haters

No one can dispute the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has had an extraordinary year since being elected to lead the Roman Catholic Church last March. Every gesture, from his choice of the name Francis to his penchant for cold-calling parishioners, has endeared him with a most unusual fanclub, including atheists and gays. He has been on the cover of the Advocate and Rolling Stone and he was voted Time’s Man of the Year. He also attracts tens of thousands of Catholics and curious onlookers to his weekly Sunday blessings and Wednesday audiences in St. Peter’s square—something that hasn’t been seen in Rome since the early days of John Paul II. He even hashis own fanzine and smartphone app.

But just as the Pope’s pedestrian popularity grows, bolstered no doubt by a savvy public relations move from within the Vatican to get the ‘good news’ message out to the mainstream press, there are a growing number of dissident voices from deep within the Catholic community who aren’t exactly impressed with the so-called “Francis effect” on the church as a whole.

READ MORE Serbia Lays Out Genocide Claims

In fact, toeing the new party line instilled by Francis is proving to be the greatest challenge for conservative Catholics who are quite used to a prudent and predictable Pope. Francis’s comments about showing mercy to divorced couples, not judging gay priests and even toying with further examination of civil unions outside the church have proven to be tough for conservative Catholics to swallow. John Vennari, noted Catholic observer and editor of “The Catholic Family News,” has been pounding a steady drumbeat on the danger of Francis’s widespread populist appeal since his election a year ago. “He seems to have a good heart and some good Catholic instincts, but theologically he is a train wreck—remarkably sloppy,” Vennari wrote in a recent blog post. “Though this might shock some readers, I must say that I would never allow Pope Francis to teach religion to my children.”

In an NBC news piece titled “Not Everyone Loves Francis,” Boston College theology professor Thomas Groome pondered whether or not true Catholic conservatives would be able to keep supporting the Pope’s new approach towards acceptance and mercy and still keep their faith. “I think it will be a real test for conservative Catholics,” he told NBC. “They have always pointed the finger, quoting the Pope for the last 35 years. Suddenly, will they stop quoting the Pope? It’ll be a good test of whether or not they’re really Catholics.”

READ MORE Confessions of a Putin Spin Doctor

But it’s not just traditionalists who arefinding fault with Francis. Writing in the New Statesman John Bloodworth, editor of the popular British progressive political blog Left Foot Forward, warns that Francis is no different from his predecessors and that the Catholic Church “stands on roughly the same political terrain as it did under the leadership of Pope Benedict.” He says part of Francis’s popularity is simply a result of “clever repackaging” of the same Catholic propaganda coupled with a troubled society’s search for a new hero, which, he says, “has resulted in people switching off their critical faculties and overlooking inconvenient truths.” Bloodworth blames the mainstream press for essentially drinking the Catholic kool-aid without really checking for substance. “Pope Francis’s position on most issues should make the hair of every liberal curl,” he says. “Instead we get article after article of saccharine from people who really should know better.”

Some liberal Catholics believe that Francis is missing an opportunity to use his popular appeal to really make a substantive difference. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, says that part of Francis’s appeal was his predecessor’s weakness. “To go from such an uncharismatic Pope to such a natural and warm leader like Francis has made people interested in what he has to say,” O’Brien told The Daily Beast. “But he’s not exactly CheGuevera for the church.”

READ MORE Rehabbing Fukushima’s Food Scene

View gallery

Pope Francis waves from his pope-mobile at the end of his weekly general audience, in St. Peter's Sq …

While O’Brien believes that Francis’s off-the-cuff comments about divorced couples and gay priests are “driving the uber-conservative Catholics insane,” he worries that the Pope is actually getting a lot of undue credit for being a revolutionary when he hasn’t exactly shaken up the most troubling problems within the church. “I think that he could have a bigger impact, especially when it comes to women,” he says. “If Pope Francis has a blindspot, that’s it.”

O’Brien says that allowing divorced people to take communion or even be remarried in the Catholic Church would be a good first step towards moving beyond rhetoric. So would allowing women a greater role as decision-makers in the Church rather than isolating them further. O’Brien points to an interview Francis gave to a slew of Jesuit magazines earlier this year, in which he essentially poured cold water on any hope ofgender equality within the Catholic Church heirarchy. “I am wary of a solution that can be reduced to a kind of ‘female machismo,’ because a woman has a different make-up than a man,” Francis said in the interview. “But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo.” O’Brien says by locking women out of the room when decisions are made, he is sidelining half of the Catholic Church. “Comments like that cancel out a lot of the good,” O’Brien says.

READ MORE Ukraine’s Missing Oligarch

Another perceived weak spot in the Francis papacy for many is his kid-glove approach to the horrific child sex-abuse scandal the church is still dealing with. He has not yet met publicly with any victims of priest abuse like his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI did, and he has persistently avoided making a public apology as Pope. In December, he did announce the formation of a special commission to deal with the issue of predatory priests and child sex-abuse cases, but he has yet to name the commission, meaning that their work has not yet begun. That is especially painful to victims of priest abuse like David Clohessy, head of SNAP—Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. Clohessy says that Francis needs to immediately take tangible steps to remove predatory priests from the parishes and to punish bishops who continue to cover up their offenses.

“Policies, pledges, apologies, meetings with victims won’t work. they’ve all been said and done before. They are public relations placebos,” Clohessy told The Daily Beast. “They don’t safeguard a single child, expose a single predator or deter a single cover up. Symbolic moves are actually hurtful because they cause complacency instead of vigilance and give people false hope that real reform will follow, when it hasn’t followed and isn’t following.”

READ MORE It Wasn't Mechanical Failure

Clohessy isn’t holding out hope that the Pope’s abuse commission will make any difference. “A ‘carrot only’approach won’t work and he knows it. He must find the courage to wield a “stick” and he shows little or no sign of being strong and brave enough to do this.”

To be fair, Francis has shaken up the top-heavy Roman Curia with new appointments, and he has tapped 19 new cardinals from all over the world to diversify the mostly European College of Cardinals whose most important task will be electing his successor. He has also made some crucial steps towards cleaning up the scandal-prone Vatican bank with the appointment of a new Secretariat of the Economy, Cardinal George Pell from Australia. Writing in his new role as associate editor covering global Catholicism for The Boston Globe, Vatican expert John Allen says that Francis’s substantive moves get less press because they are essentially far more boring than what makes the headlines. He points specifically to the shakeup at the Vatican Bank. “That move may not have the sex appeal of Francis’s symbolic gestures, such as spurning the papal apartment or inviting three homeless men and their dog to his birthday breakfast, but insiders realize there’s little a pope could do that would be more challenging to the Vatican’s old guard,” he writes. “When that decision was announced, one could almost hear the sound of the tectonic plates of the church shifting in the direction of transparency and accountability.”

READ MORE The Jews Who Fought for Hitler

Love him or hate him, it is still too soon to measure the Francis effect on the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics. Those who support him most say his style appeals to lapsed Catholics and makes moderate Catholics proud, even though a recent Pew Research poll on American Catholics and Pope Franci says it hasn’t lured them back to church just yet. According to the study, “Seven in ten U.S. Catholics also now say Francis represents a major change in direction for the church, a sentiment shared by 56 percent of non-Catholics. And nearly everyone who says Francis represents a major change sees this as a change for the better.” But the same poll showed that church attendance had not shifted since Pope Francis took the helm of the Catholic Church.

Even with all the analysis of Francis’s first year, the least likely person to actually take note is the Pope himself. Father Tom Reese, a senior analyst for National Catholic Reporter and author of Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church , says the Pope won’t likely worry about how people judge his first year on the job. “One of the things people like about Francis is that he is authentic; he says what he thinks in a simple straightforward way,” Reese told The Daily Beast. “If he starts worrying like a politician about what people on the left and right think of him, he will destroy himself. Let Francis be Francis.”

READ MORE Iranian Got Flight 370 Mystery Tix

The pope would seem to agree. In a broad interview with Italy’s Corrieredella Sera newspaper, he shunned his popularity and said he is just an average person. “I don’t like ideological interpretations, a certain mythology of Pope Francis,” he said. “Sigmund Freud said, if I’m not mistaken, that in all idealization there is an aggression. To paint the Pope as if he is a sort of Superman, a sort of star, I find offensive. The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps peacefully and has friends like everyone else. He is a normal person.”

He's charmed the secular world and swelled the crowds at St. Peter's Square, but the adulation isn't unanimous.
Growing dissent

"It can happen here": Three years after Fukushima, U.S. vulnerable to nuclear disaster

The co-author of a new book on the Japanese nuclear catastrophe warns specifically of one type of U.S. facility.
Three years later

Pro-Ukrainian supporters hold signs, one of them depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin as Adolf Hitler, at a rally in Simferopol March 9, 2014. Sign (R) reads: "Why do we need a war? Go somewhere else" REUTERS/Thomas Peter

By Elizabeth Piper

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Surrounded by faithful aides, President Vladimir Putin hears no opposition to his plans in Crimea, allowing him to drive Russia's bid to reclaim Ukraine's southern region guided by little more than his "inner voice".

Former and current officials paint a picture of a leader who counts on the unswerving loyalty of a handful of advisers from his administration and security services to draft policy that has plunged relations with the West to a new post-Cold War low.

That the seizure of Crimea, home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, could tip a faltering economy into recession, spark visa bans and asset freezes on top officials and isolate Russia in ways not seen since Soviet times have not been considerations.

Those who disagree with his policies, fearing Putin may be ushering in a period of economic stagnation, have not yet spoken out against a leader who has successfully whipped up nationalist fervor over the "brotherly nation" next door.

For the time being, Putin can rely on a system of control he has honed and cultivated since he first came to power 14 years ago. It is a closely marshaled hierarchy of loyalty where even debate and disagreements are often choreographed for the benefit of state television stations which film government meetings.

But the Crimea move has led to mutterings of discontent, mostly among the financial and economic ministries, who were cut out of the meeting when it was decided to act over a region Putin felt might be lost forever if Kiev's new leaders were successful in taking Ukraine into the European Union.

"His closest adviser is his inner voice," said a source who is close to the Kremlin. "He had to act. He had no choice."

Sources say Putin took the decision on Crimea with his closest advisers: Sergei Ivanov, head of the presidential administration, Kremlin strategist Vyacheslav Volodin, Kremlin aide Vladislav Surkov, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the heads of the security services.

The response was unanimously in favor of action. Within days, Russian forces had occupied the peninsula and a new Russian separatist leadership was placed in charge, preparing for a referendum to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.

GOOD EXCUSE

Putin has since said Russia has not been acting in Crimea but allowing local self-defense units to act spontaneously, an assertion derided as "Putin's fiction" by Washington.

There was little he had to do, former officials and analysts said. Russian forces already based there, with the help of special forces, mobilized to seize the peninsula, a favorite summertime resort for Russians.

In Russia, the action is widely seen as a legitimate response to Western support for the demonstrators who toppled pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovich last month.

"It's like if you're watching television with a neighbor and the program's finished but then they try to run off with the television. You cannot let them get away it, can you?" said the source.

The tough response showed a type of behavior that has marked Putin's long rule but has been seen more often in recent years as the more liberal thinkers who once influenced him have been pushed out of his closest circle.

By excluding the finance and economy ministries, he deliberately shut out advisers who might have urged caution.

Russia's economy was already in danger: growth has dropped and should fall further this year, and investment flows are paltry. Finances are still dependent on oil prices more than 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Just the threat of Western sanctions has already hurt: the central bank was forced to hike interest rates and burn through billions to prop up the ruble. But Crimea may also help change the subject from economic troubles that would have been inevitable anyway, and shift blame to the West.

"He knows he cannot do anything about the economy ... Crimea is a very good excuse for Putin," the source said.

Nevertheless, those who guide economic policy are worried that Crimea could turn tough times into a full-blown recession.

"It's a little bit frightening thinking about what will happen. I do not see the whole picture and can only judge on fragments. It seems to me that this is high stakes poker when both side bluffs big time," one well-placed official said.

"The risks, in my opinion, are big and the losses could also be large too."

VILLAS IN NICE VS. COURT IN THE HAGUE

The European Union and United States have viewed sanctions against Russia with some reluctance, especially in Europe, which depends on Russian natural gas. So far, measures discussed are aimed mainly at the elite, in the hope of prodding those close to Putin to change policy without fundamentally altering trade.

Washington has ordered visa bans and assets freezes on an as-yet-unpublished list of individuals it blames for threatening Ukraine's sovereignty. Brussels is threatening asset freezes, travel bans and other sanctions.

However, Putin could also use the sanctions threat to his own advantage by presenting it as a loyalty test: since he returned to the presidency two years ago, he has told politicians to close their foreign bank accounts.

Wealthy Russians may find it hard to complain in public about losing access to banks and vacation homes in the West. So far, oligarchs have largely kept silent, restricting their comments to saying their businesses are unaffected by events.

One rare exception is tycoon-turned-politician Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the Brooklyn Nets basketball team, who called for international cooperation over Ukraine, warning the "longer we take in finding a resolution, the more it will cost".

For now, officials will be reluctant to challenge Putin's position for the sake of a visa. Some may lose money, but they would have been likely to do so anyway as the ruble weakens. Any economic pain will probably not be enough to force Russia's rich and powerful to abandon the former KGB spy.

"Yes our elite won't like it very much, but it has no other options," Konstantin Simonov, general director of the National Energy Security Fund, wrote in the Vedomosti newspaper.

"The West, in essence, proposed a tough choice: Bring us Putin's head and you will keep your villas in Nice. But the elite does not just fear Putin. They also don't believe the West, thinking it could abandon them. Better to have a villa in Hong Kong or Thailand than end up in court in the Hague."

(Additional reporting by Polina Devitt and Katya Golubkova; Editing by Peter Graff)