You'd never know it from watching television, but there are many thousands of people in the
United States who take peace, justice, environmental protection, and government of the people
so seriously that they don't censor themselves whenever the president is a Democrat.
While many others are still debating whether it would be appropriate to criticize or protest
President Obama after a mere three and a half years of disaster, the people I have in mind
have been openly and honestly resisting the latest Wall Street war monger since before he was
elected.
Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank have collected 56 essays from prior to, from early on in,
and from quite recently during the Obama presidency. The collection, just published as Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, has a consistent approach to its topic. The authors,
including Kevin Alexander Gray, Jeremy Scahill, Chris Floyd, Sibel Edmonds, Franklin Spinney,
Kathy Kelly, Marjorie Cohn, Chase Madar, Michael Hudson, Medea Benjamin, Charles Davis, Ray McGovern,
Dave Lindorff, Bill Quigley, Tariq Ali, Andy Worthington, Linn Washington, Jr., and many more,
don't agree on everything.
A few try to urge serious progressive plans on Obama that they would never have proposed that
Bush champion, not even rhetorically, not even for laughs. The book is not organized by topic;
it's a random, if chronological, ride through a catalog of catastrophes.
But it's united by the theme of horrendously bad government in the age of Obama. It ignores
the mythology and treats Obama based on his actual performance.
Reducing the charges against Obama developed in detail in this book to a Declaration of Independence-like
list of grievances might look something like this:
Obama has taken massive funding from Wall Street, appointed Wall Streeters to top positions,
and followed their lead, to the benefit of banksters and the detriment of the rest of us. Obama,
despite promises the contrary, has put lobbyists in positions of power in his administration.
Senator Obama's corporatist vote for the Class Action Fairness Act was in line with the rest
of his performance as senator and later president.
Obama has taken massive funding from war profiteers and worked in their interest, empowering
a collection of war hawks from the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton eras, and including no opponent
of militarism in any high office.
Obama abandoned the people of Gaza to their fate beneath Israeli bombs.
Obama bailed out AIG, but not you or me.
Obama delayed de-escalation in Iraq and tried every way he could to avoid complete withdrawal.
Obama has expanded secrecy, sought retribution against whistleblowers, expanded warrentless
spying, protected confessed torturers, revived military commissions, and expanded the military.
Obama has made anti-environmentalist corporate tools the heads of the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture.
Obama's administration facilitated and accepted a military coup in Honduras.
Obama has continued and expanded upon aggressively inhumane immigration policies.
Obama championed corporate health coverage over Medicare for All.
Obama tripled the size of the war on Afghanistan.
Obama has championed nuclear power.
Obama has backed murderers in Colombia and put U.S. troops into that country in the interests
of big oil.
Obama has dramatically escalated drone killings, developing a new type of war.
Obama has continued pointless killing in Afghanistan on the basis of false pretenses.
Obama has appointed a deeply flawed candidate to the Supreme Court.
Obama has expanded the weaponization and the use of nuclear power in space.
Obama facilitated the kind of drilling that created the BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico,
and then sought to cover up the extent of the damage.
Obama has kept tax breaks for billionaires in place, persuading his followers to continue
calling them "the Bush Tax Cuts."
Obama has claimed the power to torture and to "rendition" prisoners and kidnap victims
to other countries that torture.
Obama has promoted corporate culture and CEO heroes, while failing to promote nonprofit
groups -- a fantasy that contributing author Ralph Nader proposes for Obama while never having
proposed it for Bush.
Obama has pushed deregulation as a solution to the problems caused by deregulation.
Obama has served Israel at the expense of human rights, peace, and democracy.
Obama has gone around Congress and courts to approve of Monsanto's GMOs.
Obama has tortured Bradley Manning.
Obama has pushed U.S. weapons sales on foreign nations.
Obama has punished Iranians with sanctions while threatening war.
Obama has expanded nuclear weapons spending.
Obama has worked largely against the interests of organized labor.
Obama has sabotaged efforts to protect the earth's climate.
Obama has thrown Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block.
Obama has extended the worst parts of the PATRIOT Act, plus secret parts we haven't seen
yet but which are somehow nonetheless "law."
Obama has militarized police forces, expanded wiretaps, prosecuted Muslims for speech,
raided activists' homes, preemptively detained journalists, and supported the prison industrial
complex and the widespread use of solitary confinement.
Obama has launched a fraudulent war on Libya as a "humanitarian" effort, while aiding human
rights abuses in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.
Obama has abandoned his effort to close Guantanamo, which was only ever -- in reality --
an effort to move one of the United States' lawless concentration camps to Illinois from Cuba.
Obama chose to pursue an insufficient economic stimulus bill, not to mention increasing
economically damaging military spending each year thus far.
Obama has continued the "war on drugs."
And Obama has shut down activism in this country by appearing to be what he is not and
by virtue of the malady that causes millions of people to believe that self-governance consists
of cheering for one team in a sporting competition.
St. Clair and Frank describe Obama as "so innately conflict-averse that even when pummeled
with racist slurs he wouldn't punch back." But Obama does not appear to try to minimize conflict
across the board. He avoids conflict with those on the right -- and often there is little
basis for, or value in, supposing that his mental state is one of surrender as opposed to agreement.
There are two things that Obama is able to count on.
First, no matter how seriously he attacks the interests of ordinary people, major liberal
groups will support him.
Second, no matter how much he supports the agenda of the right, major rightwing groups
will attack him while demanding more.
These two states of affairs feed each other. Attacks on Obama from the right are absolutely
essential to generating his liberal support.
Obama is the Not-Romney candidate. And that liberal support helps produce attacks from the
right.
You'd never know it from watching television, but there are many thousands of people in the
United States who take peace, justice, environmental protection, and government of the people
so seriously that they don't censor themselves whenever the president is a Democrat.
While many others are still debating whether it would be appropriate to criticize or protest
President Obama after a mere three and a half years of disaster, the people I have in mind
have been openly and honestly resisting the latest Wall Street war monger since before he was
elected.
Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank have collected 56 essays from prior to, from early on in,
and from quite recently during the Obama presidency. The collection, just published as Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, has a consistent approach to its topic. The authors,
including Kevin Alexander Gray, Jeremy Scahill, Chris Floyd, Sibel Edmonds, Franklin Spinney,
Kathy Kelly, Marjorie Cohn, Chase Madar, Michael Hudson, Medea Benjamin, Charles Davis, Ray McGovern,
Dave Lindorff, Bill Quigley, Tariq Ali, Andy Worthington, Linn Washington, Jr., and many more,
don't agree on everything.
A few try to urge serious progressive plans on Obama that they would never have proposed that
Bush champion, not even rhetorically, not even for laughs. The book is not organized by topic;
it's a random, if chronological, ride through a catalog of catastrophes.
But it's united by the theme of horrendously bad government in the age of Obama. It ignores
the mythology and treats Obama based on his actual performance.
Reducing the charges against Obama developed in detail in this book to a Declaration of Independence-like
list of grievances might look something like this:
Obama has taken massive funding from Wall Street, appointed Wall Streeters to top positions,
and followed their lead, to the benefit of banksters and the detriment of the rest of us. Obama,
despite promises the contrary, has put lobbyists in positions of power in his administration.
Senator Obama's corporatist vote for the Class Action Fairness Act was in line with the rest
of his performance as senator and later president.
Obama has taken massive funding from war profiteers and worked in their interest, empowering
a collection of war hawks from the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton eras, and including no opponent
of militarism in any high office.
Obama abandoned the people of Gaza to their fate beneath Israeli bombs.
Obama bailed out AIG, but not you or me.
Obama delayed de-escalation in Iraq and tried every way he could to avoid complete withdrawal.
Obama has expanded secrecy, sought retribution against whistleblowers, expanded warrentless
spying, protected confessed torturers, revived military commissions, and expanded the military.
Obama has made anti-environmentalist corporate tools the heads of the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture.
Obama's administration facilitated and accepted a military coup in Honduras.
Obama has continued and expanded upon aggressively inhumane immigration policies.
Obama championed corporate health coverage over Medicare for All.
Obama tripled the size of the war on Afghanistan.
Obama has championed nuclear power.
Obama has backed murderers in Colombia and put U.S. troops into that country in the interests
of big oil.
Obama has dramatically escalated drone killings, developing a new type of war.
Obama has continued pointless killing in Afghanistan on the basis of false pretenses.
Obama has appointed a deeply flawed candidate to the Supreme Court.
Obama has expanded the weaponization and the use of nuclear power in space.
Obama facilitated the kind of drilling that created the BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico,
and then sought to cover up the extent of the damage.
Obama has kept tax breaks for billionaires in place, persuading his followers to continue
calling them "the Bush Tax Cuts."
Obama has claimed the power to torture and to "rendition" prisoners and kidnap victims
to other countries that torture.
Obama has promoted corporate culture and CEO heroes, while failing to promote nonprofit
groups -- a fantasy that contributing author Ralph Nader proposes for Obama while never having
proposed it for Bush.
Obama has pushed deregulation as a solution to the problems caused by deregulation.
Obama has served Israel at the expense of human rights, peace, and democracy.
Obama has gone around Congress and courts to approve of Monsanto's GMOs.
Obama has tortured Bradley Manning.
Obama has pushed U.S. weapons sales on foreign nations.
Obama has punished Iranians with sanctions while threatening war.
Obama has expanded nuclear weapons spending.
Obama has worked largely against the interests of organized labor.
Obama has sabotaged efforts to protect the earth's climate.
Obama has thrown Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block.
Obama has extended the worst parts of the PATRIOT Act, plus secret parts we haven't seen
yet but which are somehow nonetheless "law."
Obama has militarized police forces, expanded wiretaps, prosecuted Muslims for speech,
raided activists' homes, preemptively detained journalists, and supported the prison industrial
complex and the widespread use of solitary confinement.
Obama has launched a fraudulent war on Libya as a "humanitarian" effort, while aiding human
rights abuses in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.
Obama has abandoned his effort to close Guantanamo, which was only ever -- in reality --
an effort to move one of the United States' lawless concentration camps to Illinois from Cuba.
Obama chose to pursue an insufficient economic stimulus bill, not to mention increasing
economically damaging military spending each year thus far.
Obama has continued the "war on drugs."
And Obama has shut down activism in this country by appearing to be what he is not and
by virtue of the malady that causes millions of people to believe that self-governance consists
of cheering for one team in a sporting competition.
St. Clair and Frank describe Obama as "so innately conflict-averse that even when pummeled
with racist slurs he wouldn't punch back." But Obama does not appear to try to minimize conflict
across the board. He avoids conflict with those on the right -- and often there is little
basis for, or value in, supposing that his mental state is one of surrender as opposed to agreement.
There are two things that Obama is able to count on.
First, no matter how seriously he attacks the interests of ordinary people, major liberal
groups will support him.
Second, no matter how much he supports the agenda of the right, major rightwing groups
will attack him while demanding more.
These two states of affairs feed each other. Attacks on Obama from the right are absolutely
essential to generating his liberal support.
Obama is the Not-Romney candidate. And that liberal support helps produce attacks from the
right.
It's hard not to feel a sense of deepening dread about what this country's doing in the world,
and the inevitable blowback.
I did not feel this way a year ago. Then it seemed that U.S. imperialism was in retreat. Not that
the leopard can change its spots; the system is, after all, what it is.
(All U.S. schoolchildren should be taught, as part of their basic civics education, by conscientious
elementary, middle school and high school teachers, that they live in animperialistcountry. The term itself ought to be popularized. This is
what politicians like Obama actually refer to, elliptically, when they call the U.S. "exceptional."
Most of the world's 196 nations are, after all, not imperialist countries.
Most aren't oligarchies controlled by a top 1%, who control 42% of the nation's wealth, investing
much of it in cheap foreign labor while the domestic standard of living declines.
Most do not have incarceration and criminal supervision rates of 1 in 32 citizens.
Most do not have police forces equipped with heavy military equipment sometimes savagely used
against their citizens. Most nations don't channel citizens' tax dollars to state "security" forces
that systematically collect their people's and others' electronic and telephone communications.
Most don't spend billions of dollars in order to overthrow other countries' governments.
Most don't maintain 860 military bases outside their borders; most don't every few years attack
other countries in declared or undeclared wars. Most don't back the Israelis in everything they
do, and nobody else blocks every UN vote that evenly mildly criticizes Israel. And so on.)
Still-mindful of the horrible general situation-a year ago I was feeling guardedly optimistic
that U.S. imperialism was entering a less toxic stage. Obama's horrifying plan to assault Syria had
been stymied, by popular opposition, Congressional unease, and Vladimir Putin's timely chess move
(arranging for Damascus to give up its chemical weapons arsenal). Obama was suddenly speaking with
Iran's new president Hassan Rouhani, and talks on Iran's civilian nuclear program had begun. Obama
was ignoring Binyamin Netanyahu's familiar, barked demands for the U.S. to bomb Iran.
2014 has been much gloomier. We have for one thing been forcibly reminded that there has been
no real change in foreign policy between the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.
The grotesque figure of Victoria Nuland, a Dick Cheney aide who stayed on to assist Hillary Clinton,
heads the East Europe desk. She is one of those neocons (married to another distinguished, academic
neocon) who strongly supported the Iraq War based on what she knew was a campaign of lies and has
never felt any pangs of guilt about it. Her political ideology requires contempt for truth and morality.
It's all about manipulating public opinion to achieve the objectives of the tiny circle she loves
and represents. The fact that she was retained in the State Department into the Obama administration
speaks volumes about the president's own outlook on the world.
Obama postures as a centrist. In practice this means he places himself midway between the
neoconservatives serving the interests of the 1% and the "liberal interventionists" serving the 1%
in their efforts to impose what Paul Wolfowitz terms "full-spectrum dominance" in the world.
He is the textbook example of how all in his position must (and naturally do) kiss the ass of the
ruling class. This is his job. His (increasingly weak) historical distinction is to be the first
African-American to do so. (Not that anyone paying attention needed persuasion that being a person
of color doesn't make you good, or progressive, or even a harbinger of "change." It might just make
you useful, like Colin Powell was for Cheney and his neocon bunch. Or Condoleezza Rice was to the
U.S. power structure throughout George W. Bush's criminal, racist war on Iraq.)
Nuland made it her mission to topple the elected government of Ukraine, promoting the concept
that the Ukrainian people (who are in fact sharply divided) possess "European aspirations" (code
word for a supposed longing for entry into the European Union-under a painful IMF-imposed austerity
program-and for admission into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance which will oblige them to
cough up 2% of their GNP in military expenditures).
On February 22 Nuland got her way, after what she has herself boasted was a five billion dollar
U.S. investment in supporting (or generating and encouraging) those "European aspirations." On that
day neo-fascist sniper fire and building seizures-a violent, lightning putsch-toppled the
elected Ukrainian president, brought Nuland's hand-picked candidate to power as unelected prime minister,
brought neo-fascists into a European government for the first time since 1945, and caused the ethic
Russian population in the east to rise up in (what ought to be) understandable rebellion.
Realizing the U.S. objective was to first draw Ukraine into the EU, then to incorporate it into
NATO, then to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula, Moscow (I will not say
Putin, because virtually any Russian leader watching the alarming power-play would have
acted similarly) promptly and bloodlessly reasserted its historical ownership of the peninsula, to
the very apparent relief of its inhabitants. But the U.S. corporate media-with stunning uniformity,
omitting if not forbidding any reference to NATO expansion as a cause for U.S. meddling in Ukraine,
or Svoboda Party and Right Sector actions in the Maidan triggering a bloody coup, or legitimate grievances
and valid agency of the "Russian secessionists" in the east-constructed an imaginary narrative that
most people in this country have swallowed.
Just like they once swallowed the mythology about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
and al-Qaeda ties. (And let us note again that the systematic dissemination of lies through the Pentagon,
State Department and White House showing utmost contempt for the people of this country-designed
to convince them that they were facing imminent Iraqi attack-has, while well documented, never been
punished! The scum responsible live comfortably as TV commentators, university academics,
and think-tank "fellows.")
Most people in this country, to the extent that they watch or read the mainstream news, believe
that the Ukrainian people rose in a peaceful mass movement, ousted a corrupt leader, and established
a popular government that just wants to escape Russia's oppressive control and join democratic, prosperous
Europe. They believe that evil power-hungry Putin, nostalgic for the past, wants to re-create the
USSR or maybe Tsarist Russia. This is sheer nonsense, but the success of the State Department-corporate
press partnership in foisting this perception on the people is amazing. It shows
that, even though the masses have largely come to understand that they were lied to, big-time, in
the build up to the Iraq War-not just by politicians but a corporate media that was entirely
obedient taking its talking-point cues from the regime-they are still willing dupes. Lambs led to
the slaughter.
(I find this depressing. But what can you do, but continue to rage against the lies of the corporate
media, and try to expose them to any who will hear?)
... ... ...
In a nutshell: the United States-having caused a Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq by destroying
the secular Baathist regime and its institutions in 2003; having produced the conditions that allowed
al-Qaeda (in the form of al-Zarqawi's initial group that has morphed into ISIL) to root itself in
Iraq, then Syria; having backed (as its best bet) the government headed by al-Maliki that gradually
alienated the Sunnis of Iraq; and having, through its savagery, racism, disrespect, ignorance, arrogance,
and incompetence, made itself entirely unwelcome among the peoples of the region-cannot accomplish
anything good in the Middle East.
Citizens and residents in this declining imperialist country-those paying attention, not just
innocently imbibing the Big Lies imagining we live in a free country with a free press-should feel
dread about what's to come. Having announced that the U.S. will "degrade and destroy ISIL" (without
any clue about how to actually do that, having ruled out coordination with Syria and Iran,
and having earned the hatred of the Iraqi Shiite militias) the U.S. seems doomed to either putting
its own boots on the ground, enraging everyone in the region, or relying on proxies whom the Iraqi
Shiites will reject.
In the weeks after 9/11, witnessing the coordinated campaign of the media oligarchy (Time-Warner,
Viacom, Disney, GE, News Corp., CBS) that controls what most of us see and read, I felt truly frightened.
Not about nukes over New York City (although I did have some vivid dreams about such stuff). But
about the onset of fascism in this country. The constant syrupy patriotic music playing on the heart-strings
on cable TV, the omnipresence of the U.S. flag, the sudden ambiance of those insane terror-warning
colored level warnings deliberately promoting the sort of paranoia prescribed by Nazi specialists
on mass mind-control. The emergence of new fascist-sounding institutions and bizarre popularization
of unfamiliar terms (like "Homeland"), the stupidity of George W. Bush's pronouncements ("axis of
evil" etc.), Dick Cheney's calm prediction of a "War on Terror" to last forever. The warnings
to TV commentators that they could be fired for challenging the government line-and the actual
firings. The Patriot Act and Congress's bovine, universal endorsement of it, passed into law unread.
The clear indications that "my" government was manipulating powerful emotions of fear and hatred,
and inventing, Nazi-like, pretexts for ongoing war. Yes. I felt frightened by the manifest, staggering
power of the beast. And that was before Bush and his team began their sadistic destruction
of Iraq and that enterprise was still in its planning stage.
My anxiety level has risen and fallen in the years since, and was, as I said, lowered by some
events last fall. But it's back up there now as I switch between cable channels noting the total
merger of state power and the corporate media and total absence of moral clarity.
The egregious misrepresentation of events in Ukraine. The total lack of context of events in Iraq
and Syria, and the gracious reception (as astute commentators) of those most responsible for the
Iraq War based on lies. These are sickening things.
Those not feeling dread should feel it. My gut feeling is, if George W. Bush and his dad
opened the gates of hell, Obama has blown the gates off entirely. By attacking the Islamic State-solely
in alliance with the Muslim states whose governments are most regarded as U.S. lackeys-Obama has
merely enhanced the crazies' legitimacy. Isn't that obvious?
To save Baghdad from ISIL conquest-a feat that would outweigh the "fall" of Saigon in 1975 as
a geopolitical humiliation for the U.S.-Obama is trying to cobble together a collection of Turks,
Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs all of whom have complex contradictions with one another and
with the U.S. He claims to have assembled a "coalition" of over 60 nations (mostly western) in the
heroic anti-ISIL cause.
The majority in all categories (those providing air support and military equipment; those providing
"humanitarian assistance"; and those providing other, basically political legitimacy and support)
are NATO countries. 15 of the 21 in the first category are NATO members, plus Australia, while 6
are members of the Arab League. Aside from Iraq (whose fractious elite opposes any foreign troops
on the ground) and Lebanon (in which Hizbollah is a leading political-military force and which is
only "participating" by receiving arms to defend itself from ISIL) all these Arab countries are repressive
monarchies that promote Sunni Islam and have very bad relations with the Shiites of Iraq and Iran.
The ISIL thugs can argue-not so inaccurately-that the force the U.S. has organized against them
is a force of Christian Crusaders and their corrupt not-really-Muslim allies (including the hated
NATO member Turkey), in a war to thwart the progress of the Caliphate versus the Alawite heretics
in Syria and the Shiite idolaters of Iraq and Iran. And they can also note that by excluding Syria's
Assad and the Iranian regime-who have actually fought ISIL on the battlefield, winning some victories--the
stupid infidels are miscalculating again, big time.
The "coalition" is not going to defeat ISIS any more than the earlier (now dissipated) "coalitions"
defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Sunni "insurgents" in Iraq. Its intervention is going
to exacerbate the misery of Syria, Iraq and the whole region and maybe trigger a real world war.
I have a modest proposal, to those dreading the likely results of more war against the generated
by recent U.S. imperialist wars-the crucifiers of children, beheaders of Shiites, destroyers of priceless
monuments. To those dreading the prospect that the failure of air strikes will inevitably entail
the dispatch of U.S. and allied ground troops in what former CIA chief Leon Panetta recently predicted
would be another Thirty Years War.
How about an anti-imperialist revolution in this country instead?
Seriously. How about, by toppling those responsible for the total destabilization of the
Middle East, we send a message to the peoples of the region that we don't want to dominate you anymore
(not that the ordinary person here ever did)?
How about--after the necessary revolution here-we say to those confronting the religious
crazies, craving secularism and democracy:
You have our political and moral support, and we now can (now having toppled the 1% who have
insanely determined U.S. policy forever), finally talk about aiding you (as internationalist brothers
and sisters-not the corporate scum, war profiteers, uniformed torturers, trigger-happy bombers,
Israel lackeys, and deceitful warmongering liars whom have earned your rightful hatred in the
past) to make your own revolutions.
Just a dream, maybe. But how else to end the dread?
This was the most elegant way to kill EU economic development. Bravo to US diplomacy... From comments:
"This means, The foreign policy and defense policy of EU countries, Middle East, Australia is managed
by US. The Citizens of those countries vote to their leaders only for domestic policy, this is sham
not democracy. US go around the world teaching Democracy, Human Rights and freedom of speech. To tell
in simple, the leaders of EU countries are called Stooges of US, Leaders of Middle East are called Puppets
of US and the Leaders of Australia and NZ are called pimps of US." ... "As the USA escalates tensions
world wide it is laughing all the way to the bank, saving itself from economic disaster, at the cost
of others"
America's leadership had to embarrass Europe to impose economic hits on Russia over the crisis
in Ukraine – even though the EU was opposed to such a motion, US Vice President Joe Biden revealed
during a speech at Harvard.
... ... ...
The consequences were the
sanctions
which the EU imposed on Russia, first targeting individual politicians and businessmen deemed responsible
for the crisis in Ukraine, then switching to the energy, defense, and economic sectors.
"It is true they did not want to do that," Biden admitted.
"It was America's leadership and the president of the United States insisting, oft times almost
having to embarrass Europe to stand up and take economic hits to impose costs," the US vice
president declared.
With European countries now at a
loss
with apple and dairy surplus, it is not exactly clear whether EU producers will be able to return
to the Russian markets after the one-year ban
expires.
However, this is no secret to the US, as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
remarked on Thursday.
"Implementing sanctions isn't easy and many countries are paying a steep price. We know that.
But history shows that the cost of inaction and disunity in the face of a determined aggressor will
be higher," Nuland said.
Eb Ko
This means, The foreign policy and defence policy of EU countries, Middle East, Australia is
managed by US. The Citizens of those countries vote to their leaders only for domestic policy,
this is sham not democracy. US go around the world teaching Democracy, Human Rights and freedom
of speech. To tell in simple, the leaders of EU countries are called Stooges of US, Leaders of
Middle East are called Puppets of US and the Leaders of Australia and NZ are called pimps of US.
…She also hit out at EU states who are preparing to build South Stream – a Russian gas pipeline
through the Western Balkans to Austria and Italy, involving Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Romania,
and Slovenia.
I doubt sovereign Europeans can tolerate much more public insult. If Nuland's "Fuck the EU"
set the thin edge, this little tirade should drive the wedge further.
That someone of Nuland's obviously low-breeding is employed as America's leading diplomat for
European affairs confirms that the Empire has lost its judgment as well as its vision.
Victoria Nuland, the US' top diplomat on Europe, has indirectly criticised Hungarian leader Viktor
Orban for the "cancer" of "democratic backsliding".
Speaking at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a think tank in Washington, on Thursday (2
October), she said: "Central Europe is once again on the frontline in the fight to protect our security
and values. And today, that fight is once again both external and internal". …
…she added: "So today I ask their leaders: How can you sleep under your Nato Article 5 blanket
at night while pushing 'illiberal democracy' by day; whipping up nationalism; restricting free press;
or demonising civil society?"
She spoke of the "twin cancers of democratic backsliding and corruption" in eastern Europe, which
create "wormholes that undermine their nations' security"…
…She also hit out at EU states who are preparing to build South Stream – a Russian gas pipeline
through the Western Balkans to Austria and Italy, involving Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Romania,
and Slovenia.
"I ask the same of those who … cut dirty deals that increase their countries' dependence
on one source of energy despite their stated policy of diversification", Nuland said…"
###
Noodlehand* is the cancer that needs to be excised like other rabid, supposed diplomats that the
US seems to think have some sort of value. On the plus side, this is at least some in the EU saying
FY Nuland. The ever louder braying from these officials are a symptom of the US's ever decreasing
influence behind and doors and in public. That they need to shout so in public and in such an undiplomatic
manner speaks volumes
*Because every time she she wags a finger, it flop from side to side like overcooked pasta.
Victoria Nuland scolds central Europe as if they were naughty schoolchildren. One may wonder
at the delusions she labors under, but this brings up two heartening thoughts:
I doubt sovereign Europeans can tolerate much more public insult. If Nuland's "Fuck
the EU" set the thin edge, this little tirade should drive the wedge further.
That someone of Nuland's obviously low-breeding is employed as America's leading diplomat
for European affairs confirms that the Empire has lost its judgment as well as its vision.
Knowing Kerry, Obama, Nuland et al is all they got, I can relax and watch the indispensable
Empire careen from one blunder to the next knowing they will never know what happened when the
whole enterprise lurches into a ditch.
Remarks presented at the No NATO/No War Counter-Summit in Lisbon, Portugal November 19, 2010.
I want to thank Reiner Braun and the planning committee for the privilege of being able to join
you here in Lisbon, long a geopolitical pivot of Europe, to challenge NATO, its nuclear policies
and Afghanistan war. I've been asked to speak about NATO's new nuclear doctrine. In sum, as The Guardian
in London reported, in the so-called "new strategic concept," "nuclear weapons remain at the core
of NATO doctrine, and an attempt to withdraw an estimated 200 American B-61 nuclear bombs from Europe,
a legacy of the cold war, is not mentioned."[1] So much for a new doctrine or for
"change that we can believe."
The disastrous recent US election resulted from the confluence of corruptions of our political
system and our economic crisis. The environment is reminiscent of the early 1930s, when the Great
Depression was fertile ground for the rise of fascism. More optimistic writers are thinking in terms
of the U.S. becoming a banana republic.
Because we can't understand NATO's nuclear doctrines – old and new – without understanding how
NATO fits into Washington's global strategies, I will begin by talking about U.S. geostrategic thinking
and will then turn to the history, roles and specifics of U.S.-NATO nuclear doctrines.
The foundations of US dominance carried with them the seeds of their undoing, and thus of the
current crisis. The Albright Report and its recommendation reflect efforts by US militarists and
elites to compensate militarily, and, to lesser extents, economically, for the relative decline in
US power and influence that was accelerated by the Bush-Cheney "romance of ruthlessness." The
Albright Report is a dreamscape envisioned to reinforce U.S.-European global dominance. Fortunately,
Europe, with problems enough of its own, is not rushing to embrace it.
NATO has always been about more than containing Moscow. George Kennan, the author of the containment
doctrine, wrote that, given the Red Army's sacrifices in driving Hitler's armies from Moscow to Berlin,
the post-war division of Europe was inevitable if not just. Eastern Europe would be its buffer against
future invasions from the West.[2]
Like the unequal treaties of European colonialism in Asia, NATO has been a fig leaf, providing
a degree of legitimacy for the continuing US military occupation and related US political influence
across western Eurasia.
The collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated NATO's Cold War raison d'etre and undermined rationales
for the foreign deployment of hundreds of thousands of US warriors. In response, elite figures, led
by Zbigniew Brzezinski, conceded the imperial nature of the US project. Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard"
was a primer explaining that the Empire's most essential geostrategic requirement is dominance of
the Eurasian heartland, and that the U.S. must have footholds on Eurasia's western, southern and
eastern peripheries. Witness Obama's recent travels and diplomacy, first to Japan, then to Korea
and Japan, and now Portugal. Brzezinski explained that first rank US allies are "vassal states,"
whose elites share in imperial privilege. See, for example, NATO's Nuclear Planning Group.
Of course, NATO also serves as a rear base to reinforce US dominance of Eurasia's southern flank
- the oil-rich Middle East - and helps to make the Central Asian war possible.
This weekend, heads of state will kowtow to an updated version of the Albright report, with its
call to extend the war in Central Asia beyond 2014, its demands for greater alliance solidarity and
military spending, and its insistence on keeping US nuclear weapons in Europe. But European leaders
will commit to only the minimum needed to maintain the alliance.
None of this can reverse more powerful realpolitik dynamics. Russia's military power continues
to decline. As the Albright Report concedes, Europe faces no immediate threat of a foreign invasion.
With the economic crisis, there will be no appetite to implement Washington's demands for greater
European military spending.
Some NATO forces will continue to fight in Afghanistan as the U.S. pursues its doomed strategy
of deadly, Vietnam-style coercive diplomacy. But the ambition to transform NATO into a global alliance
committed to "out of area operations," in part to contain China, perished in the Afghan quagmire.
Unaware of the deadly connection between foreign military interventions and the preparations for
and threats to initiate nuclear war, most US people think of the US nuclear arsenal only in terms
of deterrence, an approach that some in the Pentagon have said "has never been our doctrine." A classical
example of this misconception is an early history of NATO's nuclear doctrines, published by the Air
RAND Corporation.[3] Written amidst the 1980s debates over deployment of first strike
Pershing II, cruise and SS-20 missiles in Europe, it celebrated the "flexible response" doctrine
formally blessed by NATO in 1967, but originating with Henry Kissinger's advocacy of fighting and
winning "limited nuclear wars."
The RAND history stresses NATO's inability to fulfill an agreement made here in Lisbon in 1954
to match the Soviet Union's conventional military deployments, as well as the anticipated end of
the US nuclear monopoly. In response, we had Eisenhower's "massive retaliation" doctrine. To "deter"
anticipated "Soviet Aggression," NATO's conventional forces were to be "trip wires" to contain a
possible Soviet attack until Washington's "nuclear sword … struck down the aggressor."
This illogic collapsed in 1957 with Moscow's launch of the sputnik satellite, which intimated
that Moscow's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) could soon deter US "massive retaliation"
strikes. It took a decade for the MAD policy of mutually assured destruction to prevail, but throughout
the 1960s, the U.S. and NATO deployed so-called tactical theater nuclear weapons – many with the
destructive capacity of the Hiroshima A-bomb and sea-based strategic hydrogen nuclear weapons twenty
to fifty times more powerful than the Nagasaki A-bomb.
By the mid-1960s, with more than 7,000 US nuclear weapons in Europe, Europeans rightly feared
that they would suffer the most in a nuclear war. It was widely understood that a so-called "limited
war" could easily escalate to total nuclear war, and, as Daniel Ellsberg learned, the U.S. Single
Integrated Operational Plan anticipated the deaths of more than five hundred million people across
Eurasia.
Then, as now, the challenge for US strategists was to prevent Western Europe's "decoupling" from
the United States. To prevent Europe from going its own way, the Nuclear Planning Group was created,
as were dual key launch controls.
Throughout this period, the U.S./NATO nuclear arsenal had objectives other than containment. As
President Carter's Secretary of War Harold Brown testified, with nuclear weapons as the core of US
security systems, its conventional forces became "meaningful instruments of military and political
power." As Noam Chomsky explained, this meant that "we have succeeded in sufficiently intimidating
anyone who might help protect people who we are determined to attack."[4]
Thus, as early as 1946, before the Soviet Union broke the US nuclear monopoly, President Truman
threatened Moscow with nuclear annihilation to reinforce US dominance of Iran. US nuclear weapons
in Europe were essential to US preparations for and threats to initiate nuclear war, not only during
the Berlin crises of 1948 and 61, but as the U.S. reinforced its hegemony over the oil-rich Middle
East, long the "geo-strategic center of the struggle for world power."[5] Such threats
were made during the Suez Crisis in 1956; the incursion into Lebanon and revolution in Iraq in 1958;
the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, in which the U.S. threatened human existence in order to enforce the
principle that we could deploy nuclear weapons along the Soviet Union's periphery, but they could
not do likewise; the Six Day Middle East War in 1967; the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003, and the current
"all options are on the table" threats against Iran.
US nuclear forces based in Europe were placed on the highest level of nuclear alert during President
Nixon's 1969 "madman" threats to intimidate Vietnam, and had any of the nine nuclear threats made
against North Korea, or one the four against China, escalated to general nuclear war, weapons based
in Europe would not have remained in their bunkers.
Throughout this sorry history, preventing European "vassal states" from decoupling has been a
constant. Now the European Union is besieged by centrifugal forces, with senior US analysts speaking
of the "Potential Twilight of the European Union"[6] at the same time China is rising
and that Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on Russian energy resources. With a growing number
of European political leaders calling for the withdrawal of all US "tactical" nuclear weapons based
in Europe, it is no wonder that Albright and her experts insist that "The North Atlantic Treaty area
cannot be treated in isolation from the rest of the world" and press the "requirement of Alliance
cohesion."
It is in these circumstances - with US footholds on the Eastern, southern and now Western peripheries
of Eurasia being challenged - that the panel of "experts" urged few substantive changes in NATO's
strategic concept.
This explains Secretary Clinton's insistence at the Tallinn NATO Ministerial conference that "as
long as nuclear weapons exist, we, the United States, will maintain a[n] … effective nuclear arsenal
… . And we will continue to guarantee the security of our NATO allies." [7] Similarly,
NATO Secretary General Rasmussen argues, "the alliance continues to need a credible nuclear deterrent
… ." He cited rogue states and terrorists, but who believes that nuclear threats deter non-state
terrorists or do anything but encourage non-nuclear states to emulate NATO by building deterrent
nuclear arsenals of their own?
Like Secretary Clinton, Albright and her experts insist that "NATO should continue to maintain
secure and reliable nuclear forces, with widely shared responsibility for deployment and operational
support … . Any change in this policy, including the geographic distribution of NATO nuclear deployments
in Europe, should be made … by the Alliance as a whole." The 180 or so genocidal nuclear weapons
currently based in Europe are to remain here indefinitely. The Albright Report makes the following
recommendations, among others:
"[T]he Alliance should retain a nuclear component to its [ostensibly] deterrent strategy."
"[R]etention of some U.S. forward-deployed systems on European soil reinforces the principle
of extended nuclear deterrence and collective defense."
"Broad participation of the non-nuclear Allies is an essential sign of transatlantic solidarity
and risk sharing." Despite opposition from Germany, Norway and other NATO allies, non-nuclear
states must share the culpability for preparations for omnicidal war.
And NATO "should make clear its full support for efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear
weapons … " which means maintaining the present omnicidal imbalance of nuclear terror.
While the US nuclear weapons based in Europe and the 9,000 other US nuclear weapons are to continue
to serve as a hedge against Russia, the new bogey-man, Iran, has been raised to frighten Europe into
acquiescence.
In reality, Iran's nuclear program is probably more like Japan's than Pakistan's. By becoming
a near-nuclear power, it has enhanced its regional influence. Should it produce nuclear weapons,
it would spark a regional nuclear arms race that would further undermine Iran's security. US nuclear
warheads based in Europe would not be needed if Washington, Paris or London opted for the annihilation
of Iran. And, as with the Nuclear Planning Group, collaboration on "missile defenses" will do more
to integrate US and European elites and militaries than to protect European people.
Times change. The structures on which our nations and lives are based are subject to political
physics, to changes demanded by popular forces and to entropy. Today, with the need for fossil fuels
and visions of triangulation to isolate China, entreaties from authoritarian Russia are actively
engaged by Berlin, Paris and even Washington. This will be impacted by the delay or failure of the
US Senate to ratify the New START treaty. As Europeans pursue their real interests - with pressures
from popular movements and recognition of existential interests - NATO will pass into history. If
we are proactive, NATO's end will come with a whimper and not with catastrophic nuclear or lesser
military bangs.
We have our work cut out for us. I look forward to our discussion about our future efforts - including
how we can get nuclear weapons out of Europe.
1 Uulian Borger. "Barack Obama's hopes for a nuclear-free world fading fast," The Guardian. November
17, 2010
2 George F. Kennan. American Diplomacy 1900-1950, New York: Mentor Books, 1951
Remarks presented at the No NATO/No War Counter-Summit in Lisbon, Portugal November 19, 2010.
I want to thank Reiner Braun and the planning committee for the privilege of being able to join
you here in Lisbon, long a geopolitical pivot of Europe, to challenge NATO, its nuclear policies
and Afghanistan war. I've been asked to speak about NATO's new nuclear doctrine. In sum, as The Guardian
in London reported, in the so-called "new strategic concept," "nuclear weapons remain at the core
of NATO doctrine, and an attempt to withdraw an estimated 200 American B-61 nuclear bombs from Europe,
a legacy of the cold war, is not mentioned."[1] So much for a new doctrine or for
"change that we can believe."
The disastrous recent US election resulted from the confluence of corruptions of our political
system and our economic crisis. The environment is reminiscent of the early 1930s, when the Great
Depression was fertile ground for the rise of fascism. More optimistic writers are thinking in terms
of the U.S. becoming a banana republic.
Because we can't understand NATO's nuclear doctrines – old and new – without understanding how
NATO fits into Washington's global strategies, I will begin by talking about U.S. geostrategic thinking
and will then turn to the history, roles and specifics of U.S.-NATO nuclear doctrines.
The foundations of US dominance carried with them the seeds of their undoing, and thus of the
current crisis. The Albright Report and its recommendation reflect efforts by US militarists and
elites to compensate militarily, and, to lesser extents, economically, for the relative decline in
US power and influence that was accelerated by the Bush-Cheney "romance of ruthlessness." The
Albright Report is a dreamscape envisioned to reinforce U.S.-European global dominance. Fortunately,
Europe, with problems enough of its own, is not rushing to embrace it.
NATO has always been about more than containing Moscow. George Kennan, the author of the containment
doctrine, wrote that, given the Red Army's sacrifices in driving Hitler's armies from Moscow to Berlin,
the post-war division of Europe was inevitable if not just. Eastern Europe would be its buffer against
future invasions from the West.[2]
Like the unequal treaties of European colonialism in Asia, NATO has been a fig leaf, providing
a degree of legitimacy for the continuing US military occupation and related US political influence
across western Eurasia.
The collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated NATO's Cold War raison d'etre and undermined rationales
for the foreign deployment of hundreds of thousands of US warriors. In response, elite figures, led
by Zbigniew Brzezinski, conceded the imperial nature of the US project. Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard"
was a primer explaining that the Empire's most essential geostrategic requirement is dominance of
the Eurasian heartland, and that the U.S. must have footholds on Eurasia's western, southern and
eastern peripheries. Witness Obama's recent travels and diplomacy, first to Japan, then to Korea
and Japan, and now Portugal. Brzezinski explained that first rank US allies are "vassal states,"
whose elites share in imperial privilege. See, for example, NATO's Nuclear Planning Group.
Of course, NATO also serves as a rear base to reinforce US dominance of Eurasia's southern flank
- the oil-rich Middle East - and helps to make the Central Asian war possible.
This weekend, heads of state will kowtow to an updated version of the Albright report, with its
call to extend the war in Central Asia beyond 2014, its demands for greater alliance solidarity and
military spending, and its insistence on keeping US nuclear weapons in Europe. But European leaders
will commit to only the minimum needed to maintain the alliance.
None of this can reverse more powerful realpolitik dynamics. Russia's military power continues
to decline. As the Albright Report concedes, Europe faces no immediate threat of a foreign invasion.
With the economic crisis, there will be no appetite to implement Washington's demands for greater
European military spending.
Some NATO forces will continue to fight in Afghanistan as the U.S. pursues its doomed strategy
of deadly, Vietnam-style coercive diplomacy. But the ambition to transform NATO into a global alliance
committed to "out of area operations," in part to contain China, perished in the Afghan quagmire.
Unaware of the deadly connection between foreign military interventions and the preparations for
and threats to initiate nuclear war, most US people think of the US nuclear arsenal only in terms
of deterrence, an approach that some in the Pentagon have said "has never been our doctrine." A classical
example of this misconception is an early history of NATO's nuclear doctrines, published by the Air
RAND Corporation.[3] Written amidst the 1980s debates over deployment of first strike
Pershing II, cruise and SS-20 missiles in Europe, it celebrated the "flexible response" doctrine
formally blessed by NATO in 1967, but originating with Henry Kissinger's advocacy of fighting and
winning "limited nuclear wars."
The RAND history stresses NATO's inability to fulfill an agreement made here in Lisbon in 1954
to match the Soviet Union's conventional military deployments, as well as the anticipated end of
the US nuclear monopoly. In response, we had Eisenhower's "massive retaliation" doctrine. To "deter"
anticipated "Soviet Aggression," NATO's conventional forces were to be "trip wires" to contain a
possible Soviet attack until Washington's "nuclear sword … struck down the aggressor."
This illogic collapsed in 1957 with Moscow's launch of the sputnik satellite, which intimated
that Moscow's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) could soon deter US "massive retaliation"
strikes. It took a decade for the MAD policy of mutually assured destruction to prevail, but throughout
the 1960s, the U.S. and NATO deployed so-called tactical theater nuclear weapons – many with the
destructive capacity of the Hiroshima A-bomb and sea-based strategic hydrogen nuclear weapons twenty
to fifty times more powerful than the Nagasaki A-bomb.
By the mid-1960s, with more than 7,000 US nuclear weapons in Europe, Europeans rightly feared
that they would suffer the most in a nuclear war. It was widely understood that a so-called "limited
war" could easily escalate to total nuclear war, and, as Daniel Ellsberg learned, the U.S. Single
Integrated Operational Plan anticipated the deaths of more than five hundred million people across
Eurasia.
Then, as now, the challenge for US strategists was to prevent Western Europe's "decoupling" from
the United States. To prevent Europe from going its own way, the Nuclear Planning Group was created,
as were dual key launch controls.
Throughout this period, the U.S./NATO nuclear arsenal had objectives other than containment. As
President Carter's Secretary of War Harold Brown testified, with nuclear weapons as the core of US
security systems, its conventional forces became "meaningful instruments of military and political
power." As Noam Chomsky explained, this meant that "we have succeeded in sufficiently intimidating
anyone who might help protect people who we are determined to attack."[4]
Thus, as early as 1946, before the Soviet Union broke the US nuclear monopoly, President Truman
threatened Moscow with nuclear annihilation to reinforce US dominance of Iran. US nuclear weapons
in Europe were essential to US preparations for and threats to initiate nuclear war, not only during
the Berlin crises of 1948 and 61, but as the U.S. reinforced its hegemony over the oil-rich Middle
East, long the "geo-strategic center of the struggle for world power."[5] Such threats
were made during the Suez Crisis in 1956; the incursion into Lebanon and revolution in Iraq in 1958;
the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, in which the U.S. threatened human existence in order to enforce the
principle that we could deploy nuclear weapons along the Soviet Union's periphery, but they could
not do likewise; the Six Day Middle East War in 1967; the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003, and the current
"all options are on the table" threats against Iran.
US nuclear forces based in Europe were placed on the highest level of nuclear alert during President
Nixon's 1969 "madman" threats to intimidate Vietnam, and had any of the nine nuclear threats made
against North Korea, or one the four against China, escalated to general nuclear war, weapons based
in Europe would not have remained in their bunkers.
Throughout this sorry history, preventing European "vassal states" from decoupling has been a
constant. Now the European Union is besieged by centrifugal forces, with senior US analysts speaking
of the "Potential Twilight of the European Union"[6] at the same time China is rising
and that Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on Russian energy resources. With a growing number
of European political leaders calling for the withdrawal of all US "tactical" nuclear weapons based
in Europe, it is no wonder that Albright and her experts insist that "The North Atlantic Treaty area
cannot be treated in isolation from the rest of the world" and press the "requirement of Alliance
cohesion."
It is in these circumstances - with US footholds on the Eastern, southern and now Western peripheries
of Eurasia being challenged - that the panel of "experts" urged few substantive changes in NATO's
strategic concept.
This explains Secretary Clinton's insistence at the Tallinn NATO Ministerial conference that "as
long as nuclear weapons exist, we, the United States, will maintain a[n] … effective nuclear arsenal
… . And we will continue to guarantee the security of our NATO allies." [7] Similarly,
NATO Secretary General Rasmussen argues, "the alliance continues to need a credible nuclear deterrent
… ." He cited rogue states and terrorists, but who believes that nuclear threats deter non-state
terrorists or do anything but encourage non-nuclear states to emulate NATO by building deterrent
nuclear arsenals of their own?
Like Secretary Clinton, Albright and her experts insist that "NATO should continue to maintain
secure and reliable nuclear forces, with widely shared responsibility for deployment and operational
support … . Any change in this policy, including the geographic distribution of NATO nuclear deployments
in Europe, should be made … by the Alliance as a whole." The 180 or so genocidal nuclear weapons
currently based in Europe are to remain here indefinitely. The Albright Report makes the following
recommendations, among others:
"[T]he Alliance should retain a nuclear component to its [ostensibly] deterrent strategy."
"[R]etention of some U.S. forward-deployed systems on European soil reinforces the principle
of extended nuclear deterrence and collective defense."
"Broad participation of the non-nuclear Allies is an essential sign of transatlantic solidarity
and risk sharing." Despite opposition from Germany, Norway and other NATO allies, non-nuclear
states must share the culpability for preparations for omnicidal war.
And NATO "should make clear its full support for efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear
weapons … " which means maintaining the present omnicidal imbalance of nuclear terror.
While the US nuclear weapons based in Europe and the 9,000 other US nuclear weapons are to continue
to serve as a hedge against Russia, the new bogey-man, Iran, has been raised to frighten Europe into
acquiescence.
In reality, Iran's nuclear program is probably more like Japan's than Pakistan's. By becoming
a near-nuclear power, it has enhanced its regional influence. Should it produce nuclear weapons,
it would spark a regional nuclear arms race that would further undermine Iran's security. US nuclear
warheads based in Europe would not be needed if Washington, Paris or London opted for the annihilation
of Iran. And, as with the Nuclear Planning Group, collaboration on "missile defenses" will do more
to integrate US and European elites and militaries than to protect European people.
Times change. The structures on which our nations and lives are based are subject to political
physics, to changes demanded by popular forces and to entropy. Today, with the need for fossil fuels
and visions of triangulation to isolate China, entreaties from authoritarian Russia are actively
engaged by Berlin, Paris and even Washington. This will be impacted by the delay or failure of the
US Senate to ratify the New START treaty. As Europeans pursue their real interests - with pressures
from popular movements and recognition of existential interests - NATO will pass into history. If
we are proactive, NATO's end will come with a whimper and not with catastrophic nuclear or lesser
military bangs.
We have our work cut out for us. I look forward to our discussion about our future efforts - including
how we can get nuclear weapons out of Europe.
1 Uulian Borger. "Barack Obama's hopes for a nuclear-free world fading fast," The Guardian. November
17, 2010
2 George F. Kennan. American Diplomacy 1900-1950, New York: Mentor Books, 1951
It is generally accepted that "politics is the art of the possible" and yet the EU leaders are
clearly engaged in the art of the absolutely impossible. The fact that they are all pretending like
this is going to have some useful impact is truly a sign of how much the EU leadership has degenerated
over the years. Can you imagine Helmut Schmidt, Charles de Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand
or Francisco Franco engaging in that kind of infantile nonsense? All these leaders had their bad
aspects, but at least none of them were clowns, whereas when I look at the current EU leadership,
especially Van Rumpey, Adners Fogh Rasmussen or José Manuel Barroso I get the feeling that I am looking
at some ugly kindergarten of intellectually challenged clowns and, frankly, I can understand Mrs
Nuland's feelings.
It is clear the the US neocons (which actually dominate State Department) want to use both
MH17 tragedy and
Ukrainian crisis as a
whole to bully Russia. This article is no exception. Jeffrey Stacey expresses his primitive liner neocons
views in other his articles too -- see
whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva
. John Herbst was
United States
Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006, period which includes Color revolution which
preceded EuroMaidan -- Orange
revolution. So he can be called the Godfather of Orange Revolution. Comments to article are really
interesting, which can't be said about the article itself. It is standard neocon view on Russia.
The international community is at long last beginning to take a strong stand against Moscow's
aggression in eastern Ukraine. There is solid evidence indicating not only that Malaysia Airlines
Flight 17 was shot down by Russian-aided rebels in eastern Ukraine, but that the Kremlin has bolstered
the rebels with heavy artillery despite toughened Western sanctions. Moreover, Russia has massed
over 45,000 soldiers near the eastern Ukrainian border, who are poised to undertake a "humanitarian
operation." The large convoy of trucks Russia is sending to aid rebel-held Lugansk could prove to
be a thinly disguised Trojan horse, setting off a major showdown once it arrives at the border.
President Vladimir Putin's double game has only ramped up since the downing of MH17, in response
to the recent gains Ukraine's military forces have been making against the rebels. After a turning-point
victory in liberating the strategic town of Slavyansk last month, the Ukrainian military has gone
on to retake three-fourths of its lost territory and is now pounding the last two major rebel strongholds,
Donetsk and Lugansk. Many of these rebels are not just pro-Russian sympathizers, they are full-fledged
Russian citizens -- including some notorious bad apples like Igor Strelkov and Vladimir Antyufeyev,
whom Russia previously used in not-so-subtle attempts to destabilize former members of the Warsaw
Pact. Now Moscow is also aiding them by firing artillery across the border at Ukrainian forces attempting
a final rout of the rebels.
The time has come for the West to make a decisive move to counter Putin's irregular war against
Ukraine. The Russian president has introduced a perilous new norm into the international system,
namely that it is legitimate to violate the borders of other countries in order to "protect" not
just ethnic Russians, but "Russian speakers" -- with military means if necessary. Putin has notoriously
threatened to annex Transnistria, the Russian-speaking territory of Moldova, inter alia. The Putin
Doctrine represents a serious transgression of the status quo that has guaranteed the continent's
security since the end of World War II; moreover, it violates the most essential tenet of the post-1945
international order.
The aim of Western actions must involve compelling Russia to end all support for the rebels in
eastern Ukraine and ensure complete respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity. In order to bring
about this result -- and ensure Moscow does not continue its dangerous double game -- a comprehensive
approach is needed. It should consist of three elements: even tougher economic sanctions; military
armaments to Ukraine; and an updated NATO strategy. The combined effect of this approach is to persuade
the Kremlin that the cost of its Ukraine adventure and aggressive pursuit of the Putin Doctrine is
too high.
The West has imposed economic sanctions on Russia for the past several months, but the results
thus far have been feeble. The problem is partly that the sanctions started small and were only slowly
ratcheted up. Moreover, European sanctions have been noticeably weaker than U.S. measures, feeding
Putin's calculation that he can continue to act as he chooses, while a reluctant Europe hesitates
to impose sufficiently punishing measures.
The sanctions that the United States and the European Union put in place on July 29, however,
are strong enough to get Moscow's attention. Indeed, despite Russia's counter-sanctions on European
and American food products, Putin is witnessing the failure of his efforts to split Europe from the
United States -- not to mention the larger failure of preventing Kiev's new government from tilting
to the West. But these measures have not been enough to actually deter Russia from continuing to
intervene in eastern Ukraine. The West needs to make clear that the latest sanctions will not be
the last if Moscow's aggression is not rapidly terminated.
The second part of a comprehensive strategy is to make it easier for Ukraine to re-establish control
in its restive east. Since his late-May election, President Petro Poroshenko has conducted a successful
counteroffensive against the rebels in eastern Ukraine. His forces have resealed a significant part
of its eastern border and taken back much of the territory seized by the rebel forces. But as Poroshenko's
troops have advanced, Moscow has increased the amount and sophistication of military supplies to
Ukraine, including the SA-11 surface-to-air missile system that shot down MH17 and the SA-13 system.
Thus far, his multiple requests for direct lethal aid have only met with reluctance in Brussels and
Washington.
The West has dithered under the assumption that providing lethal aid to Ukraine would escalate
the conflict. But a sanctions-dominant approach clearly has not prevented escalation. Indeed, with
France's determination to sell the Mistral ships to Russia, the West is in the peculiar position
of arming the aggressor and forbidding arms to the victim. If Russia does not cease firing missiles
at Ukrainian forces and supplying the rebels with arms and equipment, and does not pull troops back
from the border within two weeks, the West should begin supplying Ukraine proper with anti-tank missiles,
anti-aircraft missile batteries, and a variety of additional infantry weaponry. And it should immediately
threaten to do even more if Russia invades eastern Ukraine -- including inviting Kiev to join NATO.
The third element of a comprehensive strategy against Moscow requires a clear-eyed understanding
of the Putin Doctrine. His stated right to "protect" Russian speakers is an invitation to intervene
along Russia's border in all directions, including in the territory of America's NATO allies in the
Baltics and elsewhere. For this reason, Washington's response must involve a new approach at NATO
for managing the Russian relationship. The NATO-Russia Joint Doctrine that concluded in the late
1990s, which saw Russia as a partner, and which spoke of not building military infrastructure in
the new NATO members or permanently deploying major military equipment and forces, needs to be reviewed.
Publicly.
The small steps taken earlier this year to reassure NATO's eastern members -- Baltic air policing,
NATO maritime movements, several small-scale NATO exercises, placement of U.S. and Western European
aircraft around the Baltics and in Poland, and the deployment of a company of U.S. paratroopers to
Poland -- need substantial reinforcing. If Russia fails to respond to tougher sanctions, pointed
diplomacy, and lethal aid supplied to the Ukraine military, the allies must take further measures
at September's NATO summit in Wales.
It would be prudent to follow up NATO's suspension of cooperation with Russia with an official
review, with one of the options being maintaining the suspension and another being to end it and
all other forms of cooperation. Because Washington still needs Moscow's help with a handful of key
things (missile defense, Iran negotiations, Syria peace talks, and agreeing to rules governing cyberwarfare),
the aim would be to list ending the NATO-Russia Council as an option -- but with the unstated intention
of not actually following through. As NATO's Deputy Secretary-General Alexander Vershbow has been
arguing, Russia has begun treating the United States and the alliance as an adversary. This is why
we need to go beyond suspension and dangle complete cessation, even if for the time being we don't
plan to make good on this threat.
Regarding NATO's troop placement, however, the United States needs to use this as the major means
of reassuring our allies. It would be a good idea to bring the level of U.S. troops in Eastern Europe
up to 1,000 from the temporary placement of 600 paratroopers (this could include 100 to 150 "soft
forces," such as trainers). Washington also needs to do its best to get the Western Europeans to
add to this total. To entice the Europeans to match the U.S. commitment, Washington should propose
not permanent placement but a perpetual rotational arrangement. This way, the reddish line of permanent
placement would not be crossed, but NATO would nonetheless achieve upgraded deterrence capability,
while mollifying Poland and the Baltics.
Eastern European nations such as Poland are likely to welcome and add to increased capabilities
commitments; Western Europeans nations, however, are far more hesitant. Direct lethal aid and a regularized
rotational U.S.-Europe troop placement will go most of the way toward re-establishing conventional
deterrence against Moscow. But to go all the way, Western allies also need to conduct a yearly exercise
in Poland (and make announcements that in future years this new major exercise will be taking place
in the Baltic states). This should be a major ground-air exercise of the NATO Response Force (NRF),
with a military plan for defending an invasion from the east.
Regarding military capabilities, the United States should endorse both the German proposal to
organize clusters of allies that would increase their military capabilities and Britain's proposal
that would align Western allies to spearhead NATO military operations beyond what the current NRF
plans call for. It is worth remembering that crude measures like the level of overall defense spending
are far less important than the current state of military capabilities, which lately have been enhanced
even by Western allies that have reduced their defense spending (e.g. France, Britain, and Germany).
Furthermore, the alliance ought to augment its operational air force capabilities to be able to conduct
30-day air operations like the one carried out in Libya in 2011 (with the necessary fighter aircraft,
flight crews, refueling aircraft, drones, and satellite surveillance). NATO needs to be thinking
of capabilities in the full spectrum of land, naval, air, and cyber-power, and air capability is
the biggest gap.
Indeed, the time has come for the West to take an even stronger stand against Russian aggression
and force Putin to back down and end this crisis. The West should proceed with a fuller slate of
toughened sanctions, targeting all major sectors of the Russian economy -- virtually all of their
products and services -- and a full-fledged embargo against transferring any arms or defense technology
to Russia. Tightening the economic screws is still a major element of a successful strategy to get
Russia to cease and desist. But this is not enough.
The Russian president needs to be deterred from annexing other contested territories, like Transnistria,
and reinforcing his ugly new international relations norm by deeply interfering in the internal affairs
of other national states, such as the Baltics. This will require a series of additional and stronger
military moves on the European chessboard. Let Crimea be the apogee of revanchist Russian aggrandizement.
It is time for global security and international law to push back strongly against bellicose Russian
dictates.
Selected Comments
poncejorge
Dear authors,
After reading the first paragraph of your paper one can realize the astounding lack of academic
analysis behind it. Without going into deep analysis it can be easily pointed out that what you
call as "international community" is mostly EU and affiliates - Norway as an example, the US,
Australia and someway somehow Japan. The rest of the world is not on board. By your surprise the
"rest" of the world comprises China (1.3 billion people), India (1.2 billion), LATAM (600 + million),
and so on. As you can see, what you call as the international community does not even account
for 1 billion people. Instead of instigating and advocating for war you should realize that Eurocentric
(and US centric views) (see Edward Said) are rapidly fading into the past and like most US policies
of the past century they may create a blowback effect (see Charles Johnson). Secondly, if you
want to accuse someone of doing something first of all you have to present proofs of it. That
is a basic principle that can be easily traced back to Roman times (2,000 years ago). What you
call as "strong evidences" (shooting down of the Malaysian plane) are nothing else than bluff
without proofs. "I believe" does not count as proof, nobody cares about what you believe, we care
about what evidence you have. Furthermore, if you have the audacity to trash a country as big
and powerful as Russia - and its leadership- (6th world biggest economy, and...full of atomic
bombs!) without solid proofs you should realize that instead of creating an atmosphere for dialog
you are fomenting bickering and misunderstanding to say the least.
My advice is to stop acting as if you have any moral ground (Vietnam, Irak, Afghanista, invasion
of Mexico, and so on proofs that you are not better than anyone, just like the rest, and accepting
that will maybe make you come to terms with yourself and clear up your analysis) and understand
that the world does not work under presumptions, nor is black or white. Stop advocating for war
and start understanding that each country acts on its on interest, and that the US or the EU do
not have the right to impose its mores on everyone else (no one has the right, nor china, russia,
brazil etc, but unfortunately the EU - Spain, France, Uk mostly, and the US has a long history
of meddling in everyone affairs, first under open colonial format (Spain, France, UK) and later
under disguised moralistic pretenses (US).
Best regards,
A Citizen of the world who is tired of watching fellow humans died without a reason and watching
how the media sells itself to that purpose.
Klopezdron
Jeffrey,
Russians/Putin are responsible for downing of the Malaysian airplane? Come again please.
Why don't you charge Putin with Kennedy assassination and the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa
while you're at it.
Oligan
You've chosen wrong Bully, dear authors.
I'm Russian married to a French, I live in France and don't watch russian TV. I never supported
Putin and in February was really glad for Ukranians. Since then me (as well as many of those who
can read in Russian and talk to people from the region) have changed my opinion dramatically -
the deeds of so called Ukranian army on the east are terrible!!!
They bomb civilians all the time, they use nazys, they punish those civilians who have
relatives in protestants army, and on top those bastards in Kiev lie all the time - it is obvious
for any person who has a brain, you don't have to listen to Putin's propaganda to see it.
Ukranian revolution has turned from the step to western civilization into the most barbarian war
since 1941, and it is not only Putin who is in charge of it.
But you are so stubborn, it is amazing. You believe any bullshit that proves your fears
(somebody said something on facebook - wow!), and ignore facts that does not fit the concept.
Frankly speaking, when I read articles like this I see no difference between Putin's propaganda
and yours. And I see no difference between Putin's support of separatists and yours support of
Ukranian army. If you think that people in Donets and Lugansk will happily live with Kiev after
what they've done to them - well, it says a lot about your competence as an experts.
So - go both to hell with your military calls.
Sergey Aleksandrychev
@Oligan, you see no difference between Putin's "propaganda" and Ukrainian/American lies?
The best propaganda is telling truth, that's why Putin's propaganda is gaining the upper hand.
I have not seen in the Western media or at Psaki's meetins any evidence of Putin's military
support to the rebels. They are not separatists. They have always lived on this land, and they
defend it against the gang of murderers who came to power in Kiev and consider the people of Eastern
Ukrain "subhumans".
rosavo
I doubt western leaders schooled at the tradition of pol cor guilt will do help eastern allies
against Russian revisionism, it's up to us in the east to do this.
as about Transnistria things are more complex since Stalin after the war took big parts from
Romania, Poland and Russia and included them into Ukraine. to compensate Moldova for losing southern
regions and Bukovina to Ukraine it added Transnistria to Moldova, integrating a huge Russian-speaking
population of non-Russians (that nevertheless identify themselves with Russian identity and culture)
into Moldova. I honestly prefer Transnistria to be integrated in Russia, otherwise they will act
in Moldova as a fifth column, as we see now the pro-Russians doing in eastern Ukraine.
oguv
When you say bully, do you mean the Russians or US/EU/Nato?
natrium
The reference to "solid evidence" means a shortage of proof. By the way, the US introduced
a perilous new norm into the international system - to make regimes inside the borders of other
countries crashed. The ukrainian civil war is the reaction to such US invading.
Ildus
Overly simplistic analysis.
musicmaster
Ukraine is refusing to release the conversation of the plane with the control tower and
the radar images of the control tower and the US is refusing to release its satellite and radar
images. Kiev clearly has something to hide and that makes them the primary suspect.
Yet the article starts with the claim that the rebels did it. This lie made me skip the rest
of the article.
Shingo
This article is another very thinly disguised piece of neocon propaganda. There are
so many assumptions and claims made in this article that have never been proven, but form the
basis for the piece.
There is solid evidence indicating not only that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down
by Russian-aided rebels in eastern Ukraine
Actually there isn't. The only thing that has been presented is a prima facie case, but the
US government, who was surely monitoring the area closely at the time the plane was attacked,
have refused to produce one iota of evidence. When challenged to produce evidence, the State Department
has pointed to social media, insisting that their evidence is too sensitive to share with the
public.
Robert Parry has reported that his sources at the CIA and NSA refute the claim that the rebels
were responsible.
Moreover, Russia has massed over 45,000 soldiersnear the eastern Ukrainian border, who are
poised to undertake a "humanitarian operation."
And what is the basis of this claim other than pure speculation? What is the evidence that
the aid intended for the rebel-held areas is a Trojan horse?
in response to the recent gains Ukraine's military forces have been making against the rebels.
The alleged gains made by the Ukraine's military forces have proven to be entirely fictional.
In fact, from all the reports I have seen, it is Kiev which at tremendous costs has achieved exactly
nothing. They suffered enormous losses in the Southern Cauldron. The re-taking of Saur Mogila
has been marketed as a turning point victory, along with all the other so called turning point
victories that amounted to nothing. Add to this the very persistent rumors and hints by various
commanders on the ground that a big counter-offensive is in the works and the Ukies might well
have reached a breaking point.
Putin has notoriously threatened to annex Transnistria, the Russian-speaking territory of Moldova,
inter alia.
This is a lie. Putin has not threatened anything of the kind. And how is it that the authors
insist this should be NATO's problem when the Ukraine is not part of NATO? This whole crisis is
the consequence of the US violating the promise not to extend NATO further eastward beyond Germany.
The US would not accept a foreign military power installing bases along it's borders and nor should
Russia.
Stacey and Herbst also trivially dismiss the EU's own concerns and argue the EU should put
it's own interests aside for the sake of giving Putting a bloody nose. But the fact is that sanctions
have backfired. The EU is now returning to recession while he Russian economy continues to grow.
Putin's efforts to split Europe from the United States have not been a failure, they are only
2 weeks old, so Stacey and Herbst's argument that his efforts have failed are premature. The new
economic agreements between Russia and the BRICS countries has exposed the limits of Western power
to isolate Russia without shooting itself in the foot.
As for the Poroshenko's forces, they are at breaking point and time is running out for them.
The longer this conflict continues, the less likely their chance of success.
If Russia does not cease firing missiles at Ukrainian forces
What evidence is there that Russia has fired missiles at Ukrainian forces? What's more, it's
odd that Stacey and Herbst suggest the West should begin supplying Ukraine proper with anti-tank
missiles, anti-aircraft missile batteries when they already have them. They have close to a dozen
SA-11 surface-to-air missile systems that allegedly shot down MH17. Indeed, the Ukrainian military
moved one launcher into the area the day before MH17 was shot down.
It's also grossly hypocritical that Stacey and Herbst object to Russia's stated right to "protect"
Russian speakers when the US has done the same in Iraq.
In the end, Stacey and Herbst are complaining about the lack of action taken by the West against
Putin while admitting that the West don't have many options short of going to war.
mkham11
KIEV: The one thing Ukraine needs that could quickly end this torture is HARM missiles. The
dozens of Russian Buks, Stelas, now Tunguska missile trucks in the Donbas that are crippling Ukr
air power could be destroyed in short order by the radar-targeting air to ground missiles. Able
to run full air ops again, Ukraine could stamp out these cockroaches and take back the East in
2-3 weeks, IF they would close the border. There is still a significant threat from all the shoulder
mounted infrared AA missiles, but the long range ones are more significant. There's some evidence
that Russia has even shipped the S-300 AA rockets, which can reach planes 200km away!
@mkham11 The one thing Ukraine needs that could quickly end this torture is HARM missiles
Do you seriously the Russians don't have something to deal with radar-targeting air to ground
missiles? The Russians have managed to paralyze Western military radar systems effortlessly.
Able to run full air ops again, Ukraine could stamp out these cockroaches and take back
the East in 2-3 weeks, IF they would close the border.
If who would close the border? You have no idea what you are talking about. For decades, ethnic
Russians in Eastern Ukraine travelled to Russia to work. Those borders are purely artificial.
Boomerang83
I have never read such garbage. US/EU/NATO are the bullies constantly demonizing Russia through
a web of lies and deceit. Every recent event since the violent and brutal overthrow of the democratically
elected government in Kiev (by a group of far right neo nazi thugs funded by US) has been orchestrated
and choreographed to make Putin look like the aggressor. Western media outlets slavishly follow
a prepared narrative, irrespective of the truth, to further some political agenda....the expansion
of NATO in Europe.
The hypocrisy of the US is nauseating...sticking their nose in where they are not wanted, masquerading
as the world's guardian of morals while they turn to poison everything they touch..Iraq, Libya,
Egypt, US badly needs a war because they are bankrupt to the tune of trillions of dollars; Putin
meanwhile is looking eastwards with the BRICS initiative which will eventually bypass the dollar
as the world reserve currency....and Obama sees the writing on the wall!
Every ploy is being used to goad Russia into a military conflict...all the bare faced lies
emanating from Ukraine from the Malaysian air disaster (interesting how everybody in the West
has gone all quiet on this one...even though they were accusing Russia within hours of the event.
Moscow produced satellite images clearly showing presence of Ukrainian fighter jets close to aircraft
at time of 'accident'.
US with all their satellite technology weren't prepared to reveal what they saw....we all know
why! And latest attempt is the 'Russian invasion' of Ukraine. remind me again, how many tanks
where there! Please don't insult people's intelligence.
Even the dogs in the street know what Ukraine and their puppet masters in US/EU are up to!.
Meanwhile the Russian speaking thousands of people of eastern Ukraine are being obliterated in
a ferocious onslaught from it's own government...and the West remains silent. Enough said!
Shingo
@ellsid @Boomerang83
If anything the U.S. EU and NATO response to Russia's INVASION of a sovereign country have
been pathetically weak.
There was no invasion. Name the date the invasion took place.
The U.S. you love to hate gives more aid to the world than any other country
Most of which is military aid, which amounts to a boondoggle for US arms manufacturers. And
no, the US did not bail out Russia.
Yes, the same criminal who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers, whose 'family' and friends
ran one of the most corrupt regimes (next to Putin's) in Europe.
All that happened is that the control of the UKraine has passed from one group of oligarchs
who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers to another group who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers.
The Ukraine is as corrupt now as it was then.
Your really have no clear understanding of what Maidan was about. It had everything to do
with the citizens of Ukraine wanting to be rid of their corrupt thieving government.
If that were true, the demonstrations would have ended when Yanukovych was ousted, but they
continued. The only thing that changed is that the US media stopped reporting these demonstrations
and the neo Nazis who sabotaged the demonstrations and took power then outlawed subsequent demonstrations.
The demonstrators in Maidan were being paid $50 a day from Nuland's $5 billion dollar fund
to overthrow the Ukrainian government.
I guess that kind of backfired for when Putin next sets his sites on reconquering the Baltic
countries or Poland.
How can it have backfired when Putin has not tried to reconquering the Baltic countries or
Poland. The fact is that neo cone lovers and Russophobes like you have been predicting that Russia
was about to invade for months now, and you've been wrong.
That's why Poroshenko and the Kiev junta keep coming up with BS stories about cross borders
skirmishes, because he is desperately trying to convince the world that the Russians are about
to invade.
Those were indigenous revolts against tyrant leaders, which hopefully may one day come
to Russian soil
Indigenous revolts that were not only undemocratic, but illegal. What's more, they were sabotaged
by extremists with the original demonstrators being sidelined. Egypt has become a dictatorship
with even the supporters of the Morsi overthrow afraid of being imprisoned for criticizing the
junta. Libya had has been destroyed and taken over by Jihadists.
.the Kremlin has dropped this line when it was pointed out to them these were GROUND ATTACK
aircraft that could not fly at this attitude and could not carry air to air missiles.
False. Those aircraft could indeed fly at 30,000 feet and are designed to carry missiles. They
tend to operate at lower altitudes when bombing ground targets, but that doesn't mean they are
not capable of cruising at higher altitudes.
You're the moron for trying to argue from the position of such ignorance.
"Strelkov"/ Girkin, Borodai, and all the Russian citizens sent in to lead the insurgency
all lamented the lack of support the Russia sponsored mercenaries received from the local population.
Rubbish, You have it completely backwards. It is the local population that is behind the insurgency.
In fact, they have lamented the lack of support from Russia, not the other way around. Putin has
no desire to recreate "Novorossiya", otherwise Moscow would never had given recognition to the
new regime in Kiev. Putin knows that the Ukraine is an economic basket case and whoever wins it
loses because it's a poisoned chalice.
Shingo
@ellsid @Boomerang83
Anyone who thinks Maidan ended crony capitalism and the reign of the oligarchs are delusional.
And just to prove that you haven't done any research but are simply parroting talking points
you read on some right wing web site, here is evidence the top cruising altitude of a Su-25 is
10km, the same as a passenger plane.
If anyone has been hibernating under a slimy rock it's you. You should also get over your crush'
on Neuland and the necons because they have a track record of lying, being wrong about everything
and creating chaos and destruction.
marty martel
Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan wrote in a secret review in 2009 that 'Pakistan's
Army and ISI are covertly SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani's HQN, Mullah Omar's QST (Quetta
Shura Taliban), Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money', diplomatic
cables released by WikiLeaks show. Amb. Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department
or US government.
Admiral Mike Mullen told the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 22-Sept-2011 that: 'The
fact remains that the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network operate from Pakistan with impunity.
(These) Extremist organizations serving as PROXIES of the government of Pakistan are attacking
Afghan troops and civilians as well as U.S. soldiers.' Adm. Mullen had NO reason to mislead US
Senate.
In 'Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War' published in January, 2014, former defense secretary
Gates writes: "Although I would defend them (Pakistanis) in front of Congress and to the press
to keep the relationship from getting worse – and endangering our supply line from Karachi – I
knew they were really no ally at all." So Gates in effect, kept lying to US Congress and press
and thereby to the whole World that Pakistan was an ally when it was anything but.
However not just administration but most of the American foreign policy wonks and news media
have been deafeningly silent about Pakistani State waging Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan that
has been killing thousands of innocent Afghans since 2001.
marty martel
It has been interesting that while raising such a public hue and cry over Russia's support
of Ukrainian insurgents, US government, foreign policy wonks and news media have sought to varnish,
suppress and even reward similar behavior of Pakistani State that has been playing duplicitous
game of 'running with the Haqqani/Mullah Omar's Taliban insurgents while hunting with the American
hounds'.
There has been NO doubt in US establishment about from where the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan
is being waged that has been killing not just thousands of innocent Afghan civilians but US/NATO/Afghan
troops as well since 2001.
"For twenty years Pakistan's army - the real power broker in the country - has backed the Afghan
Taliban. It helped create the Taliban's Islamic Emirate in the 1990s and build the al-Qaeda state
within a state. The army has provided safe haven, arms, expertise and other help to Taliban. It
briefly pretended to abandon Taliban to avoid American anger in 2001 misleading George W Bush",
so said an ex-CIA official Bruce Riedel at an US Islamic World Forum organized in Qatar on June
9-11, 2013.
I sometimes get very interesting emails in my inbox and this happened today when I found the email
below sent to me by "M". Having read it I immediately contacted "M" to ask for his permission to
post it here. I felt that this would be especially important since I posted the "Appeal"
of Egor Prosvirnin which some of you interpreted as anti-German and then accused me of also harboring
anti-German feelings. As
I explained it later, my intention had been to make people aware that there is a growing anger
against Germany in Russia and that even though I personally did not feel that anger, I considered
that anger legitimate, if not necessarily deserved (I soon realized that the most vociferous and
nasty protests against this post did not come from Germans or even Germanophiles, but from the same
old crowd of neo-Nazis who strongly feel that defending anything German is part of their ethos).
Still, I have to admit that I felt bad about the whole thing (because, believe it or not, I am not
only not anti-German, I don't even believe in collective, nevermind inherited, guilt). For one thing,
as an anti-Soviet Russian myself, I know the very difficult situation of a person who opposes the
regime in power in his country, but still feels that his own people are also victims. There are quite
a few countries and nationalities who still are resentful and angry with Russians, especially for
things which the Soviet forces did during WWII, and I consider that this resentment and anger is
legitimate even if sometimes historically one-sided. It is always tough to be at the receiving end
of somebody's anger - whether fully deserved or not - and so when I saw "M" email I decided to share
it with you and I am grateful to "M" for giving me his permission.
The Saker
-------
Seeing the hatred and outright ill will some have towards Germans really brought me down. It
makes me wonder how we are ever going to manage to have some kind of stability in Europe and the
world...
Here are some of the dynamics in Germany, as I see them. Most likely many will
disagree and want to debate them, I don't claim they are how it is, just how I see it. I don't
claim to know and understand it all. But it's something I would like people to think about, before
they write off the German people as a whole.
Where do I start? Something that should be obvious is that Germany is not a free and sovereign
country. From the start, when the Federal Republic was conceived, the Allies had a great influence
on shaping the new Germany. Especially the Americans. It is somewhat subtle if you are used to
how things are, but once you start observing it becomes clear that the American political circles
have great influence on ours. Anyone interested can take a look at how many of our Politicians
in the various established parties are members in transatlantic clubs. So guess where their allegiance
lies? They are not even ashamed of it, it's normal to them. For decades we've had what you
can call US whores. Not long ago I complained about that on a page of young transatlanticists
and was quickly accused of being anti-American, they weren't interested in any of my arguments.
Being anti-American is hardly possible since I am an American citizen. There is a divide between
the common people, many of whom don't have anything against Americans but are not too keen on
having them involved in German affairs, and many of our leaders who try to make us all believe
that we need the United States as partner, come what may. One fact that should make anyone pause
is that there are currently still around 40.000 US troops on German soil and various US bases.
It may not sound like much, but in principle should any be here at all? We have US nuclear warheads
here, the maintenance of which is also paid for by German tax payers money. If you asked the average
German what he thought about that, you can be sure that they would be against that. "Ami go home"
is a more and more open sentiment here. "American go home". But will the Americans go? I doubt
it. It seems they do not have the slightest interest in granting Germany full sovereignty and
of letting go. So the question begs: how free are German politicians to do what they want? And
then, how "natural" is the influence Germany has on the shaping of European affairs?
I can fully understand that many in Europe resent Germany, due to the dominating of EU policies
and the problems they cause. What many don't know though is that the current administration and
the previous ones have been equally harsh on Germans. German politicians don't just sell Europeans
out, but their own people. The climate here has changed drastically in past years. People are
having increasingly hard times to make a living and are in fear, fear of loosing their jobs, fear
of making ends meet, fear of loosing what they have. Fear is the perfect mechanism of keeping
people in check. The contempt and the lack of any shame on the part of our government has never
been this drastic before. Careful observers have seen it for years. Why people keep voting for
the same parties is beyond me. There are some who say voter fraud could be at play. It would not
surprise me. At the very least the media have been extremely pro Merkel for years, even campaigning
for her and her party, when they should have been neutral. Every once and a while that has been
criticized but nothing changes and many don't even notice. Merkel's policies are always aimed
at business elites, not the common people. I remember how years ago she spoke of "market
conformed democracy". There was no outcry, no outrage. No one seemed to care. As in most places,
the elites own the media as well. So honest and critical reporting has become a thing of the past,
unless one watches carefully and knows where to look. The average person doesn't. So if people
are angry with Germans, I wish they would know that Germans are angry with our leaders as well
and have been screwed over as well. Why Germans put up with that? Good question. This is a subject
of its own. My impression is that Germans have always been people that are good at following and
bowing to higher ups. They are terribly long suffering, in a bad way. After the Second World War
Germans have been pacified as a people, in my opinion. Imagine having the mindset of being aware
of things you dislike and that anger you, but thinking that somehow it'll be alright, that life
must go on. You go through the motions. And then add a state of paralysis and helplessness. Perhaps
that is what is going on with Germans. Of course those that have the upper hand and benefit from
the current status have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. It is unrealistic
to expect Germans to magically snap out of it and overthrow the status quo. And though it is not
obvious we do have a police apparatus in place that can quickly stomp out any uprising.
I will not deny that Germans can be arrogant in their views. But there is a constant stream
of medial manipulation feeding them that perspective. I know that deep down Germans want peace
and have no interest in dominating other Nations and people. Many are actually appalled and shocked
because our leaders are calling for more involvement in conflicts and taking on more "responsibility".
People see that as dangerous and hypocritical. The problem is that the (you can only call it)
"political cast" is so far gone and so far out of touch with the common people. There is a complete
disconnect. I see it on Facebook postings of Steinmeier, Gabriel and many others. They live in
their own world, facts and reality do not exist for them. And their personal integrity and values
are non existent. Calling them pathetic would still be a compliment. It is not any different with
our media. Regularly you get to see statistics that suggest people to be skeptic of Putin and
Russia. Every time many speak out and question these. Sometimes there are polls in which readers
can take part and they say the opposite, that people see through the lies and are not in favor
of sanctions and do not want a conflict with Russia, that they do not want anything to do with
the crimes committed in the Ukraine. There's a saying "don't trust any statistic that you haven't
forged yourself." There have been statistics for years, that suggest Merkel having very high support
among people.. To me it's a mystery how she has been in power for so long. I guess there still
are many idiots who believe in her, but there are also very many who would like to see the worst
happen to her.
Many people see that when the wall came down and the two Germanies were reunited, the Soviets/Russians
were fair. Just think about how much time has passed, when have the United States and the British
made an attempt at the same fairness? I'm afraid the US would rather see Germany in ruins yet
again, rather than leaving and giving the Germans freedom. I understand the resentment that many
have for Germans, but am also shocked by how much hatred there is. Is it not the same principle
in most places, that Governments do not act in accord with and represent the will of the people?
And to what degree can we count on the will of the people when they are not given accurate information
and facts, but are fed half truths at best and outright manipulation most of the time? Ironically
I see a lot of Americans accusing us of cowardice for not taking a more aggressive stance against
Russia. The same with the Polish. Merkel's behavior in this crisis makes no sense to me at all.
At times she is bullying Russia, like the perfect US poodle, but then there are reports of her
reaching out to Putin. Either she is completely soul less without a personal sense of direction,
or she is more devious than she appears. No idea what her true aims are. They certainly don't
seem to be what they should be. Part of her vow when sworn into office is to avert harm from the
German people. She is steadily doing the opposite. She and her cronies along with her.
It seems that we are prisoners of a political apparatus gone insane, both on a German level
and a EU level. Then there's NATO on top of that. And lets be realistic, the cards are stacked
in favor of the higher ups. That is no excuse for giving up, which I am not suggesting, but haters
need to take a close look at reality. Finding solutions is not that easy, is it? So, this is part
of what I observe, I bet I forgot a lot. My health is not too well and my strength limited.
But then all sorts of Khaganate of Nulands (as in Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs) derivatives started to spin out of control. One can imagine the
vain Fogh of War vainly trying to regain his composure.
That took some effort as he was presented with the spectacle of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko
- a certified oligarch dogged by dodgy practices - trying hard to
evict the Maidan originals from the square in the center of Kiev; these are the people who late
last year started the protests that were later hijacked by the Banderastan (as in Saudi Prince Bandar
bin Sultan)/Right Sector neo-Nazis, the US neo-con masters.
The original Maidan protests - a sort of Occupy Kiev - were against monstrous corruption and for
the end of the perennial Ukrainian oligarch dance. What the protesters got was even more corruption;
the usual oligarch dance; a failed state under civil war and avowed ethnic cleansing of at least
8 million citizens; and on top of it a failed state on its way to further impoverishment under International
Monetary Fund "structural adjustment". No wonder they won't leave Maidan.
So Maidan - the remix - has already started even before the arrival of General Winter. Chocolate
King Poroshenko must evict them as fast as he can because renewed Kiev protests simply don't fit
the hysterical Western corporate media narrative that "it's all Putin's fault". Most of all, corruption
is even nastier than before - now with plenty of neo-Nazi overtones.
With Fogh of War already fuming because "Russia won't invade", the pompously named "Secretary"
of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, neo-Nazi Andrey Parubiy - who is the most likely
candidate for having ordered the hit last month on the MH17 civilian aircraft - decided to step out;
a certified rat abandoning a sinking ship move mostly provoked by the fact he did not get an extended
ethnic cleansing overdrive in Eastern Ukraine, and had to endure a ceasefire. Poroshenko is not an
idiot; after loads of bad PR, he knows his nationwide "support" is evaporating by the minute.
Compounding all this action, a US missile cruiser enters the Black Sea again "to promote peace".
The Kremlin and Russian intel easily see that for what it is.
And then there's the horrendous refugee crisis building up in eastern Ukraine. This past Tuesday,
Moscow during a UN Security Council meeting requested emergency humanitarian measures - predictably
in vain. Washington blocked it because Kiev had blocked it ("There is no humanitarian crisis to end").
Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin dramatically described the situation in Donetsk and Luhansk as
"disastrous", stressing that Kiev is intensifying military operations.
According to the UN itself, at least 285,000 people have become refugees in eastern Ukraine. Kiev
insists the number of internal refugees is "only" 117,000; the UN doubts it. Moscow maintains that
a staggering 730,000 Ukrainians have fled into Russia; the UN High Commission for Refugees agrees.
Some of these refugees, fleeing Semenivka, in Sloviansk, have detailed Kiev's use of N-17, an even
deadlier version of white phosphorus.
When Ambassador Churkin mentioned Donetsk and Luhansk, he was referring to Kiev's goons gearing
up for a massive attack. They are already shelling the Petrovski neighborhood in Donetsk. Almost
half of Luhansk residents have fled, mostly to Russia. Those who stayed behind are mostly old-age
pensioners and families with small children.
Humanitarian crisis does not even begin to describe it; there's no water, electricity, communication,
fuel and medicine left in Luhansk. Kiev's heavy artillery partially destroyed four hospitals and
three clinics. Luhansk, in a nutshell, is the Ukrainian Gaza.
In a sinister symmetry, just as it gave a free pass to Israel in Gaza, the Obama administration
is giving a free pass to the butchers of Luhansk. And there's even a diversion. Obama was mulling
whether to bomb The Caliph's Islamic State goons in Iraq, or maybe drop some humanitarian aid. He
opted for (perhaps) "limited" bombing and arguably less limited
food and water airdrops.
So let's be clear. For the US government, "there might be a humanitarian catastrophe" in Mount
Sinjar in Iraq, involving 40,000 people. As for at least 730,000 eastern Ukrainians, they have the
solemn right to be shelled, bombed, air-stricken and turned into refugees.
The new Somalia
Moscow's red lines are quite explicit: NATO out of Ukraine. Crimea as part of Russia. No US troops
anywhere near Russia's borders. Full protection for the Russian cultural identity of southern and
eastern Ukraine.
Yet the - real - humanitarian crisis (which Washington dismisses) is another serious matter entirely.
Kiev's forces are not equipped for prolonged urban warfare. But assuming these forces - a compound
of regular military; oligarch-financed terror/death squads; the neo-Nazi-infested "voluntary" Ukrainian
national guard; US-trained foreign mercenaries - decide to go for mass carnage to take Donetsk and
Luhansk, arguably Moscow will have to consider what NATO types spin as a "limited ground intervention"
in Ukraine.
NATO spinsters are foolish enough to believe that if Putin can disguise the intervention as a
peacekeeping or humanitarian mission, he may be able to sell it to Russian public opinion. In fact
Putin has not "invaded" because Russian public opinion does not want it. His popularity is at a staggering
87%. Only an - improbable
- Kiev-perpetrated mass carnage would change the equation, and sway Russian public opinion. Considering
this is exactly what NATO wants, Fogh of War will be working overtime to force his vassals to bring
about such carnage.
Still, considering the latest developments, what facts on the ground point to is the current oligarch
dance in Kiev already unraveling - as in this example
here. Moscow won't even have to bother to consider "invading". Meanwhile, Poroshenko's slow motion
genocide in Eastern Ukraine, as well as his crackdown of Maidan remix in Kiev, will keep getting
a free pass. All hail Ukraine as the new Somalia; a fitting Frankenstein created by the exceptionalist
Empire of Chaos.
Confusion in Kiev now as a "batallion" of former activists is now trying to clear Kiev of activists.
Victoria Nuland doesn't know who to give cookies to any more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-a8wMG8Dlk
The EU and the UK are getting the deserved blowback for being spineless and not standing up to
the US proxy war in europe. I expect it from Cameron, he's a stooge who is spineless and has no
real policies but the EU where against sanctions from day 1, especially Merkel, they are spitting
feathers now as this will likely send europe back into recession. The west and specifically the
US never understand Russian nature, they dont shout, they dont threaten they just think carefully
and then implement, these sanctions are targeted SO well, especially at EUs weakest southern nations,
spain, greece will be massively hit by bans on agriculture. Stupid UK/EU to get involved in this,
Putin isnt the enemy and he never was.
We are missing some kind of a blueprint for systemic analysis of Ukrainian coup, so I'll try to
take the trouble to put some skeleton of such a blueprint:
1. Oligarchs of Ukraine politically much stronger than people (middle class and below),
as it is easily seen by looking at the hard brainwashing propaganda Ukrainian media. That is, when
we say "the people of Odessa or Kiev rebelled against someone there," one should always take into
account who helped to incite those people, arm and financed them
2. The West (EU and USA) is much stronger than Ukrainian oligarchs, it is their "roof", if
you use criminal jargon, and actually dictating their actions. Thus actions of oligarchs also
cannot be considered to be independent, and they themselves are not an independent political players.
That means, that when we say "oligarch Kolomoisky has taken such and such political step" we must
understand that he did not by himself, but was advised by curators from abroad.
3. Kiev junta represents the interests of the winning oligarchic cartel and , respectively,
is not independent in its actions.
4. EU is vassal of the United States, the vassal with a limited sovereignty, but not the slave.
Therefore, U.S. national interests, at least in the strategically important questions will always
dominate over the interests of the EU itself (exactly as Nuland's formula prescribes - f*ck the EU).
That is, when we say that Angela Merkel something there said, we must understand that Uncle Sam also
took part in it.
5. The links of all "internal" financing of any Ukrainian political processes will always go
West (right in the U.S. or in Europe and then in the US). The fact that someone may designate
any citizen "nezalezhnoy" is being decided there and then order on appointment down in the media.
The judicial functions of the West plus its extensive punitive apparatus does not leave local single
gram of independence. Armed gang, staged a massacre in the city centre, in the Western command to
be designated as the most dangerous terrorists and criminals, and revolutionary peaceful protesters,
democratically resolve lost the last remnants of legitimacy, bloody and criminal regime. Accordingly,
the revolutionaries laid diverse and very fat "cookies" until the military assistance "to the defenders
of Ukrainian democracy", and totalitarian regime put sanctions, arrest of accounts (robbery), generous
financing traitors and deserters, international prison and courts (remembering Milosevic), and sometimes
just a bunch of sadists with bayonets (remembering Gaddafi).
A coup d'état has occurred in Ukraine and all of the signs and even the actors behind it were
known to the world before it happened. Before the democratically elected president went into hiding
and the parliament was taken over by western puppets and neo-nazi [sic] thugs we all knew what the
western geopolitical architects were planning on their chessboard.
Warnings were repeatedly issued and broadcast and calls were made, before the situation spiraled
out of control, for those in power to maintain order and prevent what has happened in Ukraine. These
warning came from across the spectrum, from analysts to high level government officials and leaders,
yet those in power in Ukraine were either negligent in preventing the coup or were in fact totally
impotent to stop it. In either case the failure by President Yanukovich to keep order and protect
the Ukrainian people (all of the Ukrainian people) from the horror that has been unleashed on Ukraine
(a horror we are only seeing the beginning of) is a betrayal to his people and a failure on his part
in fulfilling his duties, no matter how Machiavellian the plots and the actors were, who successfully
overthrew the government and sent him into hiding.
Proof of Treason by the Opposition
It is not, and has not been for some time, a secret that the West was behind the previous color
revolution in Ukraine and it was not a secret that the same infrastructure was being used by the
US/NATO/CIA to destabilize Ukraine after Ukraine made a brave and independent sovereign decision
to say no to a European Union deal which in fact offered it nothing and say yes to the Russian led
Customs Union which offered it $100 billion over 7 years.
Yes dear reader in reality the EU deal offered nothing for Ukraine other than some tenuous abstract
idea spread by false propaganda that somehow life would be better for Ukrainians if they became the
stepchildren of the EU. What EU integration would have done, and what the goal is and what it will
do, is to cement plans for including Ukraine in NATO and placing NATO military infrastructure in
Ukraine. This is the crowning jewel of US/NATO expansion plans to move right up to Russian borders.
These plans are being aided and abetted by the so-called Ukrainian opposition, who in reality
have no interest in supporting the Ukrainian people and have now aided foreign forces in destroying
and taking over their own country. Not only have they now sold out their country to foreign forces
but they have allowed the worst elements of their population to achieve and unprecedented power grab
as the neo-nazi forces of Dmitry Yarosh have now through the use of terror, violence and murder taken
control of Kiev and are spreading their wave of terror and hate to other parts of Ukraine taking
region after region.
Not only does the now infamous conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt that was released on the internet show firsthand
the level of US meddling in Ukraine and even the collusion of the United Nations in bringing about
an illegal change of government in Ukraine, but e-mails released by the hacktivist group Anonymous
Ukraine and other evidence prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the leading opposition figures are
clearly just puppets for western forces.
The e-mails that were released by Anonymous Ukraine have been suppressed by the West and were
commented on by Anonymous Ukraine in an interview for the Voice of Russia. The fact that they are
genuine is backed up by the silence from all of the parties involved and the attempts by western
special services to have them permanently removed from the Internet.
The e-mails released by Anonymous between Laurynas Jonavicius an Advisor to the President of Lithuania,
a country that has been active in Nazi historical revisionism, and Vitaly Klitschko were accidentally
uncovered by Anonymous when they hacked the e-mails of the Lithuanian Administration and show how
Klitschko is controlled by the West through a Lithuanian intermediary.
The text of the first e-mail, rewritten verbatim below is apparently one of the first as he addresses
the advisor as "Mr. Jonavicius". In the e-mail Klitschko refers to plans for his future inferring
that he agrees to their terms. He also mentions the money him and his circle are to be paid, a visit
to the Lithuanian Embassy and his bank account in Germany where the said monies are to be transferred.
Klitschko's e-mail source IP information shows that his e-mails emanate from his own domain "k-mg.com"
which expires August 26th, 2014. His domain is registered to Klitschko Management Group GmbH, located
at Grosse Elbstr. Street 275 in Hamburg, Germany. Klitschko is known to have travelled to Germany
several times before the upheavals.
E-Mail #1
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:18:41 +0100 (CET)
Dear Mr. Jonavicius,
I am writing to thank you for your assistance. The meeting with Mrs. Grauziniene was very productive.
We exchanged views on current events and discussed our plans for the future. Mrs. Grauziniene made
some interesting proposals concerning my future. I need to give it some thought but in general I
am willing to accept your terms.
Special thanks to all Lithuanian friends for financial assistance. Today my assistant visited
your embassy where he met the Counselor. They discussed financial issues and plans for future cooperation.
My assistant also provided Valentina with the details of my bank account in Germany.
I look forward to a successful working relationship in the future.
Regards,
Vitali
The next e-mail is dated December 7th which is exactly 3 days before Victoria Nuland appeared
on Maidan Square to hand out doughnuts to protestors. Klitschko has obviously had a lot of phone
or other contact with the Lithuanian advisor at this point and refers to a phone conversation and
addresses him as simply Laurynas. He discusses officials from other countries visiting Maidan for
moral support, which shows that the entire charade has nothing to do with the Ukrainian people nor
with Ukraine. In the e-mail he even mentions Nuland directly and someone from the US Congress. Hence
John McCain showed up. This may not be illegal at this point but in light of the fact that they were
involved in the organizing of a coup and the overthrowing of a legitimate democratically elected
government, it is highly illegal.
Klitschko also requests information on President Yanukovich, in other words for intelligence and
for the President of Ukraine to be spied on by a foreign power. An egregious treasonous act if there
ever was one.
E-Mail #2
Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:48:32 +0100 (CET)
Laurynas,
Following up upon our telephone conversation I think it would be useful to schedule a visit of
some high-ranking officials from the EU. Maidan is in need of constant moral support. It would be
appropriate to invite someone from Berlin. I have some top-ranking friends there but for some reason
they hesitate.
Our American friends promised to pay a visit in the coming days, we may even see Nuland or someone
from the Congress.
Another concern I want to raise is that Yanukovych keeps a low profile. It looks very suspicious.
What's he up to? We would really appreciate some more information on this issue.
Sincerely yours,
Vitali
In the third e-mail Klitschko again says he is grateful for support (again we must underline they
are working on overthrowing a government) and promises to do a good job for his new masters. These
promises should be made to the Ukrainian people not a foreign power. He also shows knowledge and
intention to destabilize Ukraine and thanks the foreign power for intelligence it has provided on
his own president.
E-Mail #3
December 14, 2013
Laurynas,
I am very grateful to the President and all Lithuanian friends for such strong support. I will
do everything possible to meet the expectations of my European partners.
Your colleague has arrived and started working with my team. He's a real pro and I think his services
may be required even after the country is destabilized.
I've also met your people from the Embassy. The information about Yanukovych's plans they handed
me is very important for our common cause. I would like to receive this kind of information on a
permanent basis.
Sincerely yours,
Vitali
In the final and fourth e-mail Klitschko seems impatient to start real violence and calls for
a "radical escalation". He also asks for more money for the "services of supporters" removing all
possible doubt about the nature of the "opposition" which are nothing but paid thugs and killers.
E-Mail #4
Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:43:35 +0200
Laurynas,
I think we've paved the way for more radical escalation of the situation. Isn't it time to proceed
with more decisive actions?
I also want you to consider the possibility of increasing funding to pay for the services of our
supporters.
Sincerely,
Vitali
Proof of US Meddling
A conversation released on the Internet on about February 6th (timed for the Olympics) between
US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt is
even more damning. It is important to underline that under international law planning and carrying
out the overthrow of the government of a foreign country is completely illegal. This is especially
odious when you consider that Ukraine had a democratically elected government and was not ruled by
some tyrannical dictator or monarch but a democratically elected president.
Pyatt believes that everything is going according to plan and discussed matter of factly plans
to install the opposition in Ukraine in government posts and where they would be most effective.
He also mentions an apparent conversation between Nuland and Arseniy Yatseniuk in which she apparently
put him in his place and he submitted to their plans. The hint is to a threat of some sort, or pressure
of some kind which Pyatt says needs to be applied to Klitschko.
During the conversation they also mention Oleh Tyahnybok another opposition leader apparently
under their control and perhaps most damning is United Nations collusion, which goes against the
United Natios Charter and all international laws and conventions regarding the respect for sovereignty
and the integrity of nations and the right of the people for self-determination.
The arrogance of Nuland and Pyatt to use pet names with their puppets, typical of American government
officials but nonetheless shocking: Klitschko is Klitsch and Arseniy Yatseniuk is Yats. The admission
that Ban Ki Moon is part of the plot is something that should be causing an outcry worldwide but
no one seems to have noticed.
Pyatt: I think we're in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here.
Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the
troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this
stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone
call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats. And I'm glad you sort of put him on
the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary,
I don't think it's a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and
do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead
we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys
and I'm sure that's part of what is calculating on all this.
Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's
the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four
times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for
Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's
been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever
meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching
out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a
chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains
why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before
or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only
told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman (United Nations Under-Secretary-General
for Political Affairs) this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you
that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday
or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue
it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
The Goal
The goal in Ukraine is clear, install a western puppet government and base US/NATO military infrastructure
in the country. Yanukovich attempted to achieve closer ties with Russia and almost immediately the
paid western backed protestors appeared on Maidan Square and instantly the West was calling for early
elections. Why didn't they call for early elections in the US when several thousand protestors appeared
in Washington and in front of the White House last November? Again hypocrisy.
The goal was removing the leader, as has been the goal in Syria, in Venezuela, in Libya, in Iraq,
and anywhere else the government or the leader has maintained a modicum of independence from the
US or attempted to have ties with Russia. Even in Russia attempts were made at removing President
Putin which failed.
The leader is now gone but the armed neo-nazi thugs have not disappeared from Maidan, they demand
spots in the government and at the head of the security services and they demand that their policies
are passed into law as we saw with the immediate outlawing of the Russian language. This is not something
wanted by the Ukrainian people, over 50% of whom speak Russian as their native language.
They are there for another reason, the final goal has not yet been met, and that is the integration
of Ukraine into NATO, whether the people of Ukraine want it or not. The Maidan will not be cleared
until all goals and infrastructure are in place to expel Russia and end any chance of Ukraine being
in the sphere of influence of Russia. There must also be mechanisms installed to make sure that NATO
is allowed to enter the sovereign territory of Ukraine and station their war machine in Ukraine.
The West will not have another chance at Ukraine so the bandera nazis will stay and occupy Kiev until
the end
The NATO war machine and the neo-conservatives architects are still living in a Cold War fantasy
and cannot see the world in any other way. They are blind to the realities of the modern world and
are attempting and in fact are changing the world to fit their fantasy. This anti-Russian psychosis
is what NATO was founded on and what it continues to exist for to this very day.
Any Means to an End
Thepeople of Ukraine mean nothing to the far right forces that have toppled the government. They
mean even less to the western architects and pay masters of the coup in Ukraine. Ukraine has a long
history of problems with extremist nazi groups and they have been organizing and training, by some
estimates for 10 years, to bring them to level of readiness that we saw on Maidan. These are lunatics
that are calling for the killing of Jews and Russians and for anyone else who does not share their
views.
These are groups who are armed and trained and openly murder police and are engaged in a campaign
of terror against the people and the government of Ukraine. They are using violence and threats and
terrorist tactics to force officials to resign and to take over the houses and building of government.
They have succeeded in Kiev and now they are pretending to be a legitimate power.
It is these neo-nazi groups that Victoria Nuland and Klitschko are supporting because they think
they will help them to obtain and maintain power, but both of them are wrong. These groups hate Jews
and as they are both Jewish (Nuland and Klitschko) it is highly unlikely that the likes of Dmitry
Yarosh and his minions will support the opposition for long. Once the Right Sector, controls the
security and the police structures they will be able to do whatever they want in Ukraine. And that
includes mass arrests of anyone who opposes them, namely Russians and Jews.
In their blind ambition to bring Ukraine into NATO and expel Russia, the US has supported the
worst ultra-nationalist nazi elements in Ukraine and the death and destruction ahead are nothing
compared to what we have already seen them do.
The US supported the opposition led by Klitschko and supported those who were gathered to bring
death and destruction to Ukraine, and US ignorance of the forces in the countries where they unleash
mayhem and what they will do continues to call into question the sanity of those who are behind these
revolutions.
What is happening in Ukraine is the same thing that happened in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
In those country there were murderous Islamists and terrorists that were supported, funded and armed.
They were the worst elements of those countries.
In Ukraine it is murderous nationalist terrorists and neo-nazis, but it does not matter, as long
as the government is overthrown. If the country is destroyed that is even better because then the
country will be easier to control. And again the people mean nothing. Democracy means nothing. If
Democracy meant something the Ukrainian people would have been offered a referendum to change their
president and constitution, not seeing people come into power backed by thugs who murder police in
front of cameras.
US Threats Against Peace
Since the very start of the troubles in Ukraine the United States has been issuing threats to
all parties who might put an end to the mayhem. Yanhukovich was immediately warned not to interfere.
He was warned not to crack down and he heeded these warnings. He did nothing until it was too late.
He was caught in the classic catch 22. If he did something he would be demonized and if he did not
he would be seen as weak. He was seen as weak and this only compounded his problems. The US has also
made thinly veiled threats to Russia not to interfere: let the killers kill, that is the plan.
The End of the Ukraine
There is now no government in Ukraine US/NATO/CIA have made sure that the country is completely
destroyed. It does not matter to them if the country spirals into anarchy or is divided into East
and West. Which is something that is being suggested as the only solution. What is important is that
it is pliable and NATO is allowed in.
As for the masses, the Russian population of Ukraine is almost 50% and getting rid of them would
require genocide, so dividing the country into a Russian part and a Ukrainian part is the only possible
solution and one that they nationalists are bringing about.
Outlawing the Russian language, threatening Jews and Russians with death and threatening the Orthodox
Church leave only one option and actually give the Russian/Jewish/Orthodox population a legal basis
for that option, which is to secede from Ukraine and take half of the country with them which is
what will probably happen. Can these right wing fascist groups that have been training for decades
be brought under control? Not likely, and such a solution will not be supported.
Why is the West going to support these groups? Because they are anti-Russian and their rabid Russo-phobia
has driven them mad.
A coup d'état has occurred in Ukraine and all of the signs and even the actors behind it were
known to the world before it happened. Before the democratically elected president went into hiding
and the parliament was taken over by western puppets and neo-nazi [sic] thugs we all knew what the
western geopolitical architects were planning on their chessboard.
Warnings were repeatedly issued and broadcast and calls were made, before the situation spiraled
out of control, for those in power to maintain order and prevent what has happened in Ukraine. These
warning came from across the spectrum, from analysts to high level government officials and leaders,
yet those in power in Ukraine were either negligent in preventing the coup or were in fact totally
impotent to stop it. In either case the failure by President Yanukovich to keep order and protect
the Ukrainian people (all of the Ukrainian people) from the horror that has been unleashed on Ukraine
(a horror we are only seeing the beginning of) is a betrayal to his people and a failure on his part
in fulfilling his duties, no matter how Machiavellian the plots and the actors were, who successfully
overthrew the government and sent him into hiding.
Proof of Treason by the Opposition
It is not, and has not been for some time, a secret that the West was behind the previous color
revolution in Ukraine and it was not a secret that the same infrastructure was being used by the
US/NATO/CIA to destabilize Ukraine after Ukraine made a brave and independent sovereign decision
to say no to a European Union deal which in fact offered it nothing and say yes to the Russian led
Customs Union which offered it $100 billion over 7 years.
Yes dear reader in reality the EU deal offered nothing for Ukraine other than some tenuous abstract
idea spread by false propaganda that somehow life would be better for Ukrainians if they became the
stepchildren of the EU. What EU integration would have done, and what the goal is and what it will
do, is to cement plans for including Ukraine in NATO and placing NATO military infrastructure in
Ukraine. This is the crowning jewel of US/NATO expansion plans to move right up to Russian borders.
These plans are being aided and abetted by the so-called Ukrainian opposition, who in reality
have no interest in supporting the Ukrainian people and have now aided foreign forces in destroying
and taking over their own country. Not only have they now sold out their country to foreign forces
but they have allowed the worst elements of their population to achieve and unprecedented power grab
as the neo-nazi forces of Dmitry Yarosh have now through the use of terror, violence and murder taken
control of Kiev and are spreading their wave of terror and hate to other parts of Ukraine taking
region after region.
Not only does the now infamous conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt that was released on the internet show firsthand
the level of US meddling in Ukraine and even the collusion of the United Nations in bringing about
an illegal change of government in Ukraine, but e-mails released by the hacktivist group Anonymous
Ukraine and other evidence prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the leading opposition figures are
clearly just puppets for western forces.
The e-mails that were released by Anonymous Ukraine have been suppressed by the West and were
commented on by Anonymous Ukraine in an interview for the Voice of Russia. The fact that they are
genuine is backed up by the silence from all of the parties involved and the attempts by western
special services to have them permanently removed from the Internet.
The e-mails released by Anonymous between Laurynas Jonavicius an Advisor to the President of Lithuania,
a country that has been active in Nazi historical revisionism, and Vitaly Klitschko were accidentally
uncovered by Anonymous when they hacked the e-mails of the Lithuanian Administration and show how
Klitschko is controlled by the West through a Lithuanian intermediary.
The text of the first e-mail, rewritten verbatim below is apparently one of the first as he addresses
the advisor as "Mr. Jonavicius". In the e-mail Klitschko refers to plans for his future inferring
that he agrees to their terms. He also mentions the money him and his circle are to be paid, a visit
to the Lithuanian Embassy and his bank account in Germany where the said monies are to be transferred.
Klitschko's e-mail source IP information shows that his e-mails emanate from his own domain "k-mg.com"
which expires August 26th, 2014. His domain is registered to Klitschko Management Group GmbH, located
at Grosse Elbstr. Street 275 in Hamburg, Germany. Klitschko is known to have travelled to Germany
several times before the upheavals.
E-Mail #1
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:18:41 +0100 (CET)
Dear Mr. Jonavicius,
I am writing to thank you for your assistance. The meeting with Mrs. Grauziniene was very productive.
We exchanged views on current events and discussed our plans for the future. Mrs. Grauziniene made
some interesting proposals concerning my future. I need to give it some thought but in general I
am willing to accept your terms.
Special thanks to all Lithuanian friends for financial assistance. Today my assistant visited
your embassy where he met the Counselor. They discussed financial issues and plans for future cooperation.
My assistant also provided Valentina with the details of my bank account in Germany.
I look forward to a successful working relationship in the future.
Regards,
Vitali
The next e-mail is dated December 7th which is exactly 3 days before Victoria Nuland appeared
on Maidan Square to hand out doughnuts to protestors. Klitschko has obviously had a lot of phone
or other contact with the Lithuanian advisor at this point and refers to a phone conversation and
addresses him as simply Laurynas. He discusses officials from other countries visiting Maidan for
moral support, which shows that the entire charade has nothing to do with the Ukrainian people nor
with Ukraine. In the e-mail he even mentions Nuland directly and someone from the US Congress. Hence
John McCain showed up. This may not be illegal at this point but in light of the fact that they were
involved in the organizing of a coup and the overthrowing of a legitimate democratically elected
government, it is highly illegal.
Klitschko also requests information on President Yanukovich, in other words for intelligence and
for the President of Ukraine to be spied on by a foreign power. An egregious treasonous act if there
ever was one.
E-Mail #2
Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:48:32 +0100 (CET)
Laurynas,
Following up upon our telephone conversation I think it would be useful to schedule a visit of
some high-ranking officials from the EU. Maidan is in need of constant moral support. It would be
appropriate to invite someone from Berlin. I have some top-ranking friends there but for some reason
they hesitate.
Our American friends promised to pay a visit in the coming days, we may even see Nuland or someone
from the Congress.
Another concern I want to raise is that Yanukovych keeps a low profile. It looks very suspicious.
What's he up to? We would really appreciate some more information on this issue.
Sincerely yours,
Vitali
In the third e-mail Klitschko again says he is grateful for support (again we must underline they
are working on overthrowing a government) and promises to do a good job for his new masters. These
promises should be made to the Ukrainian people not a foreign power. He also shows knowledge and
intention to destabilize Ukraine and thanks the foreign power for intelligence it has provided on
his own president.
E-Mail #3
December 14, 2013
Laurynas,
I am very grateful to the President and all Lithuanian friends for such strong support. I will
do everything possible to meet the expectations of my European partners.
Your colleague has arrived and started working with my team. He's a real pro and I think his services
may be required even after the country is destabilized.
I've also met your people from the Embassy. The information about Yanukovych's plans they handed
me is very important for our common cause. I would like to receive this kind of information on a
permanent basis.
Sincerely yours,
Vitali
In the final and fourth e-mail Klitschko seems impatient to start real violence and calls for
a "radical escalation". He also asks for more money for the "services of supporters" removing all
possible doubt about the nature of the "opposition" which are nothing but paid thugs and killers.
E-Mail #4
Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:43:35 +0200
Laurynas,
I think we've paved the way for more radical escalation of the situation. Isn't it time to proceed
with more decisive actions?
I also want you to consider the possibility of increasing funding to pay for the services of our
supporters.
Sincerely,
Vitali
Proof of US Meddling
A conversation released on the Internet on about February 6th (timed for the Olympics) between
US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt is
even more damning. It is important to underline that under international law planning and carrying
out the overthrow of the government of a foreign country is completely illegal. This is especially
odious when you consider that Ukraine had a democratically elected government and was not ruled by
some tyrannical dictator or monarch but a democratically elected president.
Pyatt believes that everything is going according to plan and discussed matter of factly plans
to install the opposition in Ukraine in government posts and where they would be most effective.
He also mentions an apparent conversation between Nuland and Arseniy Yatseniuk in which she apparently
put him in his place and he submitted to their plans. The hint is to a threat of some sort, or pressure
of some kind which Pyatt says needs to be applied to Klitschko.
During the conversation they also mention Oleh Tyahnybok another opposition leader apparently
under their control and perhaps most damning is United Nations collusion, which goes against the
United Natios Charter and all international laws and conventions regarding the respect for sovereignty
and the integrity of nations and the right of the people for self-determination.
The arrogance of Nuland and Pyatt to use pet names with their puppets, typical of American government
officials but nonetheless shocking: Klitschko is Klitsch and Arseniy Yatseniuk is Yats. The admission
that Ban Ki Moon is part of the plot is something that should be causing an outcry worldwide but
no one seems to have noticed.
Pyatt: I think we're in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here.
Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the
troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this
stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone
call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats. And I'm glad you sort of put him on
the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary,
I don't think it's a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and
do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead
we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys
and I'm sure that's part of what is calculating on all this.
Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's
the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four
times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for
Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's
been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever
meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching
out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a
chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains
why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before
or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only
told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman (United Nations Under-Secretary-General
for Political Affairs) this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you
that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday
or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue
it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
The Goal
The goal in Ukraine is clear, install a western puppet government and base US/NATO military infrastructure
in the country. Yanukovich attempted to achieve closer ties with Russia and almost immediately the
paid western backed protestors appeared on Maidan Square and instantly the West was calling for early
elections. Why didn't they call for early elections in the US when several thousand protestors appeared
in Washington and in front of the White House last November? Again hypocrisy.
The goal was removing the leader, as has been the goal in Syria, in Venezuela, in Libya, in Iraq,
and anywhere else the government or the leader has maintained a modicum of independence from the
US or attempted to have ties with Russia. Even in Russia attempts were made at removing President
Putin which failed.
The leader is now gone but the armed neo-nazi thugs have not disappeared from Maidan, they demand
spots in the government and at the head of the security services and they demand that their policies
are passed into law as we saw with the immediate outlawing of the Russian language. This is not something
wanted by the Ukrainian people, over 50% of whom speak Russian as their native language.
They are there for another reason, the final goal has not yet been met, and that is the integration
of Ukraine into NATO, whether the people of Ukraine want it or not. The Maidan will not be cleared
until all goals and infrastructure are in place to expel Russia and end any chance of Ukraine being
in the sphere of influence of Russia. There must also be mechanisms installed to make sure that NATO
is allowed to enter the sovereign territory of Ukraine and station their war machine in Ukraine.
The West will not have another chance at Ukraine so the bandera nazis will stay and occupy Kiev until
the end
The NATO war machine and the neo-conservatives architects are still living in a Cold War fantasy
and cannot see the world in any other way. They are blind to the realities of the modern world and
are attempting and in fact are changing the world to fit their fantasy. This anti-Russian psychosis
is what NATO was founded on and what it continues to exist for to this very day.
Any Means to an End
Thepeople of Ukraine mean nothing to the far right forces that have toppled the government. They
mean even less to the western architects and pay masters of the coup in Ukraine. Ukraine has a long
history of problems with extremist nazi groups and they have been organizing and training, by some
estimates for 10 years, to bring them to level of readiness that we saw on Maidan. These are lunatics
that are calling for the killing of Jews and Russians and for anyone else who does not share their
views.
These are groups who are armed and trained and openly murder police and are engaged in a campaign
of terror against the people and the government of Ukraine. They are using violence and threats and
terrorist tactics to force officials to resign and to take over the houses and building of government.
They have succeeded in Kiev and now they are pretending to be a legitimate power.
It is these neo-nazi groups that Victoria Nuland and Klitschko are supporting because they think
they will help them to obtain and maintain power, but both of them are wrong. These groups hate Jews
and as they are both Jewish (Nuland and Klitschko) it is highly unlikely that the likes of Dmitry
Yarosh and his minions will support the opposition for long. Once the Right Sector, controls the
security and the police structures they will be able to do whatever they want in Ukraine. And that
includes mass arrests of anyone who opposes them, namely Russians and Jews.
In their blind ambition to bring Ukraine into NATO and expel Russia, the US has supported the
worst ultra-nationalist nazi elements in Ukraine and the death and destruction ahead are nothing
compared to what we have already seen them do.
The US supported the opposition led by Klitschko and supported those who were gathered to bring
death and destruction to Ukraine, and US ignorance of the forces in the countries where they unleash
mayhem and what they will do continues to call into question the sanity of those who are behind these
revolutions.
What is happening in Ukraine is the same thing that happened in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
In those country there were murderous Islamists and terrorists that were supported, funded and armed.
They were the worst elements of those countries.
In Ukraine it is murderous nationalist terrorists and neo-nazis, but it does not matter, as long
as the government is overthrown. If the country is destroyed that is even better because then the
country will be easier to control. And again the people mean nothing. Democracy means nothing. If
Democracy meant something the Ukrainian people would have been offered a referendum to change their
president and constitution, not seeing people come into power backed by thugs who murder police in
front of cameras.
US Threats Against Peace
Since the very start of the troubles in Ukraine the United States has been issuing threats to
all parties who might put an end to the mayhem. Yanhukovich was immediately warned not to interfere.
He was warned not to crack down and he heeded these warnings. He did nothing until it was too late.
He was caught in the classic catch 22. If he did something he would be demonized and if he did not
he would be seen as weak. He was seen as weak and this only compounded his problems. The US has also
made thinly veiled threats to Russia not to interfere: let the killers kill, that is the plan.
The End of the Ukraine
There is now no government in Ukraine US/NATO/CIA have made sure that the country is completely
destroyed. It does not matter to them if the country spirals into anarchy or is divided into East
and West. Which is something that is being suggested as the only solution. What is important is that
it is pliable and NATO is allowed in.
As for the masses, the Russian population of Ukraine is almost 50% and getting rid of them would
require genocide, so dividing the country into a Russian part and a Ukrainian part is the only possible
solution and one that they nationalists are bringing about.
Outlawing the Russian language, threatening Jews and Russians with death and threatening the Orthodox
Church leave only one option and actually give the Russian/Jewish/Orthodox population a legal basis
for that option, which is to secede from Ukraine and take half of the country with them which is
what will probably happen. Can these right wing fascist groups that have been training for decades
be brought under control? Not likely, and such a solution will not be supported.
Why is the West going to support these groups? Because they are anti-Russian and their rabid Russo-phobia
has driven them mad.
Many leading foreign policy advisers to Putin say that Ukraine is merely an excuse for US-led
sanctions, and that Washington is bent on 'regime change' in Russia.
One school,
tactically embraced by President Vladimir Putin himself yesterday, is that conciliatory rhetoric,
signals of non-aggression toward
Ukraine, and massaging
the divergent economic interests between European countries and the US, may succeed in blunting further
sanctions, if not rolling back the ones already imposed.
But another point of view, held by many leading foreign policy advisers, is far more pessimistic,
and even fatalistic. This perspective argues that Russia's schism with the US will keep on widening
no matter what happens in Ukraine.
The US, they say, is pursuing a "containment 2.0" strategy that, like the successful
US cold war policy
that toppled the former Soviet Union, is aimed at weakening and ultimately defeating Russia as a
geopolitical foe.
'The ultimate goal is regime change'
Several waves of sanctions have hit banks and individuals considered close to President Putin
or heavily involved in Russia's Ukraine policy-making. Last week the US imposed
the toughest measures yet, curbing the access of leading Russian banks and oil companies to Western
capital markets. The European Union followed up with somewhat milder sanctions, which they have
threatened to bolster again in the wake of the MH17 disaster.
But while Moscow's March
annexation of Crimea may have been the trigger that unleashed
successive waves of sanctions from the US and
Europe, the "containment
2.0" theory's adherents say that it was merely the spark that set off a conflict that had been brewing
for a long time.
"It's an illusion to believe that there are some specific steps we could take in connection with
Ukraine to mollify the US, and they would lift this blockade and return to normal," says Sergei Markov,
a Kremlin-connected political analyst. "No, just watch, they will keep moving the goal posts."
The real reasons that
US-Russia acrimony has been inexorably building, they say, is that Russia is at the leading edge
of emerging countries that are challenging the US-run global financial and political order.
The US plan, Mr. Markov says, "is to continue tightening the screws over the long term, aiming
to increase discontent among Russia's middle class, and to turn people against Putin. The ultimate
goal is regime change, and we would be fools not to see that."
Although the Kremlin has claimed that sanctions against Russia will "boomerang"
against Western economic interests, few analysts believe Russia can win against the overwhelming
financial and economic firepower of the US and its allies in any extended showdown. As such, some
argue that Russia has no choice but to accept a measure of isolation as its lot.
Embracing isolation
But there are ways Russia can turn the situation to its advantage, they say.
First, they argue, the Kremlin could adopt policies that might compensate for the loss of foreign
investment by encouraging domestic capital to mobilize.
Indeed, they say, something just like that appears to have happened by accident. After the first
wave of US sanctions caused an exodus of foreign investors in March, a remarkable
Russian stock market rebound occurred in the weeks after, as Russians came rushing in to snap
up the bargains.
Similarly, they argue, the Russian government can use its nearly half-a-trillion dollars in foreign
currency reserves to bolster the ruble and back investments in domestic industries. That could make
up for the coming loss of virtually
all Ukrainian imports and redirect Russia's economy from raw materials exports to modern manufacturing
and services.
"There is a lot of domestic capital and energy that could be unlocked, but our elites need to
embrace reforms," says Sergei Karaganov, honorary chair of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policies,
a leading Moscow think tank. "The sanctions so far imposed are doing very little harm, but our economy
was stagnating even before," due to over reliance on raw materials exports and an unwelcoming environment
for small and medium-sized businesses in Russia.
"The sanctions can be an impetus, a wake-up call," he says, "but only if we make the right policy
choices."
A wall of BRICS?
The other major thing Russia can do, say those who see a US campaign against it, is grow its ties
with like-thinking countries who are also at odds with the US-dominated world order.
Unlike the former Soviet Union, whose string of client states were a crippling economic drain,
Russia's
potential allies are some of the world's fastest-growing economies. Two months ago Putin
closed a huge gas deal with China, signalling that Moscow has alternatives if its main customer,
the EU, decides to stop buying Russian energy. Last week, at a summit of the BRICS [Brazil, Russia,
India, China, South Africa] countries, the emerging five-nation group
resoundingly condemned US-led sanctions against Russia. They also
established a development bank which could eventually rival US-dominated institutions such as
the World Bank.
The evolution of the BRICS over the past 14 years from an idea
suggested by a Goldman Sachs analyst to an actual bloc of countries that holds summits, coordinates
foreign policies, and designs its own supra-national institutions obviously has deeply-rooted causes.
But Russian experts say the current sanctions campaign against Russia by the US is probably doing
more than anything else to spur the determination of BRICS states to develop their own parallel institutions
– and, incidentally, give refuge to Russia.
"A couple of years ago the idea of a BRICS development bank seemed completely fanciful," says
Georgi Toloraya, director of the Russian National Committee for BRICS Research, a semi-official think
tank in Moscow. "But now we have this confrontation between Russia and the West. Tensions are growing
between China and the US in the political-military sphere. This is changing minds rapidly. Now the
idea of creating a separate institution doesn't seem so exotic at all."
The United States are working hard to identify the perpetrators of the attack against the plane
of the Malaysian Airlines and were very quick to point the finger at pro-Russian rebels.
Atlantico: The United States put a lot of efforts for blaming those who they consider to be
the perpetrators of the attack against the plane of the Malaysian Airlines and were very quick to
point the finger at pro-Russian. What interest do they have to point finger at Russia?
Jean-Bernard Pinatel: Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, policy makers
and American politicians perceived a major threat: that a reconciliation and an alliance between
Europe and Russia would challenge the supremacy of the United States, which is allowing them with
impunity to interfere in the internal affairs of any country, or invade them, and interpret international
law in their private interests as most recently demonstrated the case of the BNP bank.
To understand this undeniable reality requires that we consider a historical context of those
events.
In 1997, former National Security Adviser of the United States, Zbigniew Brzezinski, published
under the title "The Grand Chessboard" a book adopting the two concepts, coined by Mackinder, Eurasia
and "Heartland." He repeated his account his famous maxim: "who governs the Eastern Europe dominates
the Heartland; who governs the Heartland dominates Eurasia; which governs the Eurasia dominates the
World World. "
He makes the following conclusion: "For America, the chief geopolitical issue is Eurasia." In
another publication (1), he make this though more explicit: "If Ukraine fell, he wrote, it would
greatly reduce the geopolitical options for Russia. Even without the Baltic states and Poland, Russia,
which would retain control of Ukraine could always aspire with confidence to the direction of a Eurasian
empire. But without Ukraine and its 52 million Slav brothers and sisters, any attempt to Moscow to
rebuild the Eurasian empire threatens to lead Russia in lengthy disputes with non-Slavic national
and difference religious groups. ".
Between 2002 and 2004, to implement this strategy, the United States has spent hundreds of millions
of dollars to help the pro-Western Ukrainian opposition to gain power. Millions of dollars also cooperation
came from private institutes such as the Soros Foundation and European governments. This money does
not go directly to political parties. He passed by including foundations and non-governmental organizations
who advised the opposition, allowing it to be equipped with the technical resources and the latest
advertising tools. An American cable from January 5, 2010, published on the WikiLeaks website (ref.
10WARSAW7) shows the involvement of Poland in color revolutions of former Eastern European countries.
The role of NGOs is particularly exposed (2). The Wikileaks cables demonstrate continuous efforts
and the continued commitment of the United States to extend their sphere of influence in Eastern
Europe, and first of all in Ukraine.
Ukraine is undergoing a civil war. Yet nobody in the West denounced the ardor with which the
Ukrainian government is trying to subdue the separatists. What is the real interest of Americans
to ignore this reality and support the Ukrainian government? What did they gain?
The Ukrainian state is a construction of Stalin and exists independently only since 1991, after
the breakup of the Soviet bloc. He previously existed between 1917 and 1921 between the fall of Tsarism
in 1917 and the victory of the Bolsheviks that dismembered this new state into 4 parts. Ex-Russian
part of Ukraine, with Kiev as its capital, the birthplace of civilization and Russian culture was
integrated with the USSR while the former Austrian part, with Lviv's as the local capital was absorbed
by the Poland.
Little Ukraine "Transcarpathia" voted for unification with Czechoslovakia and in Bukovina Ukrainian
minority resigned himself to unification with Romania.
But Ukraine does not mean a nation. Ukrainians have no common history. Quite the contrary. During
the second world war, when in the summer of 1941, Ukraine was invaded by the armies of the Reich,
the Germans were received as liberators by the Western part of Ukraine. In contrast in the Easten
Ukraine, they met strong resistance from the local population which continued until 1944
In retaliation, the Germans track down supporters and burned hundreds of villages. In April 1943,
an SS division Galicia is made from Ukrainian volunteers whose descendants formed the storm troops
of the EuroMaidan. This SS division was also used by the Germans in Slovakia to suppress the Slovak
national movement. But Ukrainian and American pro-Western did everything at the end of the war, to
throw a veil over the atrocities committed by this division and retain only the anti-Soviet struggle.
However, historians estimate more than 220,000 Ukrainians enlisted alongside the German forces during
the Second World War to fight the Soviet regime.
This history helps explain why civil war is possible and why the part of Ukrainian forces consisting
of troops from the West can use tanks and planes against separatists from the East.
Ukrainian President with the complicity of silence of the majority of politicians and Western
media launched a war against part of the population of the country with the same cruelty that is
attributed to Syrian dictator. In addition, the Ukrainian armed forces are advised by American special
forces and mercenaries.
The USA and Obama was provoke Russia into invasion of Ukraine in order to revive the cold war
between the West and the East. Putin has understood the trap "Nobel Peace Winner" Obama created for
him. First he advised the Ukrainian separatists not to hold the referendum; then he did not recognize
its result and showed a moderation which surprised all independent observers while tanks and planes
indiscriminately attack a Russian-speaking population.
How Ukraine can prevent the creation of a Europe-Russia alliance? Why the United States so
actively try to prevent it?
The Americans continued to put pressure on Europe in order to integrate Ukraine and Georgia into
NATO, which would constitute an unacceptable provocation to Russia.
Fortunately, European leaders have not bent to the will of Washington, which in this case acts
solely in its own interests. Similarly, if Putin gave in to pressure from ultra-nationalist and openly
intervened in Ukraine, the United States would achieved their strategic goal and the Cold War in
Europe would be restarted damaging our fundamental interests.
Why Europe acts as vassal of the USA? Does it really interested to follow the American strategy?
Many European leaders got their education in the United States. They are members of American "Think-Tanks"
or "transatlantic foundations" such as the "American Foundation" which largely finance their benefits
and travel. The Atlanticism is certainly manufactured not only by the awareness that we share the
same democratic values with the American people but also by the multitude of personal interests
of many European leaders whose standard of living depends on their submission to the will of the
USA.
Nevertheless, more and more Europeans are beginning to tell the difference between the American
state which is, in fact, run by lobbies, the most important of which is the military-industrial lobby
and the American nation whose values and economic and cultural dynamism possess an undeniable attractiveness
and remains for young European wonderful school.
Angela Merkel and the Germans are at the forefront of this awareness because they have not accepted
the permanent industrial espionage which the NSA use against this country. Furthermore, the revelation
of the laptop plays Angela Merkel strongly shocked the country. Spiegel of November 3, 2013 claiming
that now even political asylum for Edward Snowden in on the agenda. In the article "Asil Für Snowden"
Europe's biggest daily published extensive excerpts of his revelations.
On 10 July 2014, the German government announced the expulsion of the head of the American secret
services in Germany, as part of a spy case against German officials who provided intelligence information
to Washington, a move unprecedented among allies within NATO. "The representative of the United States
Intelligence Agency at the Embassy of the United States of America was asked to leave Germany," said
the government spokesman Steffen Seibert said in a statement. The expulsion comes "in response to
a lack of cooperation that was long in efforts to clarify" the activity of American intelligence
agents in Germany, told a German MEP, Clemens Binninger, President of the Parliamentary Oversight
Committee on intelligence, which met in Berlin on Thursday.
In France, the former Prime Minister Michel Rocard, a sociologist Edgar Morin, former ministers
Luc Ferry and Jack Lang and former European MP Daniel Cohn-Bendit, launched a petition calling on
President Francois Hollande, his Prime Minister Manuel Valse and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius
"promptly grant Edward Snowden political asylum.
Unfortunately for France and Europe, Francois Hollande, as part of the French intelligentsia,
still admires Barack Obama, and Laurent Fabius for a long time received funds from U.S. foundations.
Neither of them realize that their policies pose a threat to the strategic interests of France and
Europe.
Jean-Bernard Pinatel, General, recognized expert on economic and geopolitical matters.
The Verkhovna Rada Deputy from the Party of regions Mykola Levchenko specifically for Pravda.Ru commented
resignation of Arseniy 'Yatsenuyk.
"After the Maidan coup d'état the group of extremists which
came to power people were totally unprepared for it. They are members of opposition by nature. They
are good only for destruction and unable to anything constructive. After then got power, they remained
members of opposition, they fight in Parliament, criticized everybody and everything, no matter what
you did or not did.
They are organically unable to compromise, unable to negotiate which is necessary to do so, for
anybody in power. This all led to such full-scale combat operations on South East. Today, they still
cannot learn to work, to be responsible for the entire country.
In addition, they proved to be 100% pure Jacobins. After the revolution with their coming to power
they rely on terror and started repression and persecution of dissidents. That was during the French
bourgeois revolution. Unfortunately, all this happened again here in aggravated form.
As for the resignation of Yatsenyuk I can state that clearly he was not ready for the position
he got. Shoes proved to be too big for him. "
Vicky Nuland will be SO disappointed: who is she going to parachute in now to take the reins
of U.S.-diplomacy-once-removed? Make a note of that, Geoffrey – when we pick the Prime Minister
of a country we're trying to bring under our thumb, always pick a backup, too.
I pick Parubiy. Ukraine is the only place crazy enough to elevate a psychopath like him to
Prime Minister.
Yatseniuk quits as he berates parliament for failing to pass law to increase army financing
and regulate country's energy situation
Arseny Yatseniuk's impassioned speech underlined the frustration of many in Ukraine that change is
taking too long. Photograph: Andrew Kravchenko/Government press service/EPA.
Ukraine's prime minister
has resigned after the governing coalition collapsed, in a sign that five months after the Maidan
protests led to a change of government, the country's political system is still beset by discord.
The government is struggling to defeat an insurgency by pro-Russian separatists in the east of
the country, where a Malaysia Airlines jet was downed last Thursday.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, one of the leaders of the Maidan protests, was seen by many Ukrainians as a
safe pair of hands, with his mild manner and intellectual demeanour. But he grew angry during Ukraine's
parliamentary session as it failed to pass legislation to increase army financing and regulate the
country's energy situation.
"History will not forgive us," he told parliament. "Our government now has no answer to the questions
– how are we to pay wages, how are we tomorrow morning going to send fuel for armoured vehicles,
how will we pay those families who have lost soldiers, to look after the army?"
The president, Petro Poroshenko, welcomed the move, which will lead to new elections, saying:
"Society wants a full reset of state authorities."
Although Ukrainians elected Poroshenko in May, there have yet to be new parliamentary elections
since the former president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled. Yatsenyuk is likely to stay on in a caretaker
role before a new poll.
Rumours are that Poroshenko wants to end the insurgency in the east before 24 August – Ukrainian
independence day. The army has made significant gains in driving the rebels out of a number
of towns, including the former stronghold of Slavyansk, but the separatists still control Donetsk,
a city of 1 million, and much of the region around it.
Many leading foreign policy advisers to Putin say that Ukraine is merely an excuse for US-led
sanctions, and that Washington is bent on 'regime change' in Russia.
The US, they say, is pursuing a "containment 2.0" strategy that, like the successful
US cold war policy
that toppled the former Soviet Union, is aimed at weakening and ultimately defeating Russia as a geopolitical
foe.
July 23, 2014 | csmonitor.com
Many leading foreign policy advisers to Putin say that Ukraine is merely an excuse for US-led
sanctions, and that Washington is bent on 'regime change' in Russia.
One school,
tactically embraced by President Vladimir Putin himself yesterday, is that conciliatory rhetoric,
signals of non-aggression toward
Ukraine, and massaging
the divergent economic interests between European countries and the US, may succeed in blunting further
sanctions, if not rolling back the ones already imposed.
But another point of view, held by many leading foreign policy advisers, is far more pessimistic,
and even fatalistic. This perspective argues that Russia's schism with the US will keep on widening
no matter what happens in Ukraine.
The US, they say, is pursuing a "containment 2.0" strategy that, like the successful
US cold war policy
that toppled the former Soviet Union, is aimed at weakening and ultimately defeating Russia as a
geopolitical foe.
'The ultimate goal is regime change'
Several waves of sanctions have hit banks and individuals considered close to President Putin
or heavily involved in Russia's Ukraine policy-making. Last week the US imposed
the toughest measures yet, curbing the access of leading Russian banks and oil companies to Western
capital markets. The European Union followed up with somewhat milder sanctions, which they have
threatened to bolster again in the wake of the MH17 disaster.
But while Moscow's March
annexation of Crimea may have been the trigger that unleashed
successive waves of sanctions from the US and
Europe, the "containment
2.0" theory's adherents say that it was merely the spark that set off a conflict that had been brewing
for a long time.
"It's an illusion to believe that there are some specific steps we could take in connection with
Ukraine to mollify the US, and they would lift this blockade and return to normal," says Sergei Markov,
a Kremlin-connected political analyst. "No, just watch, they will keep moving the goal posts."
The real reasons that
US-Russia acrimony has been inexorably building, they say, is that Russia is at the leading edge
of emerging countries that are challenging the US-run global financial and political order.
The US plan, Mr. Markov says, "is to continue tightening the screws over the long term, aiming
to increase discontent among Russia's middle class, and to turn people against Putin. The ultimate
goal is regime change, and we would be fools not to see that."
Although the Kremlin has claimed that sanctions against Russia will "boomerang"
against Western economic interests, few analysts believe Russia can win against the overwhelming
financial and economic firepower of the US and its allies in any extended showdown. As such, some
argue that Russia has no choice but to accept a measure of isolation as its lot.
Embracing isolation
But there are ways Russia can turn the situation to its advantage, they say. First, they argue,
the Kremlin could adopt policies that might compensate for the loss of foreign investment by encouraging
domestic capital to mobilize.
Indeed, they say, something just like that appears to have happened by accident. After the first
wave of US sanctions caused an exodus of foreign investors in March, a remarkable
Russian stock market rebound occurred in the weeks after, as Russians came rushing in to snap
up the bargains.
Similarly, they argue, the Russian government can use its nearly half-a-trillion dollars in foreign
currency reserves to bolster the ruble and back investments in domestic industries. That could make
up for the coming loss of virtually
all Ukrainian imports and redirect Russia's economy from raw materials exports to modern manufacturing
and services.
"There is a lot of domestic capital and energy that could be unlocked, but our elites need to
embrace reforms," says Sergei Karaganov, honorary chair of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policies,
a leading Moscow think tank. "The sanctions so far imposed are doing very little harm, but our economy
was stagnating even before," due to over reliance on raw materials exports and an unwelcoming environment
for small and medium-sized businesses in Russia.
"The sanctions can be an impetus, a wake-up call," he says, "but only if we make the right policy
choices."
A wall of BRICS?
The other major thing Russia can do, say those who see a US campaign against it, is grow its ties
with like-thinking countries who are also at odds with the US-dominated world order.
Unlike the former Soviet Union, whose string of client states were a crippling economic drain,
Russia's
potential allies are some of the world's fastest-growing economies. Two months ago Putin
closed a huge gas deal with China, signalling that Moscow has alternatives if its main customer,
the EU, decides to stop buying Russian energy. Last week, at a summit of the BRICS [Brazil, Russia,
India, China, South Africa] countries, the emerging five-nation group
resoundingly condemned US-led sanctions against Russia. They also
established a development bank which could eventually rival US-dominated institutions such as
the World Bank.
The evolution of the BRICS over the past 14 years from an idea
suggested by a Goldman Sachs analyst to an actual bloc of countries that holds summits, coordinates
foreign policies, and designs its own supra-national institutions obviously has deeply-rooted causes.
But Russian experts say the current sanctions campaign against Russia by the US is probably doing
more than anything else to spur the determination of BRICS states to develop their own parallel institutions
– and, incidentally, give refuge to Russia.
"A couple of years ago the idea of a BRICS development bank seemed completely fanciful," says
Georgi Toloraya, director of the Russian National Committee for BRICS Research, a semi-official think
tank in Moscow. "But now we have this confrontation between Russia and the West. Tensions are growing
between China and the US in the political-military sphere. This is changing minds rapidly. Now the
idea of creating a separate institution doesn't seem so exotic at all."
This is an official end of Provisional Government and a real beginning of Poroshenko Presidency.
Rat try to jump the ship. But it's rat's US handlers who decide.
Yatseniuk quits as he berates parliament for failing to pass law to increase army financing
and regulate country's energy situation
Arseny Yatseniuk's impassioned speech underlined the frustration of many in Ukraine that change is
taking too long. Photograph: Andrew Kravchenko/Government press service/EPA.
Ukraine's prime minister
has resigned after the governing coalition collapsed, in a sign that five months after the Maidan
protests led to a change of government, the country's political system is still beset by discord.
The government is struggling to defeat an insurgency by pro-Russian separatists in the east of
the country, where a Malaysia Airlines jet was downed last Thursday.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, one of the leaders of the Maidan protests, was seen by many Ukrainians as a
safe pair of hands, with his mild manner and intellectual demeanour. But he grew angry during Ukraine's
parliamentary session as it failed to pass legislation to increase army financing and regulate the
country's energy situation.
"History will not forgive us," he told parliament. "Our government now has no answer to the questions
– how are we to pay wages, how are we tomorrow morning going to send fuel for armoured vehicles,
how will we pay those families who have lost soldiers, to look after the army?"
The president, Petro Poroshenko, welcomed the move, which will lead to new elections, saying:
"Society wants a full reset of state authorities."
Although Ukrainians elected Poroshenko in May, there have yet to be new parliamentary elections
since the former president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled. Yatsenyuk is likely to stay on in a caretaker
role before a new poll.
Rumours are that Poroshenko wants to end the insurgency in the east before 24 August – Ukrainian
independence day. The army has made significant gains in driving the rebels out of a number
of towns, including the former stronghold of Slavyansk, but the separatists still control Donetsk,
a city of 1 million, and much of the region around it.
The neocon wife of Polish foreign minister is right about one thing: This is official end of EuroMaidan,
so to speak. Now we can talk only about civil war with it irrationality and cruelty...
Without the fairy-tale pretense, some things are about to become clear. For one, we are about
to learn whether the West in 2014 is as united, and as determined to stop terrorism as it was 26
years ago. When the Libyan government brought down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988,
the West closed ranks and isolated the Libyan regime. Can we do the same now-or will too many be
tempted to describe this as a "tragic accident," and to dismiss what will inevitably be a controversial
investigation as "inconclusive?" It is insufficient to state, as President Obama has now done, that
there must be a "cease-fire" in Ukraine. What is needed is a withdrawal of Russian mercenaries, weapons,
and support. The West-and the world-must push for Ukrainian state sovereignty to be reestablished
in eastern Ukraine, not for the perpetuation of another frozen conflict.
We will also learn something interesting about the Russian president. So far there is no sign of
shock or shame in Russia. But in truth, this tragedy offers Vladimir Putin an opportunity to get
out of the messy disaster he has created in eastern Ukraine. He now has the perfect excuse to denounce
the separatist movement and to cut its supplies. If he refuses, then we know that he remains profoundly
dedicated to the chaos and nihilism he created in Donetsk. We can assume he intends to perpetuate
it elsewhere. And if we are not prepared to fight it, we should be braced for it to spread.
Disclaimer: This is a slightly edited Google translation.
The essence of the problem: the Bolivar can't carry two. In order to extend the life of the American
economy, there is an urgent need to "feed" her a new market, but all the places on the planet are already
occupied, and the effect of digesting the remnants of the Soviet bloc is already over.
The essence of the problem: the Bolivar can't carry two. In order to extend the life of the
American economy, there is an urgent need to "feed" her a new market, but all the places on the planet
are already occupied, and the effect of digesting the remnants of the Soviet bloc is already over.
there is a huge need to find new, available markets, but does not work: attempt to return Russia
to the early Yeltsin state failed, China snarls and resists, Africa and Latin America - are too poor
and already plundered.
By process of elimination, the Americans came to the conclusion that it is time to finish
your closest "allies", i.e. to deal with them in the same way as it was experienced by the prisoners
who escaped from the Northern camps together with the "hogtie" prisoners which was to become the
food.
The European Union, despite the declarative commitment to liberal values and principles of free
trade, is actually a rather closed market. Germany and France are the main beneficiaries of the existing
system, in which they "digest" the weaker economies, turning them into "consumer Appendix", deprived
of of own production facilities. As an example you can look at Bulgaria or the Baltic States. In
order for Germans and French to prevent other players enter Europian markets, was created brilliant
in its complexity and cynicism system "non-tariff" protectionism, which makes any attempt to export
to the EU something between Kafka and Stephen King. Standards about admissible curvature of cucumbers,
the number of toys for pigs and environmentally friendly plastic bags is not evidence that the Euro
bureaucrats are crazy. They are just the elements of a complex and masterly done bureaucratic maze,
which formally observes the rules of free trade, but in fact severely infringes upon the American
and Asian companies that are trying to enter the European market. Moreover, the EU is arranged so
that France and Germany have the right to legally violate the European principles of market economy
and large-scale subsidize its key producers at public expense.
The essence TTIP is that the U.S. need to destroy all these technical barriers to American
goods and services, to destroy European technical and environmental standards, cut subsidies and
fully open markets for American companies, which will have a huge advantage due to the fact that
American banks will be able to easily pump them up the newly created dollars. Roughly speaking,
Europeans proposed to lie down and die in order Washington to live and prospere. The European elite
has split into two camps: those who were willing to be "boys" and which most likely were on the American
hook, entered into a hard struggle with representatives of the "Old Europe" - bankers, Industrialists,
farmers and all those who in this new scheme was to simply fill the ranks of the poor. As always,
the "core" of these groups is relatively small and they are struggling to win over a huge amorphous
swamp of officials, politicians and other mambers of elite who have only one goal - to join the winner.
It is in this context Ukrainian crisis becomes important: he gave US (and will give, if Moscow will
do something stupid) the perfect pretex to "cut" the EU from Russia, thereby making a strong hit
against the positions of "Old Europe", which is due to the rupture of economic ties will lose a lot
of money and influence.
Judging by the latest events, the future of old" Europe can be viewed with cautious optimism.
Old Europe has decided to fight.
As promised, we will analyze the actions of the French side in this transatlantic conflict.
First, Hollande suddenly refuses to terminate the contract on delivery of Mistrale in Russia,
despite enormous pressure from the United States. Then there was a demarche of the same Hollande
during Putin's visit to Normandy - private dinner with Putin, participation in an attempt to "break"
Poroshenko together with the leaders of Germany and Russia.
Washington pressed on Paris via the Bank, which is very close to the party of the President of
France - BNP Paribas. It should be noted that the price of "breaking" of the contract for Mistrals
is likely to be about 4 billion euros (price of ships + forfeit), while the French Bank slapped a
fine on almost 9 billion dollars. Both the French press and diplomatic circles said that Hollande
was offered to change "Mistral on the Bank". Even Putin voiced his views about the political background
of the case.
It is indicative that despite the fact that the penalty BNP was more than 4 billion euros and
that he was under incredible pressure, Hollande not only broke down but started to snarl. European
politician can afford such actions if and only if behind his back stood up big and very big business.
French counter-attack was aimed at the most important at the most vulnerable advantage of the
US - dollar, rather on petrodollar.
The President of the Bank of France, Christian Noise publicly stated that U.S. actions will accelerate
the global process of replacement of dollar other currencies and expressed support for a speedy transition
trade of France and China in Euro and yuan. In order to assess the seriousness of the demarche, we
should recall that the French Central Bank (as well as Russian) is not subordinated to the government
(the laws on the Central Bank wrote the same American "Chubais advisors ") so here it's not important
the action of French Central Bank by itself, but the fact that the French political elite was nationalized
by the French Central Bank. Even the burning of the American Embassy in Paris could not be more serious
indication of the seriousness of French elite intentions. In support of Noise (which immediately
began to defame the Anglo-Saxon media) Finance Minister of France, Michel Sapins stated that "the
role of the Euro must increase and ironically added that "we are not talking about the fight against
the dollar imperialism". The French subtly mocking me and get paid the same coin American authorities,
who argued that prosecution BNP Paribas has no geopolitical implications.
Then, came on the scene "speaker" from the European business, the millionaire, the old aristocrat
and the President of the French oil giant Total, Christophe-Gabriel-Jean-Marie Akin de Margerie.
Tirade turned out to be brief but tasty: "Fr us completly get rid of the dollar is not realistic,
but it would be good to use euro more. In general there is no reason to pay for oil in dollars. The
fact that oil is traded in dollars does not mean that you should pay for it in this currency."
Let's remonf ourself that the fundamental, the most important element of the status of the dollar
as the dominant international currency is precisely in oil is sold in dollars. and if we weaken this
this Foundation of a dollar pyramid, it might collapse, burying the remains of American economic
and military empire.
In the war, and now we observer an obvious war political elites, there is no guarantees of success.
However, France and in other European countries, embarked on the road of national liberation, has
all chances for success. Now, European aristocracy is fighting not for money, not for the ideals
and not for freedom, but for the continuation of its existence. Even a rat, driven into a corner
becomes very dangerous. If somewhat decided to corner European oligarchs, who are hardened by centuries-long
experience of political and economic struggles and intrigues, be ready for unpleasant surprises.
That should be obvious even for Washington.
The article is a typical for guardian peace of propaganda, and as such has no value whatsoever,
but comments illustrate Nulandgate and the USA foreign policy under neocon dominance pretty well.
Russia is completely correct: IF Russia and Ukraine were left alone to resolve the crisis -
they would have (probably without blood shed).
Instead the US as always tried to influence (to say it mildly as it performed a government
coup) Ukraine and bring it under its tentacles.
The issue with the US is that it has become the capitalist controller growing its tentacles
wherever it can trying specifically to encircle Russia to gain influence and power.
Should russia allow US to encircle it, removing governments and instilling troops and missiles
on its back yard? US was very naive to assume Russia would have allowed it.
HerbmanHusstlin, 28 June 2014 12:51pm
The US don't understand the concept of diplomacy, they try to bully and when that fails they
are at a loss for ideas.
knuckles66, 28 June 2014 12:52pm
Lavrov is such a hypocrite. His daughter, Ekaterina, attends Columbia University and lives
in New York and has applied for residency here. You don't think she wants to live in Russia, do
you?
Hopefully, her application will be turned down, and she will be sent packing back to Moscow.
ROFLMFAO, 28 June 2014 12:55pm
The US certainly seems to have been the most antagonistic of all the parties in recent days.
The Russians and even the new Ukranian government, which sounded quite bellicose previously, have
both been reining their necks in. Europe has gone fairly quiet, only the US is ramping up tensions.
MericaRuleYurpGrovel ROFLMFAO, 28 June 2014 2:24pm
Reckon theres one thing that really terrifies Merica and thats the thought of Europe and Russia
becoming friends or horror of horrors allies --now that really would be powerful competitor and
real worry for Number one self proclaimed ruler of the world.
So till then its divide and rule (an old trick of all empires): encourage EU against Russia,
Shia against Sunni and Japan against China and just sell em all arms from the good old USA, miles
away from any of the shit but close enough to send drones, Nuland, Kerry to stir things up. Its
a piece of cake and you little yurp people just eat it up.
aberinkula, 28 June 2014 1:05pm
Was it not Bush 1 that promised Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards? Look at that
expansion since. Add to that Bush 2's promise to put missile defence in Poland.
You have to remember that Russia acted in Crimea after the US sponsored a coup in Ukraine -
consequently the EU is now offering membership and NATO has already signed pacts with the new
government. You can understand Russia's scepticism. You can understand too why China described
itself as behind encircled and penned in by the US- military base expansion in the last 15 years
in all surrounding countries, and stepping up military exercises with Japan and South Korea.
In the context of all this military expansionism and proxy-colonialism, who was the aggressor?
Who benefits from Ukraine's new, and neo-nazi government joining NATO and the EU? Who has the
biggest network of overseas military assets?
BoLiting aberinkula, 28 June 2014 1:07pm
Shh, you're threatening American cognitive dissonance.
U! S! A!
U! S! A!!
Captain_Smartypants, 28 June 2014 1:09pm
The chance of settling crisis would probably be even higher if Ukraine could deal with it themselves.
No McCain's on the Maidan, no Russian annexations or "little green men", and no association agreement
before it's all sorted out. The US is hardly the only party here sticking its nose where it doesn't
belong...
Beckow Captain_Smartypants, 29 June 2014 1:58am
True. But how realistic is that? Ukraine is in a semi-permanent crisis because it is a divided
country, roughly half pro-EU, half pro-Russian (or at least sympathetic to Russia). People in
a fight will use outside help whenever they can. You will get Nuland, EU, Russia,....
The way to solve it is to address the divisions. One side could win completely, but that would
be so bloody and ugly that nobody could watch it and the victory wouldn't be worth it. Or they
can compromise. But that is seen as a loss in US. That's what Lavrov means by saying that US is
not helpful. US has a hard time admitting defeat, they always have....
Jeremn Ivan Petrov, 28 June 2014 3:00pm
A peaceful outcome? Is Kyiv interested in a peaceful outcome? They sent the Azov Battalion
eastwards this week. You know that this is a paramilitary unit which uses SS symbols and half
the members of the unit have criminal records (according to the Radical MP Lyashko), don't you?
The east doesn't want to fight, the Ukrainian Army doesn't want to fight. But the government
in Kyiv is doing its best to create a war so that ordinary Ukrainians won't blame them for the
mega crisis. And it is using right-wing thugs and criminals.
BobToronto, 28 June 2014 1:10pm
Settling the crisis would have even easier if it depended on just Russia and Ukraine. Russian
tanks would be in Kiev by now!
The crisis would not have happened if only Ukraine was left alone
BoLiting BobToronto, 28 June 2014 1:26pm
Yeah, what a shame the United States had to hijack the Maidan movement and stage a coup behind
the backs of EU negotiators. This is why you don't muck about in someone else's backyard.
triantafillos BoLiting, 28 June 2014 1:36pm
Yeah, what a shame the United States had to hijack the Maidan movement and stage a coup
behind the backs of EU negotiators
I think Nulan said: F**k the EU.
So much for EU and US relations.
annette83 BobToronto, 28 June 2014 2:57pm
not only in Kiev, but in Alaska and Canada ;-)
And yeah, if the bloody gringos did not buy the Ukrainians, which resulted in an armed coup,
nothing of this would have ever happened.
Clementt, 28 June 2014 1:12pm
The simple truth:
"..... chances for settling the Ukrainian crisis would have been higher if it only depended
on Russia and Europe."
Why have so many journalists and commentators missed it?
JosephXY Clementt, 28 June 2014 1:40pm
An article in the Huffington Post showed that in the case of
Iraq only those are invited by the media to speak who were
for the Iraq war in the first place. Like Cheney.
Whereas those who opposed it are locked out.
"Sergei Lavrov accuses US of fuelling Ukraine crisis" that putting mildly
Dear Sergei, you need to realise you are at war with the USA they only want yes answers from
"Sovereign" states ... they want oral sex for free according the polish FM.
Cameron and the UK do the best sexual favour for the USA, get some advice from the captain
of USA main landing graft - Captain oral Cameron of the USS Britain.
e UK
'International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people,
our homeland or our way of life.'
Imagine the furor if Putin had said:
'International opinion matters, but Russia should never ask permission to protect Russians,
our homeland or our way of life.'
Yet Obama gets away with it and there's hardly a comment. Oh, it is OK, America is above the
law. Now what's for tea ....
Danie Nortje, 28 June 2014 1:28pm
"In November, under pressure from Moscow, a former Ukrainian president dumped the EU pact,
fuelling huge protests that eventually drove him from power. Moscow responded by annexing the
mainly Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula in March, and pro-Russian separatists soon rose up in
Ukraine's eastern provinces."
Maybe the Guardian should explore the contents of the deal more, before implying this was due
to Russian pressure, i.e. the EU terms/deal were crap.
Here's an analysis by someone with some expertise in economics:
http://www.kyklosproductions.com/posts/index.php?p=222
The larger question should be what the deal means and who will benefit from the IMF template,
i.e. what national assets will be privatised and who will gain control of these.
Also, as I understand it, a large part of the problem with Ukraine stems from the control of
oligarchs (from both sides) on the economy, tax rules, etc.
Will the new government reign this in? Will the new oligarchs agree to reform the tax and regulatory
frameworks to reduce their wealth and power?
MurkyFogsFutureLogs Danie Nortje, 28 June 2014 1:43pm
Correct.
Russia offered the Russian friendly Yanukovich government a far better deal than the EU did..
This would have arguably been a decision that benefited Ukraine the most.
However, the EU were not willing to assist Ukraine as a nation meaningfully while a Russian
friendly government was in power. They would need a EU/US friendly government in power before
they would offer any substantial assistance to the Ukrainian nation.
This alone proves that the West and NATO do not give a toss about the Ukrainian people.
The West and NATO only "care" about Ukrainians when a pro-West oligarch brought to power by Western
engineered dissent and manipulation of the far right groups in Ukraine has been sworn in to power.
Jeremn MurkyFogsFutureLogs, 28 June 2014 2:52pm
Russia was offering a three-way deal back in October 2013, with negotiators from the EU, Russia
and Ukraine. Sensible given that Russia needs a stable Ukraine so it can pipe gas to Europe, its
biggest customer .....
Somnambulist777 MurkyFogsFutureLogs, 28 June 2014 3:05pm
Yes. And one day after Yanukovich agreed to reduced power and early elections they staged the
coup. But it's all "Russian interference".
siesta, 28 June 2014 1:31pm
USA is strategically opposed to, an German led EU, increasing ties with Russia.
The opposition to the North Stream pipeline a few years back is one example, and also the US hard
work to sabotage the South Stream pipeline, long before any Ukraine conflict, is another.
Lets face it, much of the German economic success is due to the increasing economic ties with
Russia. Energy, raw materials in abundance, the Germans have slowly been acquiring "lebensraum"
eastwards and increasingly so, much to USAs annoyance.
The animosity towards Russia must also been seen in this perspective. The USA has sought to undermine
EU(read German)/ Russia cooperation for a long, long time. Ukraine is part of this strategic power
play. The USA don't want to lesson tension, quite the opposite.
SocalAlex siesta, 28 June 2014 6:39pm
You're broadly correct but please, please don't say rubbish like this:
the Germans have slowly been acquiring "lebensraum" eastwards and increasingly so, much
to USAs annoyance.
The Germans have less than zero interest in territorial expansion, colonialism or even "dictating"
what other countries should do! The Germans simply are happy to have economic and cultural influence
and good relations with their neighbours, which is perfectly understandable.
Except to the Americans and British who still resent the fact that they benefited far less
from the post-Communist gold rush than those Western countries with the long-standing cultural
and historic ties to do business there! Austria is another one - we actually have more investment
in Russia than any other EU country, despite its small size.
Indeed, Putin was in Vienna the other day to sign a deal with our national oil company to ensure
continued cooperation and deliveries no matter what happens. Notably, the rest of the EU silently
tutted for half a second, but their hearts weren't in it. Everyone knows that deal is not just
in our but in all of Europe's interests and the kind of sanctions the U.S. wants would be economic
suicide.
Which is, of course, precisely what the U.S. hopes for, now that it's obvious their campaign
to sabotage the Euro wasn't as successful as planned.
The U.S. wants a weak and divided Europe and always has - anyone who thinks otherwise is genuinely
deluded!
Thankfully, we aren't in NATO, so the U.S. couldn't say anything at all!
triantafillos, 28 June 2014 1:32pm
Sergei Lavrov accuses US of fuelling Ukraine crisis
Sounds about right.
The US "invested" $5 billion for the country to descend into anarchy.
If they fail, it will be seen as another foreign failure.
In the mean time they will bestow $0.5 billion to the moderate ISIS chaps, so the campaign
to topple the leader of a sovereign state can continue.
Stoletov, 28 June 2014 1:38pm
'Ukraine on Friday signed a free-trade pact with the EU, the very deal that angered Russia
and triggered the bloodshed and political convulsions of the past seven months that brought Russia-west
relations to their lowest point since the Cold war era'.
Is the author ignorant or just very simple? The deal did not anger the Russians. They offered
a better deal. The rejection of the deal angered some Ukrainians, but most of all, angered the
EU/USA so much, that we had Hague, swedish, French and polish ministers stirring trouble, feeding
tea and biscuits, turning on the propaganda, while at the same time saying the Russia is guilty
for all the trouble. Yes in a sense Russia played a part by offering a better deal to the Ukrainians,
and is now paying the price for it, sanctions and all.
Still, I would leave it the Ukrainians and the Russians to sort it out for it is odious to
fan and encourage yet again another civil war. Have we not had our fill by now? Yugoslavia, Iran,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, now Ukraine and this only in the last 20 years! .
What kind of people are we the British? Why is it easier for us to kill foreigners rather than
fight against zero-hours contracts, police corruption, NHS privatisation etc?
Corrections Stoletov, 28 June 2014 1:50pm
As I recall, the problem with the earlier deal was that it forced Ukraine to NOT be part of
Russia's trade group if they were part of the EU's trade group. It was an either-or choice.
Question for EU and Russia: Explain, in simple terms, why Ukraine, as a buffer nation with
borders on each "side", can't be part of both trade groups? Please note: trade is NOT like a football
game, in which only two teams can play in a game.
neomarxist, 28 June 2014 1:47pm
Europeans cannot do anything without asking Americans. They can hardly go to toilet without
permission of Obama and you all expect Europe to solve problems. The operation in Kiev was taken
over by Americans as the thought it is taking too long.
It is all about punishing Russia for protecting Snowden and we all agree that the Americans
created a mess which is costing lives.
chevres, 28 June 2014 2:00pm
Arguably what's going to happen is Ukraine will join up to the EU with it's freedoms of trade
, movement and work etc. . The ordinary people of Ukraine will exercise those freedoms to find
a better life only to find that they are treated as unwanted immigrants taking up someone else's
job or considered as being an extra a burden the the state . They will fail .Meanwhile Western
big businesses will invest into Ukraine in order to exploit cheap labor costs and increase their
margins . They will succeed . The conditions of financial aid and Union membership will lock Ukraine
and it's resources into the western political mix with no easy exit . Voila --
It's a rat trap Ukraine . And you've been caught .
MrRussels chevres, 28 June 2014 2:10pm
More likely is that the fighting in the east will continue and grow and eventually spread across
Europe, that's how these things normally play out.
truthpleasestoplies chevres, 28 June 2014 2:23pm
Do you suggest Ukraine should not join the European Economic Misery?
(formerly European Economic Community)
But Europe needs it.
Any new annexion to Europe will bring great business and monies to a limited number of investors
and businessmen, friends of the political leaders, for a few years.
Just to leave the new State worse and more desolated than before afterwards.
RuStand MrRussels, 28 June 2014 2:24pm
Yeah, and Jun 28th is a good starting date for this too. Ukraine is not some small entity (yet)
its problems may hit EU so that even more of its members will get annoyed by this whole Ukraine
business. And you should also note, most of those jumping on Maidan are not hard working people,
they dream of som esort of paradise pour on them freely after they join EU Assoc -- (sic, not even
EU).
Sarah7591Wilson chevres, 28 June 2014 2:56pm
There is no chance whatsoever of Ukrainians being given entry into the EU schengen area within
the next 10-20 years -- none whatsoever.
Romania and Bulgaria had to wait for 7 years following their full accession to be given that
right of free movement, and the economic situation in the EU has grown progressively worse since
then, resulting in high rates of unemployment and increased xenophobia in many member states.
Nobul Sarah7591Wilson, 28 June 2014 6:19pm
Welcome Ukraine, you are now officially third class citizens of Europe (not the EU, you will
need the civilising influence of the proper Europeans for another 20 years to get in, if we still
need plumbers and brick layers);))
C4H8AuClS, 28 June 2014 2:00pm
Russia's foreign minister says chances of settling crisis would have been higher if it only
depended on Russia and Europe
Of course. Peace anywhere is more likely to happen when the US is not involved.
RubberDucky C4H8AuClS, 28 June 2014 2:28pm
Russia that great peace loving country.
C4H8AuClS RubberDucky, 28 June 2014 2:46pm
Definitely more peaceful that the US, which has been involved in or started so many wars, it
is literally true they have never been at peace for one day since the 1940s...
RuStand, 28 June 2014 2:12pm
>Lavrov spoke after Friday's European Union summit, which decided not to immediately impose
new sanctions on Russia
First of all, there can be no "sanctions" on Russia neither from EU nor from US. Russia is
not part of EU/US. EU is free to impose sanctions on its members. UN has the right to impose legitimate
sanctions on a country if this is approved by SC. Who do they think they are, US and EU, and who
gave them the right to impose any sanctions ? Everyone should take it for what it is - US has
declared a trade/economic and political war against Russia and tries to drag Europe into it. Tthis
is a war and it started long before the unrest in Ukraine. US are loosing their importance, influence,
economic might, relevance ... And among the reasons are emerging an developing nations such as
Russia and China.
>Ukraine on Friday signed a free-trade pact with the EU, the very deal that angered Russia
and triggered the bloodshed
Cheap methods, AP - "free-EU, anger-Russia-bloodshed", Goebbels style. Russia was not angered
but dissapointed and openly layed out the perspectives to Ukraine, offering it its own attractive
terms.
>In November, under pressure from Moscow.
After examining the terms of EU Assoc Yanukovich said it's the way to Ukraine's grave ..
>Moscow responded by annexing the mainly Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula
Most of Ukraine are mainly Russian-speaking. Crimea reunited with Russia through an open and free
referendum. Crimea's reassignment to Ukraine in 1954 was illegal did not take into account people's
will and was an internal affair of one country, USSR. It's interesting to see how westerners accuse
USSR for Gulags and approve Crimea's reassignment. The reason is clear - whatever is damaging
Russian is good.
Nazi in Kiev ? Who cares, if they're against Russia, they're "good Nazi", "our Nazi".
>if the Kremlin fails to de-escalate the crisis.
And what should the international community do to US if it fails to deescalate the crisis in Iraq
by Monday, a much more bloody and totaly US created mess ?
The US oil and gas industry is making big stakes in Ukraine. Joe Biden's son, Hunter has been
appointed in May as director at Burisma (one of the biggest Ukrainian oil and gas compaines).
The big guys are just waiting for go-ahead to develop the oil shale in Ukraine, which has massive
reserves, but no technology to extract it. The plan, I suppose, is to replace Russian gas imports
to EU (at least in part) with new sources in Ukraine. Development of European shale gas is hampered
by European legislation and gas lobby. On the other hand, development of Ukrainian reserves will
go ahead with no reservations, particularly in the context of "saving Ukraine".
A large portion of these reserves is in the East, hence if the East leaves Ukraine the whole
affair becomes pointless altogether. The US will do everything possible including inspiring Ukraine
to wage war on Russia to keep Ukraine undivided. They are prepared to wipe out all the 5 million
of the East Ukrainian population if they stand in the way of the oil lobby.
Caroline Louise, 28 June 2014 2:23pm
In November, under pressure from Moscow, a former Ukrainian president dumped the EU pact, fuelling
huge protests that eventually drove him from power. Moscow responded by annexing the mainly Russian-speaking
Crimean peninsula in March, and pro-Russian separatists soon rose up in Ukraine's eastern provinces.
Not so. Yanukovych didn't "dump" the EU pact, he simply asked for more time to consider before
signing. Moscow didn't pressure him to reject it either. In fact Moscow suggested a joint deal
between Russia and the EU. It was the EU that refused compromise and demanded an either/or from
Ukraine. Even John Kerry has said this was a mistake.
Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine as a response to the anti-Russian rhetoric and actions
from the extremists in the "new" Kiev government. Russia did what it did out of a fear - possibly
misplaced, possibly not - that Ukraine was planning a confrontation over its Black Sea fleet in
Sevastopol, which could have ignited a much wider war.
The article is a typical for guardian peace of propaganda, and as such has no value whatsoever,
but comments illustrate Nulandgate and the USA foreign policy under neocon dominance pretty well.
However, the EU were not willing to assist Ukraine as a nation meaningfully while a Russian friendly
government was in power. They would need a EU/US friendly government in power before they would offer
any substantial assistance to the Ukrainian nation.
This alone proves that the West and NATO do not give a toss about the Ukrainian people. The
West and NATO only "care" about Ukrainians when a pro-West oligarch brought to power by Western engineered
dissent and manipulation of the far right groups in Ukraine has been sworn in to power.
USA is strategically opposed to, an German led EU, increasing ties with Russia. The opposition
to the North Stream pipeline a few years back is one example, and also the US hard work to sabotage
the South Stream pipeline, long before any Ukraine conflict, is another.
A large portion of these reserves is in the East, hence if the East leaves Ukraine the whole
affair becomes pointless altogether. The US will do everything possible including inspiring Ukraine
to wage war on Russia to keep Ukraine undivided. They are prepared to wipe out all the 5 million of
the East Ukrainian population if they stand in the way of the oil lobby.
Russia is completely correct: IF Russia and Ukraine were left alone to resolve the crisis -
they would have (probably without blood shed).
Instead the US as always tried to influence (to say it mildly as it performed a government
coup) Ukraine and bring it under its tentacles.
The issue with the US is that it has become the capitalist controller growing its tentacles
wherever it can trying specifically to encircle Russia to gain influence and power.
Should russia allow US to encircle it, removing governments and instilling troops and missiles
on its back yard? US was very naive to assume Russia would have allowed it.
HerbmanHusstlin, 28 June 2014 12:51pm
The US don't understand the concept of diplomacy, they try to bully and when that fails they
are at a loss for ideas.
knuckles66, 28 June 2014 12:52pm
Lavrov is such a hypocrite. His daughter, Ekaterina, attends Columbia University and lives
in New York and has applied for residency here. You don't think she wants to live in Russia, do
you?
Hopefully, her application will be turned down, and she will be sent packing back to Moscow.
ROFLMFAO, 28 June 2014 12:55pm
The US certainly seems to have been the most antagonistic of all the parties in recent days.
The Russians and even the new Ukranian government, which sounded quite bellicose previously, have
both been reining their necks in. Europe has gone fairly quiet, only the US is ramping up tensions.
MericaRuleYurpGrovel -> ROFLMFAO, 28 June 2014 2:24pm
Reckon theres one thing that really terrifies Merica and thats the thought of Europe and Russia
becoming friends or horror of horrors allies --now that really would be powerful competitor and
real worry for Number one self proclaimed ruler of the world.
So till then its divide and rule (an old trick of all empires): encourage EU against Russia,
Shia against Sunni and Japan against China and just sell em all arms from the good old USA, miles
away from any of the shit but close enough to send drones, Nuland, Kerry to stir things up. Its
a piece of cake and you little yurp people just eat it up.
aberinkula, 28 June 2014 1:05pm
Was it not Bush 1 that promised Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards? Look at that
expansion since. Add to that Bush 2's promise to put missile defence in Poland.
You have to remember that Russia acted in Crimea after the US sponsored a coup in Ukraine -
consequently the EU is now offering membership and NATO has already signed pacts with the new
government. You can understand Russia's scepticism. You can understand too why China described
itself as behind encircled and penned in by the US- military base expansion in the last 15 years
in all surrounding countries, and stepping up military exercises with Japan and South Korea.
In the context of all this military expansionism and proxy-colonialism, who was the aggressor?
Who benefits from Ukraine's new, and neo-nazi government joining NATO and the EU? Who has the
biggest network of overseas military assets?
BoLiting aberinkula, 28 June 2014 1:07pm
Shh, you're threatening American cognitive dissonance.
U! S! A!
U! S! A!!
Captain_Smartypants, 28 June 2014 1:09pm
The chance of settling crisis would probably be even higher if Ukraine could deal with it themselves.
No McCain's on the Maidan, no Russian annexations or "little green men", and no association agreement
before it's all sorted out. The US is hardly the only party here sticking its nose where it doesn't
belong...
Beckow -> Captain_Smartypants, 29 June 2014 1:58am
True. But how realistic is that? Ukraine is in a semi-permanent crisis because it is a divided
country, roughly half pro-EU, half pro-Russian (or at least sympathetic to Russia). People in
a fight will use outside help whenever they can. You will get Nuland, EU, Russia,....
The way to solve it is to address the divisions. One side could win completely, but that would
be so bloody and ugly that nobody could watch it and the victory wouldn't be worth it. Or they
can compromise. But that is seen as a loss in US. That's what Lavrov means by saying that US is
not helpful. US has a hard time admitting defeat, they always have....
Jeremn -> Ivan Petrov, 28 June 2014 3:00pm
A peaceful outcome? Is Kyiv interested in a peaceful outcome? They sent the Azov Battalion
eastwards this week. You know that this is a paramilitary unit which uses SS symbols and half
the members of the unit have criminal records (according to the Radical MP Lyashko), don't you?
The east doesn't want to fight, the Ukrainian Army doesn't want to fight. But the government
in Kyiv is doing its best to create a war so that ordinary Ukrainians won't blame them for the
mega crisis. And it is using right-wing thugs and criminals.
BobToronto, 28 June 2014 1:10pm
Settling the crisis would have even easier if it depended on just Russia and Ukraine. Russian
tanks would be in Kiev by now!
The crisis would not have happened if only Ukraine was left alone
BoLiting -> BobToronto, 28 June 2014 1:26pm
Yeah, what a shame the United States had to hijack the Maidan movement and stage a coup behind
the backs of EU negotiators. This is why you don't muck about in someone else's backyard.
triantafillos -> BoLiting, 28 June 2014 1:36pm
Yeah, what a shame the United States had to hijack the Maidan movement and stage a coup
behind the backs of EU negotiators
I think Nulan said: F**k the EU.
So much for EU and US relations.
annette83 -> BobToronto, 28 June 2014 2:57pm
not only in Kiev, but in Alaska and Canada ;-)
And yeah, if the bloody gringos did not buy the Ukrainians, which resulted in an armed coup,
nothing of this would have ever happened.
Clementt, 28 June 2014 1:12pm
The simple truth:
"..... chances for settling the Ukrainian crisis would have been higher if it only depended
on Russia and Europe."
Why have so many journalists and commentators missed it?
JosephXY -> Clementt, 28 June 2014 1:40pm
An article in the Huffington Post showed that in the case of Iraq only those are invited by
the media to speak who were for the Iraq war in the first place. Like Cheney.
"Sergei Lavrov accuses US of fuelling Ukraine crisis" that putting mildly
Dear Sergei, you need to realise you are at war with the USA they only want yes answers from
"Sovereign" states ... they want oral sex for free according the polish FM.
Cameron and the UK do the best sexual favour for the USA, get some advice from the captain
of USA main landing graft - Captain oral Cameron of the USS Britain.
e UK
'International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people,
our homeland or our way of life.'
Imagine the furor if Putin had said:
'International opinion matters, but Russia should never ask permission to protect Russians,
our homeland or our way of life.'
Yet Obama gets away with it and there's hardly a comment. Oh, it is OK, America is above the
law. Now what's for tea ....
Danie Nortje, 28 June 2014 1:28pm
"In November, under pressure from Moscow, a former Ukrainian president dumped the EU pact,
fuelling huge protests that eventually drove him from power. Moscow responded by annexing the
mainly Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula in March, and pro-Russian separatists soon rose up in
Ukraine's eastern provinces."
Maybe the Guardian should explore the contents of the deal more, before implying this was due
to Russian pressure, i.e. the EU terms/deal were crap.
The larger question should be what the deal means and who will benefit from the IMF template,
i.e. what national assets will be privatised and who will gain control of these.
Also, as I understand it, a large part of the problem with Ukraine stems from the control of
oligarchs (from both sides) on the economy, tax rules, etc.
Will the new government reign this in? Will the new oligarchs agree to reform the tax and regulatory
frameworks to reduce their wealth and power?
MurkyFogsFutureLogs -> Danie Nortje, 28 June 2014 1:43pm
Correct.
Russia offered the Russian friendly Yanukovich government a far better deal than the EU did..
This would have arguably been a decision that benefited Ukraine the most.
However, the EU were not willing to assist Ukraine as a nation meaningfully while a Russian
friendly government was in power. They would need a EU/US friendly government in power before
they would offer any substantial assistance to the Ukrainian nation.
This alone proves that the West and NATO do not give a toss about the Ukrainian people.
The West and NATO only "care" about Ukrainians when a pro-West oligarch brought to power by Western
engineered dissent and manipulation of the far right groups in Ukraine has been sworn in to power.
Jeremn -> MurkyFogsFutureLogs, 28 June 2014 2:52pm
Russia was offering a three-way deal back in October 2013, with negotiators from the EU, Russia
and Ukraine. Sensible given that Russia needs a stable Ukraine so it can pipe gas to Europe, its
biggest customer .....
Somnambulist777 -> MurkyFogsFutureLogs, 28 June 2014 3:05pm
Yes. And one day after Yanukovich agreed to reduced power and early elections they staged the
coup. But it's all "Russian interference".
siesta, 28 June 2014 1:31pm
USA is strategically opposed to, an German led EU, increasing ties with Russia. The opposition
to the North Stream pipeline a few years back is one example, and also the US hard work to sabotage
the South Stream pipeline, long before any Ukraine conflict, is another.
Lets face it, much of the German economic success is due to the increasing economic ties with
Russia. Energy, raw materials in abundance, the Germans have slowly been acquiring "lebensraum"
eastwards and increasingly so, much to USAs annoyance.
The animosity towards Russia must also been seen in this perspective. The USA has sought to undermine
EU(read German)/ Russia cooperation for a long, long time. Ukraine is part of this strategic power
play. The USA don't want to lesson tension, quite the opposite.
SocalAlex -> siesta, 28 June 2014 6:39pm
You're broadly correct but please, please don't say rubbish like this:
the Germans have slowly been acquiring "lebensraum" eastwards and increasingly so, much
to USAs annoyance.
The Germans have less than zero interest in territorial expansion, colonialism or even "dictating"
what other countries should do! The Germans simply are happy to have economic and cultural influence
and good relations with their neighbours, which is perfectly understandable.
Except to the Americans and British who still resent the fact that they benefited far less
from the post-Communist gold rush than those Western countries with the long-standing cultural
and historic ties to do business there! Austria is another one - we actually have more investment
in Russia than any other EU country, despite its small size.
Indeed, Putin was in Vienna the other day to sign a deal with our national oil company to ensure
continued cooperation and deliveries no matter what happens. Notably, the rest of the EU silently
tutted for half a second, but their hearts weren't in it. Everyone knows that deal is not just
in our but in all of Europe's interests and the kind of sanctions the U.S. wants would be economic
suicide.
Which is, of course, precisely what the U.S. hopes for, now that it's obvious their campaign
to sabotage the Euro wasn't as successful as planned.
The U.S. wants a weak and divided Europe and always has - anyone who thinks otherwise is genuinely
deluded!
Thankfully, we aren't in NATO, so the U.S. couldn't say anything at all!
triantafillos, 28 June 2014 1:32pm
Sergei Lavrov accuses US of fuelling Ukraine crisis
Sounds about right.
The US "invested" $5 billion for the country to descend into anarchy.
If they fail, it will be seen as another foreign failure.
In the mean time they will bestow $0.5 billion to the moderate ISIS chaps, so the campaign
to topple the leader of a sovereign state can continue.
Stoletov, 28 June 2014 1:38pm
'Ukraine on Friday signed a free-trade pact with the EU, the very deal that angered Russia
and triggered the bloodshed and political convulsions of the past seven months that brought Russia-west
relations to their lowest point since the Cold war era'.
Is the author ignorant or just very simple? The deal did not anger the Russians. They offered
a better deal. The rejection of the deal angered some Ukrainians, but most of all, angered the
EU/USA so much, that we had Hague, swedish, French and polish ministers stirring trouble, feeding
tea and biscuits, turning on the propaganda, while at the same time saying the Russia is guilty
for all the trouble. Yes in a sense Russia played a part by offering a better deal to the Ukrainians,
and is now paying the price for it, sanctions and all.
Still, I would leave it the Ukrainians and the Russians to sort it out for it is odious to
fan and encourage yet again another civil war. Have we not had our fill by now? Yugoslavia, Iran,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, now Ukraine and this only in the last 20 years! .
What kind of people are we the British? Why is it easier for us to kill foreigners rather than
fight against zero-hours contracts, police corruption, NHS privatisation etc?
Corrections -> Stoletov, 28 June 2014 1:50pm
As I recall, the problem with the earlier deal was that it forced Ukraine to NOT be part of
Russia's trade group if they were part of the EU's trade group. It was an either-or choice.
Question for EU and Russia: Explain, in simple terms, why Ukraine, as a buffer nation with
borders on each "side", can't be part of both trade groups? Please note: trade is NOT like a football
game, in which only two teams can play in a game.
neomarxist, 28 June 2014 1:47pm
Europeans cannot do anything without asking Americans. They can hardly go to toilet without
permission of Obama and you all expect Europe to solve problems. The operation in Kiev was taken
over by Americans as the thought it is taking too long.
It is all about punishing Russia for protecting Snowden and we all agree that the Americans
created a mess which is costing lives.
chevres, 28 June 2014 2:00pm
Arguably what's going to happen is Ukraine will join up to the EU with it's freedoms of trade
, movement and work etc. . The ordinary people of Ukraine will exercise those freedoms to find
a better life only to find that they are treated as unwanted immigrants taking up someone else's
job or considered as being an extra a burden the the state . They will fail .Meanwhile Western
big businesses will invest into Ukraine in order to exploit cheap labor costs and increase their
margins . They will succeed . The conditions of financial aid and Union membership will lock Ukraine
and it's resources into the western political mix with no easy exit . Voila --
It's a rat trap Ukraine . And you've been caught .
MrRussels -> chevres, 28 June 2014 2:10pm
More likely is that the fighting in the east will continue and grow and eventually spread across
Europe, that's how these things normally play out.
truthpleasestoplies -> chevres, 28 June 2014 2:23pm
Do you suggest Ukraine should not join the European Economic Misery?
(formerly European Economic Community)
But Europe needs it.
Any new annexion to Europe will bring great business and monies to a limited number of investors
and businessmen, friends of the political leaders, for a few years.
Just to leave the new State worse and more desolated than before afterwards.
RuStand -> MrRussels, 28 June 2014 2:24pm
Yeah, and Jun 28th is a good starting date for this too. Ukraine is not some small entity (yet)
its problems may hit EU so that even more of its members will get annoyed by this whole Ukraine
business. And you should also note, most of those jumping on Maidan are not hard working people,
they dream of som esort of paradise pour on them freely after they join EU Assoc -- (sic, not even
EU).
Sarah7591Wilson -> chevres, 28 June 2014 2:56pm
There is no chance whatsoever of Ukrainians being given entry into the EU schengen area within
the next 10-20 years -- none whatsoever.
Romania and Bulgaria had to wait for 7 years following their full accession to be given that
right of free movement, and the economic situation in the EU has grown progressively worse since
then, resulting in high rates of unemployment and increased xenophobia in many member states.
Nobul -> Sarah7591Wilson, 28 June 2014 6:19pm
Welcome Ukraine, you are now officially third class citizens of Europe (not the EU, you will
need the civilising influence of the proper Europeans for another 20 years to get in, if we still
need plumbers and brick layers);))
C4H8AuClS, 28 June 2014 2:00pm
Russia's foreign minister says chances of settling crisis would have been higher if it only
depended on Russia and Europe
Of course. Peace anywhere is more likely to happen when the US is not involved.
RubberDucky C4H8AuClS, 28 June 2014 2:28pm
Russia that great peace loving country.
C4H8AuClS -> RubberDucky, 28 June 2014 2:46pm
Definitely more peaceful that the US, which has been involved in or started so many wars, it
is literally true they have never been at peace for one day since the 1940s...
RuStand, 28 June 2014 2:12pm
>Lavrov spoke after Friday's European Union summit, which decided not to immediately impose
new sanctions on Russia
First of all, there can be no "sanctions" on Russia neither from EU nor from US. Russia is
not part of EU/US. EU is free to impose sanctions on its members. UN has the right to impose legitimate
sanctions on a country if this is approved by SC. Who do they think they are, US and EU, and who
gave them the right to impose any sanctions ? Everyone should take it for what it is - US has
declared a trade/economic and political war against Russia and tries to drag Europe into it. Tthis
is a war and it started long before the unrest in Ukraine. US are loosing their importance, influence,
economic might, relevance ... And among the reasons are emerging an developing nations such as
Russia and China.
>Ukraine on Friday signed a free-trade pact with the EU, the very deal that angered Russia
and triggered the bloodshed
Cheap methods, AP - "free-EU, anger-Russia-bloodshed", Goebbels style. Russia was not angered
but dissapointed and openly layed out the perspectives to Ukraine, offering it its own attractive
terms.
>In November, under pressure from Moscow.
After examining the terms of EU Assoc Yanukovich said it's the way to Ukraine's grave ..
>Moscow responded by annexing the mainly Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula
Most of Ukraine are mainly Russian-speaking. Crimea reunited with Russia through an open and free
referendum. Crimea's reassignment to Ukraine in 1954 was illegal did not take into account people's
will and was an internal affair of one country, USSR. It's interesting to see how westerners accuse
USSR for Gulags and approve Crimea's reassignment. The reason is clear - whatever is damaging
Russian is good.
Nazi in Kiev ? Who cares, if they're against Russia, they're "good Nazi", "our Nazi".
>if the Kremlin fails to de-escalate the crisis.
And what should the international community do to US if it fails to deescalate the crisis in Iraq
by Monday, a much more bloody and totaly US created mess ?
The US oil and gas industry is making big stakes in Ukraine. Joe Biden's son, Hunter has been
appointed in May as director at Burisma (one of the biggest Ukrainian oil and gas compaines).
The big guys are just waiting for go-ahead to develop the oil shale in Ukraine, which has massive
reserves, but no technology to extract it. The plan, I suppose, is to replace Russian gas imports
to EU (at least in part) with new sources in Ukraine. Development of European shale gas is hampered
by European legislation and gas lobby. On the other hand, development of Ukrainian reserves will
go ahead with no reservations, particularly in the context of "saving Ukraine".
A large portion of these reserves is in the East, hence if the East leaves Ukraine the
whole affair becomes pointless altogether. The US will do everything possible including inspiring
Ukraine to wage war on Russia to keep Ukraine undivided. They are prepared to wipe out all the
5 million of the East Ukrainian population if they stand in the way of the oil lobby.
Caroline Louise, 28 June 2014 2:23pm
In November, under pressure from Moscow, a former Ukrainian president dumped the EU pact,
fuelling huge protests that eventually drove him from power. Moscow responded by annexing the
mainly Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula in March, and pro-Russian separatists soon rose up
in Ukraine's eastern provinces.
Not so. Yanukovych didn't "dump" the EU pact, he simply asked for more time to consider before
signing. Moscow didn't pressure him to reject it either. In fact Moscow suggested a joint deal
between Russia and the EU. It was the EU that refused compromise and demanded an either/or from
Ukraine. Even John Kerry has said this was a mistake.
Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine as a response to the anti-Russian rhetoric and actions
from the extremists in the "new" Kiev government. Russia did what it did out of a fear - possibly
misplaced, possibly not - that Ukraine was planning a confrontation over its Black Sea fleet in
Sevastopol, which could have ignited a much wider war.
On this idealistic background, like a thunder in a clear sky, sounded quotes from private interview
of the Minister of foreign Affairs of Poland Radoslaw Sikorski with former Minister of Finance Jacek
Rostov, the recording of which was published in one of the public-political magazines of Poland.
"That's bullshit, we will get into the conflict with the Germans and the French, as we do blowjob
to Americans, as call girls. The problem of Poland to the fact that we have cheap national pride
and low self-esteem. This is kind of negro mentality", - in such strong expressions Radoslaw Sikorski
evaluated the geopolitical cooperation between Poland and the USA.
"Polish-American Alliance is not worth a damn; moreover, it hurts us because it gives a false
sense of security", - continued the head of the foreign Ministry of Poland.
Poland is the main ally of the USA on the European continent, and that this country is based "global
policeman", as opposed to signs of excessive independence from Germany and France. Given the enormous
interest politicians of Poland to the so-called "revolution of dignity" in Kiev, and also that it
Radoslaw Sikorski was one of the European politicians, who were supposed to guarantee the observance
of the agreement on the settlement of the political crisis of February 21, signed between President
Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders, we can conclude that all is not so, as they say, clearly
on this issue.
Guarantors quite consciously could no guarantee. But it's not important. There is a General course
and the political will of Peter Poroshenko, which will be signed on 27 June in Brussels economic
part of the Association agreement. That this event will bring to torn by civil war country with truncated
territory? Guess soon we all will see.
Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United
States Department of State, traveled to Odesa on Sunday, June 8, where she met with Dnipropetrovsk
Oblast Governor Ihor Kolomoysky and the Odesa Oblast Governor Ihor Palytsia, reports Ukrinform. The
situation in Ukraine and especially in the oblasts was discussed during the meetings.
Ihor Kolomoyskiy noted that the fight against corruption must begin with the country's government.
"In order to combat corruption on the local level, we need to change the system. We need to create
conditions for normal work, to pay decent wages, to provide social support and protection for the
most vulnerable of our citizens. All this, along with other transparent steps and measures, will
negate the corruption component," he said.
Nuland, in turn, reaffirmed US support for positive changes in Ukraine and efforts toward further
stabilization, especially in the east of the country. She also said that an economic mission of American
investors will arrive in the fall.
As previously reported, Kolomoysky has taken steps to fight corruption in his oblast. On June
3, the press service of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Administration reported on a new program to combat
corruption with the help of experts at the international auditing and consulting company PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC).
According to the press release, a trilateral memorandum of cooperation and coordination between
the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast State Administration, the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Council, and PricewaterhouseCoopers
was signed on May 29.
"The document provides for the creation and implementation of effective tools to combat corruption
as part of a comprehensive strategy of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, primarily through a comprehensive
audit of the budgetary process," the release states.
The press service reports that priority initiatives will include the creation of a platform for
public discussion of critical issues in the anti-corruption fight, the coordination of interaction
among the different departments and organizations, and the improvement of phone helplines. The memorandum,
will be in effect for one year.
Disclaimer: This is a slightly edited Google translation.
Thus, if the project is cancelled or permanently suspended, the dependence of Russia and the
EU from the Ukrainian gas transportation system in the coming years will continue.
Last weekend in the black sea there were two events that could determine the fate of the macro-region
in the years ahead.
On Saturday, after a closed meeting of the three of us senators, including John McCain, with the
Bulgarian Prime Minister Mr. Oresharski last agreed to freeze the construction of the gas pipeline
"South stream". Bulgaria was the point of the land of entering the EU for this pipe with a capacity
of 63 billion cubic meters of gas a year, envelope Ukraine. Thus, if the project is cancelled
or permanently suspended, the dependence of Russia and the EU from the Ukrainian gas transportation
system in the coming years will continue. And, considering Ukraine's negotiations with the U.S.
on the selling part of its GTS to American companies, Washington becomes a "dictator", defining relations
of Brussels, Kiev and Moscow.
A bit less loud, but an important event was the visit of US assistant Secretary of state for Europe
and Eurasia Victoria Nuland to Odessa. According to the press service of the Odessa regional state
administration, there Nuland met with the Chairman of Dnipropetrovsk regional state administration
Igor Kolomoiskiy, its Odessa colleague Igor Palitsa (on photo) and mayor of Odessa Gennady Trukhanov.
By the way, Mr. Mace is a personal emanation of Mr. Kolomoisky.
The parties discussed the current situation in Ukraine and the Odessa region, according to CAA.
According to Victoria Nuland, she visited Odessa because of the importance of this city for Ukraine.
Mr. Mace has assured guest, that the situation in Odessa "calm and controlled", "separatist moods
are practically no" and made it clear that the city would not hurt investment. Nuland said that in
the autumn in Ukraine expect a large landing of American investors, but said that its results will
depend on the success of the antiterrorist operation. Recall that in ATU took the most active part
Mr. Kolomoisky.
It is noteworthy that at the Odessa meeting was not politicians from Kiev. This diplomatic nonsense
shows that the oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who oversees not only the Dnipropetrovsk and Odessa, built
in direct connection with the state Department, says the former Deputy of the Odessa city Council,
a political scientist Alexander Vasiliev. According to the expert, there is a substitution of the
administrative vertical feudal, in which the Governor of the Odessa region are not accountable to
Kiev, and Mr. Kolomoisky. "Vertical closed on US directly. Probably this is the very "decentralization"of
which we are told in Kyiv," - ironically, Mr. Vasilyev.
Why Victoria Nuland chose the place of his visit to Odessa? This city is extremely important in
geopolitical terms, experts say. "No other regional center of Ukraine cannot boast of such a high
attention of Washington: to Nuland we visited the Ambassador of the USA", - says Alexander Vasiliev.
"Our city is definitely the focus of attention of the USA", - agrees Odessa political observer Yuri
Tkachev.
Recall that after the annexation of Crimea to Russia, namely in Odessa relocated the headquarters
and the main forces of the Navy of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian government began to establish beach
"hedgehogs" in the Odessa beaches, believing that Russia intends to go to Transnistria by joining
the "new Russia". This was repeatedly stated by the ex-President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili and
former adviser to Vladimir Putin, Mr. Illarionov. In their opinion, the capture of Odessa would allow
Russia to cut off the most "diomidovsky" part of Ukraine from the sea, depriving the area of strategic
importance.
Realize Moscow ascribed to her plans, Ukraine would cease to be part of the so-called "Baltic-black
sea axis and important buffer between Russia and the European Union. Moreover, would be disrupted
the plans of construction in Odessa terminal for receiving LNG as one of the alternatives to Russian
gas. If Odessa will remain one of the pillars of the new Ukrainian state, the control of Donbass
for the Russian Federation is no longer so important.
Geopolitical considerations, political analyst from the IISS Samuel Charap explains the absence
in the American media regrets about the burning of 40 activists of Antimiani" in Odessa House of
trade unions. And the very fact of this unprecedented massacre, the organizers of which are also
associated with Mr. Kolomoisky, talks about the importance of the city.
Events in Odessa closely connected with the events in the neighboring Sofia, experts say. Immediately
after the "capture" of the Crimea in the media are talking about the fact that now you can significantly
reduce the cost of the project South stream, having its not in depth, and in the Crimea in the shallows.
Thus, the blockade of the Bulgarian section devalues for Russia joining the Crimea to the gas transportation
point of view. And strengthening of positions of the Ukrainian authorities in Odessa complicates
Moscow hypothetical creation of "new Russia", through which could duplicate the Ukrainian GTS.
All this is likely to spur and military activity of Washington in the region.
On the background of today's gas talks with Russia, Ukraine and the EU in Moscow say about U.S.
intentions to withdraw from the Montreux Convention of 1936, which limits the tonnage and time of
stay in the Black sea warships from nachimovsky States...
Ukraine has been suffering a profound internal schism for some time now, one that is threatening
to become one of those ugly civil wars that are occurring in more and more countries. The boundaries
of present-day Ukraine include an east-west cleavage that is linguistic, religious, economic, and
cultural, each side being close to 50 percent of the total.
The present government (said to be dominated by the eastern half) is accused in public demonstrations
by the other side of corruption and authoritarian rule. No doubt this is true, at least in part.
It is not however clear that a government dominated by the western half would be less corrupt and
less authoritarian. In any case, the issue is posed internally in geopolitical terms: Should Ukraine
be part of the European Union, or should it knit strong ties with Russia?
It is therefore perhaps unexpected that YouTube is now featuring a tape in which the U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, is shown discussing U.S. political
strategy vis-à-vis Ukraine with the U.S. Ambassador. In this tape, Ms. Nuland poses the issue
as a geopolitical struggle between the United States and Europe (and more particularly Germany).
She is caught in a diatribe, in which she says "Fuck the Europeans" - the Europeans, not the Russians.
Before we proceed with the analysis, let us take a moment to offer generic sympathy to all important
people these days. In the last few years, there has been much discussion about the loss of privacy
in communications. But this discussion has always been about little people subject to spying by governments,
in particular by the U.S. National Security Agency. It seems however that this loss of privacy now
extends to people like Ms. Nuland. There is much speculation about exactly who bugged her conversation
and made it go viral on YouTube. The point is that poor Ms. Nuland is no longer safe in saying anything
- or at least anything that she wouldn't want the whole world to know.
Let us take a look at who is Victoria Nuland. She is a surviving member of the neocon clique that
surrounded George W. Bush, in whose government she served. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is one of the
best-known ideologues of the neocon group. It is an interesting question what she is doing in such
a key position in the Department of State of an Obama presidency. The least he and U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry were supposed to do was to remove the neocons from such a role.
Geopolitical choices may be tweaked by the individuals in power, but the pressure of long-term national
interests remains strong.
Now, let us recall what exactly was the neocon line on Europe during
the Bush days. The then U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously talked of France and Germany
as the "old Europe" in contrast to what he saw as the "new Europe" - that is, countries who shared
Rumsfeld's views on the then imminent invasion of Iraq. The new Europe was for Rumsfeld Great Britain
especially and east-central Europe, the countries formerly part of the Soviet bloc. Ms. Nuland seems
to have the same perception of Europe.
Let me therefore propose that Ukraine is merely a convenient excuse or proxy for a larger geopolitical
division that has nothing whatsoever to do with its internal schism. What haunts the Nulands of this
world is not a putative "absorption" of Ukraine by Russia - an eventuality with which she could live.
What haunts her and those who share her views is a geopolitical alliance of Germany/France and Russia.
The nightmare of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis has receded a little bit since its acme in 2003, when
U.S. efforts to have the U.N. Security Council endorse the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 were defeated
by France and Germany.
The nightmare has receded a bit but lurks there just beneath the surface, and for good reason.
Such an alliance makes geopolitical sense for Germany/France and Russia. And in geopolitics, what
makes sense is a constraint that insisting on ideological differences can affect very little. Geopolitical
choices may be tweaked by the individuals in power, but the pressure of long-term national interests
remains strong.
Why does a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis make sense? There are good reasons. One is the U.S. turn towards
a Pacific-centrism replacing its long history of Atlantic-centrism. Russia's nightmare, and Germany's
as well, is not a U.S.-China war but a U.S.-China alliance (one that would include Japan and Korea
as well). Germany's only way of diminishing this threat to its own prosperity and power is an alliance
with Russia. And her policy towards Ukraine shows precisely the priority she gives to resolving European
issues by including rather than excluding Russia.
As for France, Hollande has been trying to woo the United States by acting as though France were
part of the "new Europe." But Gaullism has been since 1945 the basic geopolitical stance of France.
Such supposedly non-Gaullist presidents like Mitterrand and Sarkozy in fact pursued Gaullist policies.
And Hollande will soon find he has little choice but to be a Gaullist. Gaullism is not "leftism"
but rather the sense that it is the United States that threatens a continuing geopolitical role for
France, and France has to defend its interests by an opening to Russia in order to counterbalance
the power of the United States.
Who will win in this game? It remains to be seen. But Victoria Nuland seems a little like King
Canute commanding the seas to recede. And the poor Ukrainians may find that they are forced to bind
up their internal wounds whether they want to or not.
Immanuel Wallerstein is a senior research scholar in the department of sociology at Yale University
and director emeritus of the Fernand Braudel Center at Binghamton University. He is also a resident
researcher at the Maison des Sciences de l'Homme in Paris. His many books include "The Modern World-System
and Historical Capitalism." He lives in New Haven, Conn., and Paris.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera
America's editorial policy.
Parubiy is a bird from Nuland's nest, former Yuschchenko honcho, one of the founders of the Social
National Party of Ukraine (later renamed Svoboda), a neo-fascist party, with membership restricted to
ethnic Ukrainians. He was instrumental in bringing Yushchenko to power as well as bringing to power
the current junta.
Protest was help in front of the building of the General Prosecutor's in Kiev. Protesters demanded
the prompt investigation of resonant criminal cases. A group of residents of the capital required
impartially to investigate the massacre on the Maidan and the burning of people in Odessa.
About three dozen of people participate.. According to them, the law enforcement covers those
who ordered those horrible crimes - Igor Kolomoisky and Andrew Parubiy.
"An objective investigation no, although involvement in Odessa tragedy Kolomoisky said the former
Governor of Odessa Vladimir Nemirovskiy," says Darya, the organizer of the rally.
Earlier, ex-Chairman of the Odessa police Dmitry Fuchedzhi accused of involvement in Odessa tragedy
the current head of the NSDC Andrew Parubiy.
I think that we can all agree that the situation in the Ukraine is one of total chaos.
Renat Akhmetov, the local oligarch-mobster, had declared that his companies will go on a "warning
strike" for 3 hours per day because Akhmetov was angered that the authorities of the Donetsk People's
Republic (DPR) had taken over the control of the railways which resulted in losses for his company.
One of the officials of the DRP reacted to Akhmetov's threat by declaring that the DRP authorities
have begun the process of nationalization of the companies located on the territory of the DRP,
in other words, Akhmetov's holdings.
The military forces of the neo-Nazi junta have begun shelling several cities in the eastern
Ukraine destroying several buildings
The military commander of the DRP forces, Igor Strelkov, has made a
poignant and blunt appeal for a much bigger mobilization of men, especially officers, in the
volunteer forces defending the DRP against the junta's military.
Ukrainian death-squads have, yet again, kidnapped a team of Russian reporters, this time of
the TV station LifeNews, accusing them of being the "information-component" of a terrorist movement.
The Russian government has indicated that the military forces which had been on maneuvers
had returned to their bases. NATO denied that.
The Russian military has completed the building a network of pipelines which are now fully
supplying Crimea with fresh water.
The leader of the Ukie Nazis, Iarosh, has announced that if he is elected he would launched
a guerrilla war in Crimea.
So what is really going on?
I think that while it is premature to make grand conclusions and predictions,
we can begin by agreeing on a number of basic facts.
First, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the junta in Kiev is clearly provoking
Moscow in every possible way. If one could maybe see some marginal and far-fetched military
rationale for the kind of random artillery strikes the Ukies are unleashing on Slavianks, Kramatorsk
and other cities, the arrest of the LifeNews news-crew makes no sense at all. They were put on their
knees, beat up, held with their faces to the ground - all on video which was then "leaked" to Youtube
as if the death squads were provoking the Kremlin with a "what are you gonna do about it?" message.
Second, I believe that the appointment of Biden's son to the board of directors of the main Ukie
energy company whose concessions are all in the eastern Ukraine is also a way of further provoking
the Kremlin.
So why would the junta do all this?
First, I think that it is reasonable to accept as an axiom that the freaks in Kiev don't "decide"
anything at all. They just take orders from the USA and execute them. We saw that clearly during
Biden's recent trip to Kiev when he had a meeting with the junta's "government" which he - Biden
- "chaired" sitting at the head of the table (yet another deliberate in-your-face provocation).
Second, the US knows that the eastern Ukraine is lost, and they are absolutely correct. Even if
we fully believe what Strelkov says (more about that later), there is no doubt that the vast majority
of the folks in the Donbass hate the neo-Nazi freaks in Kiev and that they do not want a common future
with the rabid Galicians from the western Ukraine.
So if plan 'A' was to seize all of the Ukraine, put a pro-US neo-Nazi and hysterically russophobic
regime in power, and take over Crimea for the US/NATO, plan 'B' is simpler: provoke Russia into a
military intervention in the eastern Ukraine. While the Russian military could easily take under
control all of the Donbass and even all the lands to the Dniepr river as the proverbial hot knife
through butter, the political benefits for the AngloZionist Empire would be immense:
1) A new Cold War with Russia justifying the existence of NATO.
2) Cutting-off Russia from the EU market (including energy).
3) Blaming Russia for the Ukie economic collapse.
4) Justifying a major surge in US/EU military budgets to "protect Europe".
5) Isolating Russia internationally, especially at the UN.
6) Declare Putin a "new Hitler" (what else?) and allocate billions for regime change in Russia.
7) Use the crisis to bring Europe to heel to the AngloZionist "master"
8) Impose Iran-like sanctions on Russia to try to hurt it economically
9) Justify a US/NATO move into western Ukraine and the creation of a new Korean-style demarcation
line along the Dniepr with the free and civilized "West" on one side, and the "freedom hating and
imperialist dictatorial Russian Asiatic hordes" on the other.
10)Blame the EU economic collapse on the 'Russian threat'
I would argue that for the AngloZionists plan 'B' is almost better than plan 'A'. For one thing,
plan 'B' makes it possible to blame Russia for anything and everything conceivable on Russia. We
have already seen this tendency in the absolutely ludicrous warning that should the Presidential
elections next Sunday in the Ukraine fail - Russia would be sanctioned for it. Next I propose to
slap some major sanctions on Russia if there is an earthquake in San Fransisco or if there are riots
in Paraguay...
Also, while plan 'A' was really a very long shot, plan 'B' is already working. Let me give you
an example: the Russian media.
For those who cannot follow the Russian media, especially the Russian TV, it is hard to image
the degree of openly expressed *rage* at the developments in the Ukraine. Some folks who are naturally
inclined to see the "hand of CIA" in everything are even arguing that the "US-controlled" Russian
media has been tasked by Langley to stir up Russian public opinion to such a degree as to force Putin
to agree to an intervention in the Ukraine. According to this thesis, if Putin does not order a Russian
military intervention, he will face a major crisis and his popularity will crumble under the waves
of outrage from the Russian population. This is a neat and elegant theory. It is also wrong (thank
God!). The fact is that Putin's popularity has soared over his handling over the Ukrainian crisis
as shown by the screenshot of a recent TV report.
Here we are dealing with a huge cultural difference between Russians and western people, especially
Anglos: Russians are *very* weary of war. They will accept it and they will even accept to die in
a war, but only one in which the moral issue is really clear-cut like during the 2nd Chechen war,
08.08.08 or the Russian intervention in Crimea. In all three of these cases the first and foremost
consideration to support or oppose the Russian military intervention was a *moral* one. While public
opinion is gradually shifting towards a support for a Russian military intervention in the Ukraine
(most public opinion polls suggest that Russian would back one), the military itself and even the
Kremlin are weary of falling into the AngloZionist trap of plan 'B'.
Emotions are strong, but emotions should not decide of war and peace issues. In the 2nd Chechen
war, in 08.08.08 and in Crimea emotions were sky-high, but the decision to use military force was
taken on pragmatic, rational and carefully measured reasons, not just an surge of outrage. As I said
it many times, when threatened, Russians to not get angry, they concentrate. This is what is happening
now.
Coming back to the media, another very interesting phenomenon is taking place: high visibility
Russian Jews are clearly in the lead of the movement to take action (though not necessarily a military
one) against the Junta. Very well-known Jewish personalities like Vladimir Soloviev, Alexander Gordon,
Roman Ratner (current head of the Alia battalion,
an Israeli special forces battalion compose of Russian Jews), Avigdor Eskin and many others. While
rabid Jew-haters will dismiss this under the usual list of pretexts having to do with Jewish hypocrisy,
playing both sides, etc. I personally believe that this is truly an expression of the loathing that
Russian Jews have for Ukrainian neo-Nazis. I would add that it is pretty clear to me that most Russian
nationalists also believe in the sincerity of these Jews and welcome them in a struggle against a
common enemy. Does that mean that from now on there will be a long and uninterrupted "love fest"
between Russian and Jewish patriots? Most definitely not. The list of outstanding issues of
very strong disagreement and even opposition is huge, but this is an interesting "temporary cease-fire"
if you want, a typically Russian (and Jewish!) way of keeping priorities straight and agreeing to
a temporary tactical alliance against a common foe. Furthermore, there are a lot of Russian Jews
who have always felt a sincere and strong love for Russia and the Russian people (if only because
a lot of them came from mixed marriages) and who welcome the opportunity to not have to chose
between both sides and to be both patriotic Jews and patriotic Russians. I know, to some this sill
sound extremely naive. But I personally have known many such Russian Jews, in Israel, Europe
and Russia, who really did have a double-loyalty, but one which openly *added* two sincerely loyalties.
Of course, some felt more Jewish than Russian, but others felt more Russian than Jewish. These matters
are subtle and complex, not as black and white as some kneejerk Jew-haters would want them to be.
As the Russian expressions goes "the East is a subtle realm" and both Russians and Jews are first
and foremost folks of the East, not of the West.
Coming back to what I call the AngoZionist plan 'B', we now can understand the Russian stance:
not to be pulled in or, if that is impossible, to be pulled in as last as possible. Why? For a few
basic reasons:
1) To have as clear-cut a moral case as possible.
2) To give time to world public opinion to realize that it is being lied to by the western corporate
media (that already seems to be taking place, if slowly).
3) To maximize the support for such an intervention in the eastern Ukraine.
4) Because time is very much on the Russian side, to give every opportunity to the junta freaks
to further commit blunders.
5) Because a victory of the DRP forces is still possible
At this point I want to get the the military balance on the ground in the Donbass. To sum things
up.
A very large Ukrainian force is currently deployed in the eastern Ukraine. It is opposed by a
very small force of volunteers. There are two reasons why this conflict has not been settled in 24
hours. First, the vast majority of the Ukrainian military personnel does not want to fight. Second,
the threat of a Russian military intervention is real and, I would add, has nothing to do with the
forces allegedly deployed at the Russian-Ukrainian border. Let me explain this as the corporate media
is completely missing this. Let me give you an example of what could happen.
Let's us assume that a few multiple-rocket launcher batteries around, say, Slaviansk suddenly
decided to get serious and open up with a sustained artillery barrage similar to the one the Georgians
unleashed on Tskhinval in the first hours of the 08.08.08 war. In response to that, Russia would
not need to send armor and troops across the border. Putin could order missile and air-strikes which
could literally obliterate the offending Ukrainian artillery units in a matter of *minutes* (one
single Iskander missile armed with a fragmentation or fuel-air explosive warhead could do the job!).
Unlike the western reporters (which is a misnomer, they should be called "parroters" because they
parrot the government lies), the Ukrainian military commanders all fully realize that they are all
very much within reach of enough Russian firepower to send them all the a better world in minutes.
Would you want to obey orders to shell Slaviansk while knowing that there is a bullseye painted on
our exact position by many Iskander missile operators and that if the Russians fire it, you will
neither see, nor hear it coming (not even on radar)?
All the reports on the ground concur to say that while the various Ukrainian death squads (the
"National Guard", the Dniepr and Dniester battalions, the various oligarch-owned death squads, etc.)
are extremely hostile and even shoot civilians for fun, the Ukrainian military is mostly shy or even
pretty friendly to the locals. Here is what is happening really:
Ukrainian death squads are far more busy dealing with the Ukrainian military than with the Donbass
forces. For one thing, this is easier and safer for them (like all death squads, they are staffed
with lunatics, perverts and cowards): why risk your life fighting some pretty motivated folks when
you can instead bully regular military commanders to do the fighting for you? As for the Ukrainians,
they cannot openly defy these orders, but they can make darn sure that they are minimally executed.
Furthermore, by all accounts, the death squads get all the support while the regular military
forces are under or not paid at all, they are under fed, under equipped, they have little or not
medical support and the logistics are plain horrible.
In fact, Igor Strelkov admits this in his address. His concern is that with the gradual escalation
the already small forces of volunteers is having to shoulder am immense effort while hundred of thousands
of men, including military trained ones, are sitting at home and sipping beer. Is that really true?
I believe that this is indeed very true. There are many reasons for this state of affairs.
To begin, an entire generation of Ukrainians have been raised in abject passivity. "Work, shut
up and mind your business while we fleece you" was the order of the day under the various oligarch-controlled
regimes of the "independent Ukraine". Second, there are not one or two but at least THREE local powers
in the Donbass right now: the local mobsters, the Kiev junta and the local resistance. This creates
a huge confusion were many people are both afraid and do not want to get burned. Third, most people
clearly that Russia will solve the problem for them and think "we will vote for sovereignty, and
the Russians will come to liberate us sooner or later". And never forget that that there are
death squads operating all over the Ukraine right now. The purpose of massacres like the one in Odessa
or Mariupol is to terrify the locals by showing how ruthless and murderous you are and it works (death
squads are of the most time honored traditions of the Empire!). So it is all well to sit in the safety
of my house in sunny Florida and wish that the folks in the Donbass would take up arms, except for
my wife and family are not threatened. My house will (probably) not get assaulted at night by man
in black, and I am unlikely to be disappeared, tortured and murdered. This also applies to most of
the readers of this blog.
Of course, Strelkov clearly sees where all this is heading (escalation) and he is concerned that
the currently small resistance will not be able to cope with a constantly growing junta escalation:
it all began with baseball bats, the they switched to Molotov cocktails, then handguns, assault-rifles
and machine guns. Now they have already used mortar and artillery fire. We have confirmed reports
of helicopter-fired unguided missile attacks and this morning I got a report of a Sukhoi attack.
Add to this oligarch-paid death squads and you clearly will see what has Strelkov so worried and,
let's face it, disgusted with the passivity of the locals.
But keep in mind that even if his appeal is not heeded, and even if the key cities are re-taken,
the Donbass is already lost. In fact,
the latest
report out of Kiev says the Ukie rump-Rada has adopted a memorandum stating that "Ukrainian troops
deployed in the country's east should immediately return to their bases". Now, I am not holding my
breath (Uncle Sam will never agree), but who knows what might happen (maybe the Germans are getting
involved now?). I believe that nobody really knows.
There are simply too many variables to confidently state that this or that will happen. Heck,
we are not even sure of what has already happened! This is an extremely chaotic situation in which
most unpredictable things could happen (for example, an oligarch could e bought by Moscow or a resistance
figure could be bought by the USA - it really could go either way). The fact is that with the notable
exception of true believers (on both sides), the vast majority of Ukrainians are still in the "what
is in it for me?" mode. Again, this is in no way different form the position of most Russians in
1917, 1991 or 1993. While this kind of apparent passivity has nothing to do with some "lack of democratic
culture in the past of these societies which only recently were feudal" and all the rest of the garden
variety western racism supremacist, it is a direct result of a profound alienation with, and suspicion
of, the elites. These folks just so Yanukovich hand power to neo-Nazis and run abroad! They have
been burned over and over again. And, this is crucial, there is no Ukrainian Putin to follow.
When Putin came to power in Russia it took less than a month for the armed forces to feel that
"this guy as got our backs". It took the rest of the population a little longer, but now the vast
majority of Russians actually trust Putin. Whom should they trust in the Ukraine or even in the Donbass.
Figure which appeared just a few weeks ago and which nobody really knows or figures which are known
for decades for being thief, crooks and pathological liars?
Whom would you trust if you were living in Donetsk or Lugansk?
Would you risk your life and the life of your family on such a choice?
Exactly.
So while I understand the frustration of Strelkov (and most of us!) with seeing a territory with
millions of people defended by only a few hundred courageous men, and while I also catch myself getting
enraged in discussed with the news out of the Ukraine and day-dreaming about Polite Armed Men in
Green obliterating the Ukie death-squads, I also understand why this has been and will continue to
be a slow process: it is simply too fluid and too rapidly shifting to take any premature or
rash decisions.
The AngloZionists are desperately trying to trigger an over Russian intervention, and there is
a pretty good chance that they might succeed, no doubt, but the good news is that time is running
out fast, very fast, soon the economic crisis is going to start really biting and the unrest will
spread far beyond the Donbass.
As for the Presidential elections next Sunday, they are going to be such a mega-farce that it
serve no other purpose than to maybe give NATO a justification to move forces into the western Ukraine
at the "request" of the new President. Will the West recognize this election? You betcha it will!
As Vladimir Soloviev put it on Sunday, "even if there will be only one candidate and one person
voting, the West will call these elections free and fair". But for the people of the Ukraine
this will be a self-evident farce which will only alienate them further, including the neo-Nazis.
In fact, Yulia Timoshenko (who, by the way, seems to have gone completely insane) has even declared
that if the billionaire oligarch Poroshenko is elected (as all polls seem to suggest) she will launch
yet another revolution with Maidan and all.
Following the example of the Ukraine, not it is "Banderastan" which is committing national suicide
and that entire house of cards will be coming down soon (unless a last minute effort by Germany helps
delay or stop this, but I am not holding my breath). We all need to show some patience now.
Sorry for the very long SITREP, but I have to cover a lot of ground.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
PS: I am under huge time pressure, so no time to correct typos. I apologize for that and ask for
your understanding. And, besides, this is a SITREP not a work of literary art.
A bit of historical background in last decade concerning NGOs involved with setting US policy
for Eastern Europe (and the Middle East) ○
Neocons Covert
Action and Ukraine Watch
PS I tried to post parts here, but due to number of links the post got stuck in moderation.
As will this. That republic passed the following resolution
3. Law enforcement agencies of the Republic to ensure the criminal prosecution of the leaders
of the Kiev junta and other persons involved in inciting, organizing and committing mass murders
on the territory of the DND: Kolomoyskit, Nalivaichenko, Parubiy, Havanova, Yulia Tymoshenko,
Atarinov, Arseniy Yatseniuk, Lyashko, Artemenko and U.S. citizens Brennan, Nuland,
Psaki.
Many outside the republic could now agree with that list.
3. Law enforcement agencies of the Republic to ensure the criminal prosecution of the
leaders of the Kiev junta and other persons involved in inciting, organizing and committing
mass murders on the territory of the DND: Kolomoyskit, Nalivaichenko, Parubiy, Havanova,
Yulia Tymoshenko, Atarinov, Arseniy Yatseniuk, Lyashko, Artemenko and U.S. citizens Brennan,
Nuland, Psaki."
Now that is interesting, compare this action to the first act of the Kiev regime which was
to ban the Russian language. Someone in the Republic has a head on their shoulders.
I agree, Putin originally (I suspect) wanted to share the cost of getting the Ukraine back
on its feet with the EU as part of his 2010 publicized strategy for a pan-euro-asian trade partnership.
The either'or demand of the US/EU IMF package caught Russia by surprise, espec as Russia had already
advanced 3 billion of a proposed 15 billion loan.
And once Russia saw Natzi elements in play I think they reached for well thought out battle
strategies re Crimea and my guess is they have additional equally well thought out strategies
for annexing/defending any and all parts of the Ukraine if it comes down to it.
None of this upheaval was necessary and it is amazing to me to see how badly played the
west's role has been. If someone tells me one day that Nuland was a mole I will be inclined to
believe it:)
I agree that Russia has stepped up their game. So far they have avoided a new NATO state on
their border and a hot war. But, the Kremlin better not gloat because the Civil War next door
will spill over into Russia.
I worked for the US government for 42 years. I dealt with representatives of Swiss, German,
French, UK, Japanese, and American companies until they were all consolidated into a few giant
multinationals. Just before I retired, one American company ignored the law and regulations and
just did what they wanted. When caught they paid a couple million dollar fine but no one was jailed;
"The costs of doing business". Since 2008 corporations and the wealthy have had a free ticket
to do whatever they want. The result is Austerity, War, and Superyachts.
The United States and European Union are like Ukraine before the start of the Color Revolutions.
Each country is run by and for the Oligarchs not the people. Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland, and
Portugal are on the edge. If rich eastern plutocrats had funded democracy movements in these States
like Westerners did in Ukraine, they would already have had their revolutions.
Knut
I believe the Russians can wait for as long as it takes, short of NATO troops being stationed
in the Ukraine at the 'invitation' of the new government to be elected in two weeks. This would
cross to fat a red line. As to provocations, it would require something bigger than the Maidan
regime can pull off without significant foreign assistance. As Russia has its own people there,
it would be impossible to pull off without the perpetrators being unmasked. As b and others here
have observed, any serious repression of the Russophone population would provoke serious indigenous
resistance that the regime would be unable to contain. So far, it's checkmate.
bevin
"...a Cold War is not inevitable. Russia has made, for example, no antagonistic moves in Iran,
in Syria or in Afghanistan. Putin has been at some pains to underline that whereas – from now
– Russia will pursue its vital interests unhesitatingly, and in the face of any western pressures,
on other non-existential issues, it is still open to diplomatic business as usual....
Crooke contradicts himself: a Cold War is inevitable.
"...the era of Gorbachevian hope of some sort of parity of esteem (even partnership) emerging
between Russia and the western powers, in the wake of the conclusion to the Cold War, has imploded
– with finality..."
That is, the Cold War continues. It never ended.
The problem is that Russia has no appetite to recognise it. It refuses to face up to the awful
reality of imperialism. Russia hopes that, after a few more Olympic Games and all manner of cultural
contacts, the Cold Warriors in the West will just fade away. And capitalism will revert to the
existence it has never had anywhere but in the textbooks of its propagandists, and drop the plundering
and destruction and make friends of bosses everywhere, including in Russia.
They won't: warmongering is not a prejudice born of misunderstanding and slavophobia but a
way of life. Without a Cold War the US economy and the state have no purpose: they exist to pursue
hegemony, not to achieve it, but to maintain the thrill, and the profits, of the chase.
The thrill of a trillion dollar military budget.
The thrill of having the entire population's personal details at their fingertips. A blackmailer's
nirvana.
The thrill of running a gulag system without parallel in its extent, brutality and profitability
in modern history.
The thrill of having agents wandering the streets of Sa'ana and Karachi shooting whomsoever
they fancy. The thrill of using drone strikes to wipe out wedding parties "pour encourager
les autres."
The thrill of looting the domestic economy, impoverishing the masses on the excuse that
there is an emergency, a war on terror, that necessitates the postponement of non-military
responsibilities. BUt never mind "There will be pie in the sky. When you die." Lots of pie.
And death comes earlier every year.
Russia has made "no antagonistic moves in Iran, in Syria or in Afghanistan." And what has it
gained by assisting the US in Afghanistan? Or by refusing to honour its defense contracts to Iran?
What did it gain by watching Saddam being crushed? Or Ghadaffi?
On the whole little more than contempt and disdain. Its restraint has been interpreted as weakness,
which in turn has been interpreted as an invitation to escalated aggression. Thus do the Kagans
see the world.
What we have seen since Gorbachev's day is an assault on Russia, a full spectrum assault, to
which Russia has made no reply, sitting there paralysed like a serpent's victim as it has been
torn apart and devoured by enemies at whom it smiles beatifically, like an ikon or a sub-Dostoevskyan
protagonist. Like an impotent Oblomov. Patience on a monument to 25 million martyrs.
Still, "...the atmosphere in Moscow is hardening, and hardening visibly. Even the 'pro-Atlanticist'
component in Russia senses that Europe will not prove able to de-escalate the situation. They
are both disappointed, and bitter at their political eclipse in the new mood that is contemporary
Russia, where the 'recovery of sovereignty' current prevails."
It could be that in the eastern Ukraine, where massacres such as those we have seen in the
past week are taken to heart a little more easily than they are in Moscow, will force Russia's
hand. And Kiev's too. One side's provocations and the other's pacifism make for good Chess but
bad politics. Another Odessa incident and not only the Donbas but Russia could explode.
Then Putin will have to respond. And the only reasonable response must be to insist that
the US get its pit bulls back under control, end the killings and call a halt to a process that
must lead to war if continued. Real war, not proxy terrorism, death squads and drones but an immediate
expansion of the battlefield from south eastern Ukraine to the whole of Europe.
War not because the General Staffs want it, or the Kaisers or the Diplomats but because the
logic of Odessa and Maryupol leads only to war. The shooting of one maverick Grand Duke was nothing
compared to what we saw in Odessa. And the links between Gavrilo Princip and Belgrade were incomparably
vaguer than those between the criminals in Odessa and Barack Obama.
muskat
Take a look back to recent years. At the beginning there were the uprisings in northern africa,
deleting partners and outposts of russia. then the war in syria began. in assad, another allie
have to fight against all sorts of enemies. Iran faced tough sanctions made by the US and the
EU. Coincidently Russia is going to get the same sanctions out of nothing. At the same time NATO
placed troops in the baltic countries. Finally. If this is not a kind of cold war, what else?
re bevin 10. I wouldn't have thought that Putin was ignorant of the possibility of a new Cold
War. It is simply, as Crooke says, that the Russians don't want it.
Alexno
Putin's actions seem to me reasonable, in order to defend their interests, and to avoid war. Ukraine
will collapse of its own accord, if the present road continues. Actually, I quite admire Putin's
policy. He has avoided fighting and killing. That should not be taken for weakness, rather a degree
of subtlety rare in the modern day. And certainly unknown to the US.
The danger is that the "hardening atmosphere" in Moscow may demand more robust action. As Putin
is in a position to be relatively autocratic, I wouldn't have thought that would eventuate.
To add to 12. Putin is also aware that Europe can't avoid its dependence on Russian gas. The
West is split. The US doesn't suffer, so it can be as bellicose as it wants. But there's no alternative
to Russian gas for Europe. All the stories of American LNG for Europe are pie in the sky. No surplus
is available, and even if it were, it would take several years to put it in action. No European
leader can face the thought of Europe freezing in the winter. Even Britain who theoretically doesn't
consume much Russian gas is affected, as the gas sharing system implies that Britain will lose
if Russian gas goes down.
No doubt measures will be taken, including the release of Germany's reserve. But some will
be cold, including me. That problem will surface before Russia runs out of money.
Putin doesn't have to act. He is much better to wait and see how the Western alliance splits.
Demian
Whether there's going to be another cold war or not is not an interesting question. One
could say that even using the term "Cold War" here is anti-Russian propaganda, as it suggests
that treating today's Russia as the enemy is morally equivalent to treating the USSR as the enemy.
The really interesting question is whether the USG will succeed in its plan for driving
a wedge between Russia and western Europe (to speak of driving a wedge between "Russia and Europe"
is also anti-Russian propaganda, since Russia is part of Europe), or whether Russia will drive
a wedge between the US and Europe, aided by USG's stupidity, mendacity, and rapacity.
Grieved I think we're mistaken to characterize Russia's actions as "fighting back" if it chooses
military action, but "not fighting back" if it chooses, for example, diplomatic action.
I see Russia as fully engaged with its enemy, whom it has studied for decades and whom it understands
extremely well. Its choice of diplomacy and impeccable lawful protocols is itself a way of fighting.
In the psychiatric field, manifesting sanity in the presence of the insane is the recommended
way to help the situation, I believe.
To my eyes, Russia is indeed fighting, every day, every hour, very seriously in a fight
to the death.
The conservation of resources and the elegance of Russia's moves during all this skirmishing
leaves me profoundly impressed. Russia has not wasted one heartbeat of action, not one grain of
power or material resource, and look at what it has gained already. And it has barely begun in
the long battle it faces of watching the US destroy itself without itself suffering damage or
loss of force.
somebody
Main Stream Media surrenders - it
has become too obvious - Daily Telegraph - and no, they are decidedly anti-Putin
The West in general, and the EU in particular, chose to intervene directly in domestic Ukrainian
politics, backing opponents of the thuggish but none the less freely-elected President Yanukovych.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that they were thereby inviting others to intervene.
Ukraine was always going to matter more to Moscow than to Brussels, yet EU diplomats seemed
genuinely nonplussed when, after they had sponsored undemocratic regime change in Kiev, Putin
did the same in Crimea.
...
European and other Western diplomats might reasonably have pursued one of two strategies
vis-à-vis Russia. They could have decided to overlook Putin's authoritarianism and treat him,
albeit guardedly, as a partner. They could have taken the view that, in the long term, the
main strategic threats to the West were likely to come from further afield than Russia, and
drawn Moscow into an entente cordiale. This would have meant accepting Putin's offer of a Lisbon-to-Vladivostok
free trade zone, and so sparing Ukraine from having to choose between the EU and Putin's customs
union.
Alternatively, Washington and Brussels might have taken the view that the Kremlin's values
were incompatible with theirs, that Russia's readiness to resort to force put it beyond the
comity of nations, and that the freedom of action of former Soviet states was too high a price
to pay for Moscow's goodwill. It could have encouraged these republics to join the West, and
guaranteed their sovereignty by placing Nato bases on their eastern or northern marches.
Both these approaches would have had their drawbacks; but the milk-and-water diplomacy pursued
instead has been nothing short of calamitous.
Let me take a bet - it will be the Lisbon to Vladivostock free trade zone.
Laut "Bild am Sonntag" werden die ukrainischen Sicherheitskräfte von 400 Academi-Elitesoldaten
unterstützt. Sie sollen Einsätze gegen prorussische Rebellen rund um die ostukrainische Stadt
Slowjansk geführt haben. Demnach setzte der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) die Bundesregierung
am 29. April darüber in Kenntnis. Wer die Söldner beauftragt habe, sei noch unklar.
Die Informationen sollen vom US-Geheimdienst stammen und seien während der sogenannten Nachrichtendienstlichen
Lage, einer regelmäßigen Besprechung unter Leitung von Kanzleramtschef Peter Altmaier (CDU),
vorgetragen worden. An dem Treffen hätten auch die Präsidenten der Nachrichtendienste und des
Bundeskriminalamts, der Geheimdienstkoordinator des Kanzleramts und hochrangige Ministeriumsbeamte
teilgenommen.
Translation: German Secret Service informed the German government on April 29, that
operations around Sloviansk were led by 400 Academi/Blackwater mercenaries, high ranking German
government and and administration officials took part in the meeting where this was revealed.
It is not clear who has contracted the mercenaries.
BILD is the tabloid read by most people in Germany. Its editorial policy is considered to be
politically decisive.
Thanks, Scalawag. I think this is a really important story. Here's the Lifenews.ru story about
the captured Grad launchers, from the previous day. Check the source to see if I have taken undue
liberties translating. And tell me, if this is true, why the hell haven't they put these things
on show? That would be devastating PR:
Militia detained a major by the name of Roman Koti, who was to deliver the launchers to the
village of Markovka in the Lugansk region. According to him, he did not know what the next orders
would be. The major presented his identity card, which listed his military unit as A-1302 in Dnepropetrovsk.
He said:
The installation was sent to town to Markovka. I was supposed to be there by 5 am (Saturday
May 10, presumably - RB). My briefing was conducted by Colonel Melnik.
According to militia reports, one of the launchers was to be targeted on the Slavyansk Valley,
the second on Mount Karachun. Activists of self-defense claim they intercepted radio traffic between
Ukrainian forces indicating that they had planned to use the Grads in the near future.
Anonymous
somebody
I read this comment on another site:
Today a more informative article emerged on Der Spiegel.......seems ACADEMI-mercs formerly
known as Blackwater are operating in specialpolice SOKOL-uniforms since some time know.......remember
the SOKOL-Snipers from Maidan!
You know the
article? Or is it the same that you linked?
Rowan Berkeley
Right. But before you pointed that story out, I had already suggested that this whole meme
was a dubious one, because Lifenews were the only source for it, and their own source was unnamed,
and most decisively because (I think) they said somewhere that they had been following it since
May 5, but as of today, May 11, no one else is reporting it except them. I assume they had been
reporting on it since May 5, though my own Russian-language site search ability is (shall we say)
limited. I would put this forward as a principle for evaluating stories in general. I know I rather
often dismiss other people's stories as 'disinfo' and this is a chance for me to illustrate that
I do have some principles to go by.
somebody
Der Spiegel article I linked to quotes a Russian source on the SOKOL uniforms but says it is
unconfirmed.
This article here in RT quoting German business research institute director Sinn in the Wall
Street Journal is interesting
As Hans Werner Sinn, president of the Ifo Institute for Economy Research in Germany, wrote
in the Wall Street Journal on May 2:
"It must be borne in mind that the present crisis was triggered by the West… after killing
millions of Russians in World War II and enjoying the good fortune of a peaceful reunification
thanks also to Russia's support, it is the duty of Germany in particular to de-escalate the
conflict with Russia."
The article is written by two people from American University in Moscow which is a very interesting
institution in itself.
After remembering the Second World Alliance of the US, the Soviet Union, Britain and France
against Nazi Germany they come to this conclusion
We live in Alice's Wonderland: Reason and common sense have fled and the bitterly won lessons
of history have been thrown overboard. Who can save us from our own ignorance and stupidity?
So far the only things we hear from President Obama are demands for sanctions, sanctions,
and more sanctions against Russia. It sounds more like an invitation to dance on the brink
of a very frightening precipice.
Wouldn't it be the greatest historical irony if it turns out to be German Chancellor Angela
Merkel who can do it? At least her first name sounds like an invitation to peace.
As Germans overwhelmingly are against sanctions despite a dislike for Putin this is the direction
where Merkel will go.
"Alice's Wonderland" is a very good description of US foreign policy.
What is wrong with having a democratic referendum on autonomy, on a federal rather than 'Kiev
controls all' governmental structure for Ukraine? Why are pro-federalists called 'pro-Russians'?
Why is it that the sponsors of the Kiev coup, we heard Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador
to Ukraine on the phone choosing the after-coup prime minister, aren't subject to sanctions?
Why aren't we discussing sanctions for those providing massive economic and on-the-ground military
support for the illegally installed junta?
What is wrong with opposing a government that openly employs armed fascists and neo-Nazis
(Right Sector and Svoboda) in its National Guard? That employs tanks and heavy weapons against
unarmed civilians (as anyone who can watch a youtube video can see)?
Why is the government that is explicitly and excruciatingly not involved in Ukraine unrest
being subject to sanctions and asked to back its military 100s of miles away from its own border?
Victoria Nuland Lies to House Foreign Affairs Committee; Congressman Rohrabacher Challenges
Nuland's Claim No Nazis in Kiev.
Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, lied by denying
that there were armed Nazis supporting the ouster of Ukraine's "free and fairly elected" President
Victor Yanukovych, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Thursday, despite repeated
questions posed by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) about pictures of neo-Nazis armed with guns in the
Maidan, and their affiliations with neo-Nazi groups in other countries.
The full committee hearing on the Ukraine crisis featured an opening statement by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher
(R-CA), as Chair of its Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia. Rohrbacher stated that the situation
in Ukraine is "much murkier" than is being pretended. It is not simply a case of Russian aggression.
Chaos began, said Rohrbacher, when the elected President of Ukraine (Yanukovych), who won an election
- an election which observers from the OSCE declared "free and fair" - was forced out of office by
street involvement. (emphasis in original).
The problem started without any Russian involvement. It started when the Ukraine President decided
to make an economic agreement with Russia, not the EU. It gets murkier. We should not be jumping
into it.
Later, in his turn to question Nuland, Rohrbacher asked:
Rohrbacher: What will [intervening in Ukraine] cost the U.S., bottom line?
Nuland: $187m + $50m + $18m DOD budgeted for security services and border guards.
Rohrbacher: Did we guarantee any loans from the World Bank to Ukraine?
Nuland: $400m for Treasury of $1 billion from the IMF.
Rohrbacher: Do we have preferential payback?
Nuland: I don't know; I'll get back to you…
Rohrbacher: I think I know the answer. We had a legitimate election before, but [the President]
was removed. About the violence. There are pictures of neo-Nazis. Were the neo-Nazis involved in
the street violence?
Nuland: The vast majority were peaceful protesters. We saw firebombs being thrown, and people
shooting into police ranks. All of these incidents are subject to investigation.
Rohrbacher: Guns were involved.
Nuland: As the demonstration became more violent both…
Rohrbacher: Was the neo-Nazi group affiliated with Nazi groups in other countries?
Nuland: I don't know about the early period. Later, we see recruiting on neo-Nazi websites in
Russia. We don't have any information against neo-Nazi groups from Europe. There is no information
to corroborate. Ukraine is investigating…
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) also pointed to the anti-Russian bias of U.S. foreign policy in the alternating
cases of U.S. support at times, for territorial integrity, and at other times, independence, as shown
in South Sudan, South Ossetia, Moldova, and other cases. "It seems haphazard," Sherman said, but
"Every decision we make is anti-Moscow."
Sherman: Has the Right Sector militia been disarmed?
Nuland: Ukraine has made a massive effort.
Sherman: How successful has it been?
Nuland: There's progress, but more to do.
Sherman: Kiev wants to repeal the Russian language law.
Nuland: Language rights will be protected.
Other useful questioning of Nuland occurred.
Rep. Albio Sires (R-NJ) asked Nuland why, if the Russian people were impacted by the sanctions,
"Putin is getting more popular."
Nuland's testimony made clear that the plan for the May 25 referendum is a large vote turnout,
with thousands of observers, and she claimed that 39 million voters had been registered online, while
the International Republican Institute is predicting 84% are likely to vote.
(Note: Non-quotes are paraphrases.) Related content: No related posts. B Disclaimer: The contents
of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization
will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of
Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community
internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified.
The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles
in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
[email protected]
http://www.globalresearch.ca contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in
an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material
on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other
than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries:
[email protected]
ODESSA, Ukraine -
If the West appears confused by Russian actions in Ukraine and unable to find an adequate
response to the crisis, it is because from the outset, it has misread the situation, transforming
an essentially domestic dispute into one that threatens the security architecture of Europe. While
all sides have contributed to the current debacle, six widely held assumptions have played an inordinate
role in shaping Western discourse about Ukraine. These will need to be corrected before any real
progress can be made.
1. The Ukrainians are one people, united in their support of change:
This is a familiar refrain among Western politicians, yet anyone familiar with Ukrainian history
knows that its borders have changed many times in the past century. As a result, millions of people
without any ethnic, cultural, or linguistic attachment to Ukraine wound up in its present borders.
Since 1991, the most visible division has been between Western Ukrainians, many of whom seek a Ukraine
culturally and politically distinct from Russia, and Eastern Ukrainians, who want to live in a Ukraine
that is independent, but that also maintains close spiritual, cultural, and economic ties to Russia.
The fact that Western governments have identified the national aspirations of Ukraine with those
of the Western regions of the country puts them at odds with half the country. Even if the Western
regions prevail over the Eastern regions in the current struggle, choosing sides in this way has
generated anti-Western sentiment in the East that is likely to linger for years to come.
2. Supporting the Euromaidan's ouster of president Yanukovych: At the height
of the Euromaidan riots, Western governments warned president Yanukovych not to use force to disband
the protests, even as they turned violent. Later, during a critical phase of negotiations with the
opposition, officials from the United States were taped discussing which specific opposition leaders
they wanted to replace him. To a Ukrainian public already sharply divided over the legitimacy of
the public protests on the Maidan (three-quarters
of the population in Ukraine's eastern cities regarded the Euromaidan protests as illegal),
this merely proved that the West was intervening to thwart the political preferences of half the
country.
3. Failing to stand behind the February 21 agreement: The failure of France,
Germany and Poland to stand behind the
negotiated transition of power that they had called for, has been a blow to the legitimacy
of Ukrainian state institutions from which it has had great difficulty recovering. The subsequent
seizure of power by the opposition not only brought down the much reviled, though legitimately elected
president, it also led to the collapse of the country's largest political party which, for all its
faults, embodied the political aspirations of roughly half the population. To this day,fewer than a third of the population in Russian-speaking Ukraine view the acting president
and prime minister as legitimate, while in Donetsk and Lugansk, the hotbeds of armed resistance,
this figure falls to less than 15 percent.
4. Ignoring the rise of the Radical Right: The Western media has slowly caught
on to the fact that right-wing nationalist groups like Svoboda and the Right Sector played a decisive
role in the radicalization of the Euromaidan, and in the dramatic seizure of power immediately after
the February 21 accords. Officially, however, Western governments continue to insist that their role
is marginal. Yet, even today, such groups wield inordinate influence within the parliament and on
the streets of central Kiev, which they continue to occupy despite pleas by the acting president
to leave. They intimidate politicians, judges, and journalists, indeed anyone who speaks out against
the policies of the current government. Their intimidation of presidential candidates associated
with the Party of Regions elicits almost no comment from Western governments. Many in the Eastern
and Southern regions of Ukraine see this as further confirmation of Western partisanship.
5. Labeling protesters in the East and South "pro-Russian" and "separatists.":
Both labels are misleading because attachment to Russia in these regions is cultural and
linguistic, not political. Reports from the region, surveys, and statements by local and national
politicians, make it abundantly clear that there are significant local grievances against the interim
government in Kiev. Even firebrandYulia Tymoshenko recently acknowledged as much on national television. The vast majority
simply want their Russian heritage to be recognized as part of their Ukrainian identity. The easiest
way to do this, they say, would be to acknowledge the reality of Ukraine's bilingualism in the constitution.
The interim government's resistance to this idea only deepens their mistrust of Kiev.
As for the charge of separatism, it is worth noting that in every instance where separatism has
become an issue, including Crimea, the original demand was for greater regional rights and autonomy
within Ukraine. Only when Kiev responded by replacing local officials with ones loyal only to the
new government, did the issue of secession arise. That is one reason why most people in the Eastern
and Southern regions of Ukraine (62 percent)blame the loss of Crimea on Kiev, rather than on Crimean separatists (24 percent), or
on Russia (19 percent). The same approach is now being taken toward eastern and southern Ukraine,
with the same disastrous results.
6. Blaming Russia for Ukraine's problems: Despite the heated rhetoric coming
from Western governments, Russia's primary objective in Ukraine has actually been to reduce the level
of domestic instability. The reasons are not hard to fathom. First, such instability is bad for business,
which in the case of Ukraine, involves military, industrial and energy investments that are vital
to Russia. Second, continued instability is bad for Russia because it increases the likelihood of
Ukraine becoming a failed state, which Russia will feel obliged to support with massive humanitarian
assistance. Third, such instability is bad because it increase tensions with the West, which has
a tendency to blame Russia for everything that happens there.
Russia would very much like to see Ukraine as a stable economic and political partner, able to
provide enough growth and jobs to its own citizens to reduce the annual flow of more than 3 million
Ukrainian migrant workers into Russia, and thus contribute to the prosperity of the 11 million Russians
who live along the border with Ukraine. Having already spent as much as300 billion dollars over the past two decades to prevent the collapse of the Ukrainian
economy, it hardly seems likely that Russia now seeks its economic demise. It most certainly does
not want to spend the tens of billions of dollars it would take to absorb these regions, and raise
their standard of living up to that of Russia.
What Ought To Be Done Instead
If Russia's actions are not the root cause of Ukraine's problem, then chastising it cannot possibly
resolve the current crisis. In fact, it compounds the crisis in three ways: first, by distracting
Western policy makers from the real divisions within Ukraine that need to be dealt with; second,
by reinforcing the notion, popular among some in the interim government in Kiev, that Western backing
means there is no need to negotiate with the discontented eastern regions; third, by antagonizing
the external actor with the greatest stake in Ukraine's well-being-Russia.
But Russia is not the USSR. In an odd historical twist, in the current crisis, it is defending
the rights of local populations to be heard by their government, whereas the West is defending the
removal of a legitimately elected president. Significantly, all this is taking place in an area of
the world that retains strong sympathies for Russia.
An extensivesurvey of Russian-speaking areas in April 2014 shows that while 70 percent do not support
secession, if a referendum were held today only 25 percent would want to join EU, whereas 47 percent
would prefer to join the Russia-led Customs Union. Only 15 percent feel that Ukrainian relations
with Russia should be the same as with any other county, whereas three-quarters say the two countries
should have open borders, and 8 percent feel the two should be one country. Most worryingly for
the prospects of the military campaign against the rebels being conducted in the East, while nearly
three-quarters say they do not support the introduction of Russian troops, only 10 percent say they
would take up arms to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
This is the minefield within which the United States and the EU are now trying to maneuver-deep
in the historical heartland of the Russian empire, where popular sympathies for Russia are both vast
and deep, and where the West has yet to define any clear strategic objectives.
Historians of the future will wonder greatly at the forbearance that Russia has shown in wielding
its potentially vast influence (the ease with which Crimea was taken by Russia should be highly instructive),
in contrast to the boldness verging on recklessness with which the United States and EU have sought
to manipulate the political outcome in Kiev.
Recognizing the indigenous nature of Ukraine's current problems, which often go back to promises
left unfulfilled by past Ukrainian governments, is therefore a necessary first step toward dealing
with them realistically. But it is only the first step. The next is to apply meaningful pressure
on the interim government to do what it has thus far refused to do-establish a government of national
unity.
Understandably, it is not easy for those who came to power on the wave of revolutionary enthusiasm,
to admit that many of their countrymen regard what they did as illegitimate. Fortunately, however,most people in the East and South are still eager to reach an accommodation in the name
of national unity. But they feel that such an accommodation should be based on concrete actions taken
by Kiev that demonstrate that law and order is actually being restored, and that the interim government
is not under the thumb of radical nationalists. Presently,the number one concern of people in the East and South is fear of "rampant banditry;"
i.e., falling prey to the violence unleashed in Kiev in January and February, and the lawlessness
they are witnessing there today.
A second critical step is making Russian Ukraine's official second language. This one gesture
would reassure the predominantly Russian-speaking regions of the country that their cultural legacy
is indeed fully accepted in today's Ukraine. Such a step has been promised by many presidential candidates
since Ukraine's independence, but has always been opposed by Ukrainian nationalists. That is why
its advocates now demand that it be enshrined in the constitution.
A final step is political and economic decentralization, which some identify as federalism. The
essential difference between regional autonomy and federalism is that the latter is a compact between
regions and the central government stipulated in the constitution. Some types of federalism are very
broad, while other types are very narrowly defined. If autonomy is not constitutionally established,
its advocates say, any new group of legislators could rescind what was previously granted, as happened
with Crimea in 1998.
The interim government, however, cannot accomplish these urgent tasks on its own. It is too strongly
beholden to the radical nationalists and pro-revolutionary street forces that brought it to power.
Let us not forget that the latter even approved the current government. Since any move toward a true
government of national unity will have to be taken against the wishes of one of the interim government's
core constituencies, it will require political cover, and this can only be provided by its major
supporters-the United States and the EU.
Recognizing the indigenous nature of Ukraine's problems therefore leads directly to a radically
different strategy toward Russia-one of cooperation rather than confrontation in the pursuit of a
strong and independent Ukraine. Last, but certainly not least, it could put to rest once and for
all the calls for a new Cold War.
Nicolai N. Petro, professor of
politics at the University
of Rhode Island, is currently a Fulbright Research Scholar in Ukraine. The views expressed
do not reflect the views of the Fulbright Program or the U.S. Department of State.
stepstone
I am pessimistic. To me it looks like the "west" is hellbent on confrontation with Russia.
Western media have been bashing Russia for quite some time now, long before the crisis in the
Ukraine. And, if anyone has any doubts about that, mainstream media in the west is not independent
any longer and hasn't been for quite some time - it's just another tool for those who rule over
us to use.
Quite why our rulers seek confrontation with Russia is a bit unclear to me but it looks like
a sort of "zero sum game thinking". Russia is thought to be an enemy so it must be attacked, no
matter whether any given means of attack is just or not.
The total hypocrisy shown in this Ukraine-crisis is breathtaking. The combined western powers
and the combined MSM root for a "revolution" that was carried out by neo-nazis. Sure there were
some, even many, protesters with legitimate grievances against the former regime in the Ukraine.
But it was solely the neo-nazi Right Sector that brought that regime down. To western applause.
Quite unreal, and because of that I am very pessimistic when I try to guess future developments.
kievite
>Does this strangely sensible piece of writing indicate a welcome > outbreak of sanity on the
part of the US foreign policy elite?
I don't think so. Radical neoliberal and neocon faction of the US foreign policy elite are
way to strong despite Iraq debacle and 2008 economic crisis. They dominate State Department and
their power dooms those sensible recommendations. They will follow Nuland's neocon path to the
end. In this sense, my impression is that Ukraine is just a pawn in a bigger game of "containing"
Russia. So events in Ukraine are part of indirect confrontation with Russia, decision about which
was already made. And in neocons views a low intensity civil war in Ukraine is not against the
US interests as it also pressures EU and damages its economic cooperation with Russia. That's
why Nuland was against "national unity government plan" (and her infamous remark is probably about
the denial of EU interests by State Department) and went with February 22 putsch. Killing two
birds with one stone.
I think one of the most astute observation that Nicolai N. Petro made is that "the
Obama administration has already achieved one of that conflict's most unfortunate byproducts -
the manipulation of external power by local actors seeking maximum advantages for themselves."
Tonyandoc
Unfortunately, as can be seen from events so far, the West sees a benefit in radicalizing the
various factions in Ukraine to the point of civil war. This is the focus of their efforts. Putin,
who has Ukraine on his doorstep and vital national security interests in Crimea, sees "crowd control"
as his primary objective.
Both sides have chalked up significant progress in their conflicting objectives so far. However
neither side can adequately control the forces stirred up in the West nor continue to restrain
those in Eastern Ukraine from all-out resistance for much longer.
Soon we can add another failed state to the scourge of Pox Americana. Just let's hope it does
not spread into super-power conflict.
popsiq
Even western Ukraine has significant sub populations of Poles, Hungarians and Romanians 'trapped'
in the former administrative Soviet SSR. Thank goodness nobody's asking them what they want.
The 'historic' Ukraine is less that 20 percent of the current area - an enclave bordered by
the River Dnieper on the east and situated 300 Km north of the Crimean peninsula.
Linguistic Ukrainians live in all areas, and in Russia and other places as well - but they
form a minority in Ukraine itself.
Fiscally strapped Western governments can argue that such planning would not pass muster in an
age of growing austerity. The status quo-with Russia supplying a significant portion of Europe's
energy needs within the confines of a long-term energy partnership and Ukraine's industries geared
towards supplying a Russian/Eurasian market-seemed to make perfect sense even six months ago.
If that was the case, then there was a critical mismatch between the economic realities of leaving
Ukraine economically tied to Russia and political aspirations of moving the country closer to the
West. Were these discontinuities not flagged in the respective policy shops of the key Euro-Atlantic
countries, or worse, was there a naive belief that Vladimir Putin would simply have to accept new
geopolitical realities? Putin had made it clear in the years since the Orange Revolution of 2004
that he considered Ukraine to be a vital national interest, and that he would take drastic action
if needed to secure Moscow's equities in Ukraine.
So now we have a crisis in Ukraine, and one where we will have to spend much more, both in terms
of resources and in political capital, to try to get to a settlement that will be less advantageous
to Western (or even Ukrainian) interests than if the groundwork had been laid, either for Ukraine's
westward movement or to reach some sort of accommodation with Moscow. And while Ukraine dominates
the headlines-and sucks up all the oxygen in the policy process-what other long term troubles quietly
stirring under the water where proactive action might make a difference are being ignored-until we
have our next Ukraine erupting into the headlines?
Nikolas K. Gvosdev, a contributing editor at The National Interest, is a professor of national-security
studies at the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed are entirely his own
A two-hour hearing of US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at the House Foreign Affairs
Committee over the Obama administration's and the US' role in the developments in Ukraine nailed
down Nuland over the United States overt cooperation with and use of neo-Nazis. Nuland tried
to dodge questions, explained US plans for Ukraine and told the Committee outright lies about Kiev
having "upheld the obligations of the Geneva agreement". Nuland omitted that Kiev has mobilized Ukraine's
military forces and the presence of large contingents of Ukrainian troops near the Russian border.
Hard times covering-up cooperation with neo-Nazis. It becomes increasingly difficult for the
Obama administration and the corporate US press to cover-up the fact that the main driving force
behind the coup in Ukraine are neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, supported by the US.
But after this base
of agreement, my idea of success diverges from BushCo. First of all, I am deeply pessimistic about
the prospects for Iraq to accomplish the above goals in the allotted time. But my disagreement
goes much deeper.
:::flip:::
It starts with the real cause of 9/11. As the story goes, 19 Arab terrorists killed 3,000 American
civilians because the terrorists 'hated freedom'. Well, that's a juvenile characterization of
what causes violent hatred of America.
When the Iranians seized the American Embassy and held Americans hostage, they did it because
we had fomented a coup in 1953,
and then built a strong commercial and military relationship with the Shah. The Shah was overthrown
for tyrannical behavior. He wasn't overthrown because ordinary Iranians hated the freedom the
Shah provided.
When the
Libyans stormed and destroyed the American Embassy in Benghazi, on June 5, 1967, they didn't
do it because they hated freedom. They did because the Arab-Israeli War had begun, and they had
been convinced by propaganda broadcasts that the United States was bombing Cairo.
The famous Afghan mujahideen didn't fight the Soviets for freedom alone:
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the
Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6
months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser
to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen
began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979.
But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July
3, 1979 that
President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet
regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to
him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself
desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased
the probability that they would.
Hat tip to Mood of Alabama. Quote: "Alastair Crooke, a former MI-6 honcho and diplomat, is just
back from Moscow and has some
interesting thoughts on the bigger historic issues which express themselves in the current events
in Ukraine."
Following five days in Moscow, a few thoughts on Russian perspectives: Firstly, we are beyond
the Crimea. That is over. We too are beyond 'loose' federalism for Ukraine (no longer thought politically
viable). Indeed, we are most likely beyond Ukraine as a single entity. Also, we are beyond either
Kiev or Moscow having the capacity to 'control' events (in the wider sense of the word): both are
hostage to events (as well as are Europe and America), and to any provocations mounted by a multitude
of uncontrollable and violent activists.
In gist, the dynamics towards some sort of secession of East Ukraine (either in part, or in successive
increments) is thought to be the almost inevitable outcome. The question most informed commentators
in Moscow ask themselves is whether this will occur with relatively less orrelatively
more violence – and whether that violence will reach such a level (massacres of ethnic Russians
or of the pro-Russian community) that President Putin will feel that he has no option but to intervene.
We are nowhere near that point at the time of writing: Kiev's 'security initiatives' have been strikingly
ineffective, and casualties surprisingly small (given the tensions). It seems that the Ukrainian
military is unwilling, or unable (or both of these), to crush a rebellion composed only of a few
hundred armed men backed by a few thousand unarmed civilians - but that of course may change at any
moment. (One explanation circulating on
Russian internet circles is that pro-Russian insurgents and the Ukrainian servicemen simply will
not shoot at each other - even when given the order to do so. Furthermore, they appear to be in direct
and regular contact with each other and there is an informal understanding that neither side will
fire at the other. Note - we have witnessed similar understandings in Afghanistan in the 1980s between
the Soviet armed forces and the Mujahidin.)
And this the point, most of those with whom we spoke suspect that it is the interest of certain
components of the American foreign policy establishment (but not necessarily that of the US President)
to provoke just such a situation: a forced Russian intervention in East Ukraine (in order to protect
its nationals there from violence or disorder or both). It is also thought that Russian intervention
could be seen to hold political advantage to the beleaguered and fading acting government in Kiev.
And further, it is believed that some former Soviet Republics, now lying at the frontline of the
EU's interface with Russia, will see poking Moscow in the eye as a settling of past scores, as well
as underscoring their standing in Brussels and Washington for having brought 'democracy' to eastern
Europe.
There seems absolutely no appetite in Moscow to intervene in Ukraine (and this is common to all
shades of political opinion). Everyone understands Ukraine to be a vipers' nest, and additionally
knows it to be a vast economic 'black hole'. But … you can scarcely meet anyone in Moscow who does
not have relatives in Ukraine. This is not Libya; East Ukraine is family. Beyond
some certain point, if the dynamic for separation persists, and if the situation on the ground gets
very messy, some sort of Russian intervention may become unavoidable (just as Mrs Thatcher found
it impossible to resist pressures to intervene in support of British 'kith and kin' in the Falklands).
Moscow well understands that such a move will unleash another western outpouring of outrage.
More broadly then, we are moving too beyond the post-Cold War global dispensation, or unipolar
moment. We are not heading – at least from the Russian perspective, as far as can be judged
– towards a new Cold War, but to a period of increased Russian antagonism towards any western
move that it judges hostile to its key interests – and especially to those that are seen to threaten
its security interests. In this sense, a Cold War is not inevitable. Russia has made, for example,
no antagonistic moves in Iran, in Syria or in Afghanistan. Putin has been at some pains to underline
that whereas – from now – Russia will pursue its vital interests unhesitatingly, and in the face
of any western pressures, on other non-existential issues, it is still open to diplomatic business
as usual.
That said, and to just to be clear, there is deep disillusion with European (and American)
diplomacy in Moscow. No one holds out any real prospect for diplomacy – given the recent history
of breaches of faith (broken agreements) in Ukraine. No doubt these sentiments are mirrored in western
capitals, but the atmosphere in Moscow is hardening, and hardening visibly. Even the 'pro-Atlanticist'
component in Russia senses that Europe will not prove able to de-escalate the situation. They are
both disappointed, and bitter at their political eclipse in the new mood that is contemporary Russia,
where the 'recovery of sovereignty' current prevails.
Thus, the era of Gorbachevian hope of some sort of parity of esteem (even partnership) emerging
between Russia and the western powers, in the wake of the conclusion to the Cold War, has imploded
– with finality. To understand this is to reflect on the way the Cold War was brought to
and end; and how that ending, and its aftermath, was managed. In retrospect, the post-war
era was not well handled by the US, and there exist
irreconcilable
narratives on the subject of the nature of the so-called 'defeat' itself, and whether it was
a defeat for Russia at all.
Be that as it may, the Russian people have been treated as if they were psychologically-seared
and defeated in the Cold War – as were the Japanese in the wake of the dropping of the nuclear bombs
by the US in 1945. Russia was granted a bare paucity of esteem in the Cold War's wake; instead
Russians experienced rather the disdain of victors for the defeated visited upon them. There was
little or any attempt at including Russia in a company of the nations of equals – as many Russians
had hoped. Few too would defeated, and some felt then – and still feel – just betrayed. Whatever
the verdict of history on how much the Cold War truly was a defeat, the aftermath of it has given
rise to a Versailles Treaty-type of popular resentment at the consequences of the post-Cold War settlement,
and at the (unwarranted) unipolar triumphalism (from the Russian perspective).
In this sense, it is the end of an era: it marks the end of the post-Cold War settlement that
brought into being the American unipolar era. It is the rise of a Russian challenge to that unipolar
order which seems so unsettling to many living in the West. Just as Versailles was psychologically
rejected by Germans, so Russia is abdicating out of the present dispensation (at least in respect
to its key interests). The big question must be whether the wider triangulation (US-Russia-China)
that saw merit in its complementary touching at each of its three apexes is over too - a triangulation
on which the US depends heavily for its foreign policy. We have to wait on China. The answer to this
question may well hinge on how far the antagonism between Russia and the West is allowed – or even
encouraged – to escalate. Only then, might it become more apparent how many, and who, is thinking
of seceding from the global order (including from the Federal Reserve controlled financial system).
In the interim, time and dynamics require Russia to do little in Ukraine at this point but to
watch and wait. The mood in Russia, however, is to expect provocations in Ukraine, by any one of
the assorted interested parties, with the aim of forcing a Russian intervention - and thus a politically
useful 'limited' war that will do many things: restore US 'leadership' in Europe, give NATO a new
mission and purpose, and provide the same (and greater prominence) to certain newer EU member states
(such as Poland). Russia will have concluded that the second round of economic sanctions has revealed
more about a certain lack of political (and financial) will – or perhaps vulnerability – on the part
of America'sEuropean
allies. Russia no doubt sees the US to be gripped by the
logic of escalation (as Administration talk centres on a new containment strategy, and the demonization
of Russia as a pariah state), whatever President Obama may be hinting through the columns of
David Ignatius. It is a dangerous moment, as all in Moscow acknowledge, with positions hardening
on both sides.
Russia is not frightened by sanctions (which some, with influence in Moscow, would welcome as
a chance to push-back against the US use of the global interbank payment systems for its own ends).
Nor is Russia concerned that, as occurred with the USSR, the US – in today's changed circumstances
– can contrive a drop in the price of oil in order to weaken the state. But Russia is somewhat more
vulnerable to the West's teaming up with Sunni radicals as its new geo-strategic weapon of choice.
We have therefore seen a Russian outreach both to Saudi Arabia and Egypt (President Putin recently
extolled King Abdallah's "wisdom"). There is a feeling too that US policy is not fully controlled
by the US President; and that Gulf States, smelling that US policy may be adrift, and open to manipulation
by interests within the US, will take advantage (perhaps in coordination with certain Americans opposed
to President Obama's policies) to escalate the jihadist war against President Assad and to target
Obama's Iran policy. Russia may be expected to try to circumscribe this danger to its own Muslim
population and to that of its neighbouring former Soviet Republics. But for now, Russia will be likely
to play it cool: to wait-and-see how events unfold, before recalibrating any main components of its
Middle East policy. For the longer term however, Russia's effective divorce out of the unipolar international
order will impact powerfully on the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia (not to say Syria and Iran) have
already virtually done the same.
Austrian
I hope the Russians are aware that the cowardly EU governments are not acting with the full
consent of their populace. Many of us would prefer to have good (business and other) relations
with Russia, and deplore the foolish and offensive "sanctions".
The majority is not even aware of the folly of our governments, especially now that the media
are burying the Ukraine dossier headlines under the tritest domestic news, and censoring disapproving
comments. A casual or less informed reader/viewer (the vast majority) most likely has no idea
of how our politicians are playing with fire and supporting the new Nazis, or that the Ukraine
story is more important than all the other news items.
As an Austrian I find this situation particularly infuriating. For all my five decades I've
had to listen to reproaches that my people did not stand up to the Nazis' takeover of Austria,
and now that Nazis are once again marching in Europe with swastikas and all, who is supporting
them? The very countries that were acting oh-so-disdainful and morally superior (as well as our
own clueless politicians), and the most supposedly "liberal" media.
Another thing - there has been so much fake crying of "wolf" in calling populist right parties
Nazis (I vividly remember the "sanctions" on Austria in 2000), that now the real thing has apparently
emerged, nobody is taking the danger seriously any more. And suddenly, it's Russia that has to
be sanctioned, not the real-life fascists.
The hypocrisy of all this is breathtaking in its audacity and scope.
On the other hand, we now have a better idea how long and patiently the USUK must have worked
to get all the important media and politicians suborned, blackmailed or paid off - a huge number
of ducks must have been put into a row for this moment, and they are probably furious that the
propaganda is still not getting enough traction internationally.
I can just imagine the secret briefings to new US Presidents where they get handed a list of
US "assets" including many of the "free" world's leading politicians, and told that all these
are firmly "under our control". This would explain much of the hubris and arrogance we have all
observed.
April 9, 2014 (EIRNS)-Victoria Nuland, the midwife of Obama's illegal neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine,
lied repeatedly in testimony before the CSCE, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission, today,
as she further exposed the Obama administration's control of the regime she installed.
During the hearing she was asked by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) whether she could give any assurances
that the claims which many of his constituents have brought to his attention, that the coup in Ukraine
was run by neo-Nazis, was not valid. Nuland who knows full well that she was in bed with neo-Nazis,
could not bring herself to even repeat the words "neo-Nazis." Instead she avoided the issue by lying
that some extremist elements involved, but they were talked out of buildings in Kiev and disarmed
by other Maidan participants.
To try to minimize the involvement of neo-Nazis in the regime, she said that extremists on the
left and the right are only polling 3%. Of course, she left out that the deputy prime minister of
Ukraine and the head of national security are both neo-Nazis from the Svoboda Party, that the National
Guard is recruiting thousands of members of the neo-Nazi Right Sector, and that the Nazis are regularly
beating up members of Parliament, judges, and political opponents throughout the country.
Nuland also said Washington had low expectations for the planned four-way talks between Ukraine,
Russia, the United States, and the European Union. "We don't have high expectations for these talks,
but we do believe it is very important to keep that diplomatic door open, and we'll see what they
bring," effectively signalling that Obama has no intention of seriously seeking a negotiated solution.
Nuland is simply a neocon and is doing what neocons always do. And Neoconservatism can be distilled
into the following four beliefs:
America is good and a force for good, and everything it does is right.
America should therefore assume global leadership by force if necessary - including regime change.
The bad guys who stand in the way of freedom, democracy and the American way, must be neutralized.
These rogue states are (a) Iran, (b) Russia and (c) China. They are the impediment to the neoliberal
paradise which awaits mankind.
Uppity little states like Iraq, Libya, Syria, who cannot be won over to the American way (even
if they were once aligned to it, as Saddam was) must be smashed up.
People holding illegal arms and occupying government buildings are perfectly OK, as long as they
are permitted to do so, believes Washington's top diplomat in Europe. But doing exactly the same
thing without permission is bad.
This piece of infallible logic came from the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland,
as she refused to equate the situation in Ukrainian capital, Kiev, in February with the present one
in eastern Ukraine. In both cases armed militias have seized buildings and refused to leave.
"You can't compare the situation in Kiev, where now everything that is still being held by
protesters is being held with licenses and with the agreement of the government of Ukraine, with
the agreement of the Rada, or with regular leases from the owners of the buildings," Nuland
told CNN in an interview.
Of course, when those militias were taking over buildings and building barricades in Kiev and
elsewhere in in Ukraine, they didn't have any license. It was only after they toppled the Ukrainian
government that the new authorities moved to legitimize those seizures. The same authorities whose
legitimacy is now being questioned by the protesters in the country's east.
There is another difference between the two armed movements, according to Nuland.
"You can't compare it to what is happening in eastern Ukraine, where you have armed separatists
wearing balaclavas, carrying very heavy munitions, holding government buildings refusing to allow
monitors in refusing to allow journalists in," she claimed.
As if balaclava-wearing radical protesters never pelted the police with firebombs and didn't shoot
at them with guns stolen from police stations in Ukraine. But isn't this is how the people presumably
now in charge came to power?
The Kiev militias are where they are because they could topple the new government just as they
did with the previous one. They already besieged the parliament demanded the resignation of the interior
minister for the killing one of their leaders, and it took a lot of convincing on the part of the
MPs to make them leave.
Of course when the authorities can't force somebody to follow the law, they can save face by altering
that law. Unfortunately for the Ukrainian government, disarming those unruly militias is what they
agreed to by signing a joint statement with Russia, the US and the EU in Geneva last week. Pretending
that this document applies only to those opposing Kiev simply won't work.
Naturally, Washington blames Russia for making things worse in Ukraine, and fails to see the impotence
of the current government.
"We continue to be concerned that you cannot dress yourself like a firefighter and behave
like an arsonist," Nuland said.
One can wonder what she was dressing herself like as she was treating Maidan activists to cookies
and discussing the composition of the government which now sits in Kiev with the US ambassador to
Ukraine.
Or how the $5 billion, which the US poured into "building civil society" in Ukraine helped the
country overcome its inherent divisions and build a stable nation that can change its government
without any street violence.
The fact of the matter is that Harding is not an investigative journalist seeking out the
truth, but basically a propagandist, whatever he might believe to the contrary. Okay, so
he wants to be part of the Russia-bashing fraternity, that is his prerogative, but please don't
us expect to be drawn into his cold war mindset and political obsessions. He has obviously got
an enormous political axe to grind and a very l
America is good and a force for good, and everything it does is right.
America should therefore assume global leadership by force if necessary - including regime
change.
The bad guys who stand in the way of freedom, democracy and the American way, must be neutralised.
These rogue states are (a) Iran, (b) Russia and (d) China. They are the impediment to the neoliberal
paradise which awaits mankind.
Uppity little states like Iraq, Libya, Syria, who cannot be won over to the American way
(even if they were once aligned to it, as Saddam was) must be systematically smashed up.
And so a string of failed states are being created from Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and
now perhaps Ukraine.
This has all resulted from the neo-con takeover (of which Ms Nuland is a prime example) of
US foreign policy in the US State department and the Pentagon.
Ok course none of this implies that everything is rosy in the garden in those countries mentioned.
But that does not of course stop the accusation of critics being 'Kremlin trolls' 'Putin bots'
and the rest of the silly epithets.
But of course this is a standard debating trick when it is difficult to counter the facts and
issues raised.
Nabaldashnik -> Scipio1
Essentially the belief is
America is good and a force for good, and everything it does is right.
America should therefore assume global leadership by force if necessary - including
regime change.
The bad guys who stand in the way of freedom, democracy and the American way, must be
neutralised. These rogue states are (a) Iran, (b) Russia and (d) China. They are the impediment
to the neoliberal paradise which awaits mankind.
Uppity little states like Iraq, Libya, Syria, who cannot be won over to the American
way (even if they were once aligned to it, as Saddam was) must be systematically smashed
up.
"Russia … is now recognized as the center of the global 'mutiny' against global dictatorship
of the US and EU. Its generally peaceful .. approach is in direct contrast to brutal and destabilizing
methods used by the US and EU…. The world is waking up to reality that there actually is, suddenly,
some strong and determined resistance to Western imperialism. After decades of darkness, hope
is emerging." – Andre Vltchek,
Ukraine:
Lies and Realities, CounterPunch
Russia is not responsible for the crisis in Ukraine. The US State Department engineered the fascist-backed
coup that toppled Ukraine's democratically-elected president Viktor Yanukovych and replaced him with
the American puppet Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a former banker. Hacked phone calls reveal the critical role
that Washington played in orchestrating the putsch and selecting the coup's leaders. Moscow was not
involved in any of these activities. Vladimir Putin, whatever one may think of him, has not done
anything to fuel the violence and chaos that has spread across the country.
Putin's main interest in Ukraine is commercial. 66 percent of the natural gas that Russia exports
to the EU transits Ukraine. The money that Russia makes from gas sales helps to strengthen the Russian
economy and raise standards of living. It also helps to make Russian oligarchs richer, the same as
it does in the West. The people in Europe like the arrangement because they are able to heat their
homes and businesses market-based prices. In other words, it is a good deal for both parties, buyer
and seller. This is how the free market is supposed to work. The reason it doesn't work that way
presently is because the United States threw a spanner in the gears when it deposed Yanukovych. Now
no one knows when things will return to normal.
Check out
this chart at Business Insider and you'll see why Ukraine matters to Russia.
The overriding goal of US policy in Ukraine is to stop the further economic integration of
Asia and Europe. That's what the fracas is really all about. The United States wants to control
the flow of energy from East to West, it wants to establish a de facto tollbooth between the continents,
it wants to ensure that those deals are transacted in US dollars and recycled into US Treasuries,
and it wants to situate itself between the two most prosperous markets of the next century. Anyone
who has even the sketchiest knowledge of US foreign policy– particularly as it relates to Washington's
"pivot to Asia"– knows this is so. The US is determined to play a dominant role in Eurasia in the
years ahead. Wreaking havoc in Ukraine is a central part of that plan.
Retired German Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jochen Scholz summed up US policy in an open letter
which appeared on the Neue Rheinilche Zeitung news-site last week. Scholz said the Washington's objective
was "to deny Ukraine a role as a bridge between Eurasian Union and European Union….They want to bring
Ukraine under the NATO control" and sabotage the prospects for "a common economic zone from Lisbon
to Vladivostok."
Bingo. That's US policy in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with democracy, sovereignty, or human
rights. It's about money and power. Who are the big players going to be in the world's biggest growth
center, that's all that matters. Unfortunately for Obama and Co., the US has fallen behind Russia
in acquiring the essential resources and pipeline infrastructure to succeed in such a competition.
They've been beaten by Putin and Gazprom at every turn. While Putin has strengthened diplomatic and
economic relations, expanded vital pipeline corridors and transit lines, and hurtled the many obstacles
laid out for him by American-stooges in the EC; the US has dragged itself from one quagmire to the
next laying entire countries to waste while achieving none of its economic objectives.
So now the US has jettisoned its business strategy altogether and moved on to Plan B, regime change.
Washington couldn't beat Putin in a fair fight, so now they've taken off the gloves. Isn't that what's
really going on? Isn't that why the US NGOs, and the Intel agencies, and the State Dept were
deployed to launch their sloppily-engineered Nazi-coup that's left the country in chaos?
Once again, Putin played no part in any of this. All he did was honor the will of the people in
Crimea who voted overwhelmingly (97%) to reunite with the Russian Federation. From a purely pragmatic
point of view, what other choice did they have? After all, who in their right mind would want to
align themselves with the most economically mismanaged confederation of all time (The EU) while facing
the real possibility that their nation could be reduced to Iraq-type rubble and destitution in a
matter of years? Who wouldn't opt-out of such an arrangement?
As we noted earlier, Putin's main objective is to make money. In contrast, the US wants to dominate
the Eurasian landmass, break Russia up into smaller, non-threatening units, and control China's growth.
That's the basic gameplan. Also, the US does not want any competitors, which we can see from this
statement by Paul Wolfowitz which evolved into the US National Defense Strategy:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory
of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly
by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy
and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources
would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."
This is the prevailing doctrine that Washington lives by. No rivals. No competition. We're the
boss. What we say, goes. The US is Numero Uno, le grande fromage. Who doesn't know this already?
Here's more from Wolfowitz:
"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds
the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or
pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas,
we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage
them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic
order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role."
In other words, "don't even think about getting more powerful or we'll swat you like a fly." That's
the message, isn't it? The reason we draw attention to these quotes is not to pick on Wolfowitz,
but to show how things haven't changed under Obama, in fact, they've gotten worse. The so called
Bush Doctrine is more in effect today than ever which is why we need to be reminded of its central
tenets. The US military is the de facto enforcer of neoliberal capitalism or what Wolfowitz calls
"the established political and economic order". Right. The statement provides a blanket justification
for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine. The US can do whatever it deems
necessary to protect the interests of its constituents, the multi-national corporations and big finance.
The US owns the world and everyone else is just a visitor. So shut the hell up, and do what you're
told. That's the message. Here's Wolfowitz one more time:
"We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly
comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not
dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate
into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others."
Wolfowitz figured the moment would come when the US would have to square off with Moscow in order
to pursue it's imperial strategy in Asia. Putin doesn't seem to grasp that yet. He still clings to
the misguided notion that rational people will find rational solutions to end the crisis. But he's
mistaken. Washington does not want a peaceful solution. Washington wants a confrontation. Washington
wants to draw Moscow into a long-term conflict in Ukraine that will recreate Afghanistan in the 1990s.
That's the goal, to lure Putin into a military quagmire that will discredit him in the eyes of the
world, isolate Russia from its allies, put strains on new alliances, undermine the Russian economy,
pit Russian troops against US-backed armed mercenaries and Special Ops, destroy Russian relations
with business partners in the EU, and create a justification for NATO intervention followed by the
deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. That's the gameplan. Why doesn't Putin see
that?
A) Assorted neo-nazis and fascists have just violently overthrown the democratically elected
Government of Ukraine, as a result of being been egged on and funded by the West.
Even Nuland couldn't resist expressing her gratitude by getting personally into the action
to hand out the much needed cookies.)
B) Protesters and activists are now protesting against this overthrow of democracy in Ukraine.
Two Questions:
1) Will Nuland get herself over there once again to deliver fresh cookies and arrange for more
taxpayers money to go the new lot of protesters?
2) Will McCain give his verbal support with another rousing speech at the new barricades?
Stewby Zippydoo
Is it irony that the extreme right uses cookie monster to recruit the youth in Europe and
Nuland uses cookies to recruit the extreme right in Ukraine?
Does Nuland have that sort of sense of humor?
Stijn C. Zippydoo
I must say I don't understand why you conspiracy nuts are so obsessed with McCain and Nuland.
Surely you could've made your loony theories slightly more plausible by using actual important
American political actors.
Stewby Stijn C.
Conspiracy is real. Why do people insist that since there are some crazy conspiracy theories
out there that means that all conspiracy theories are impossible.
The job of intelligence agencies and diplomats is to conspire amongst themselves and with
those of other nations to advance the interests of the American people. Lately the only loyalty
of our spies and diplomats are to the banks, so they spend all their time shaking down other
nations to extort rent for the bankers to pocket.
Real people will die because of this reckless foreign policy. I suspect that Nuland
and McCain are just too stupid to realize that the Russians could never countenance giving
up Crimea as a military installation, and I am fairly sure that they wouldn't have done what
they did if they had seen this crisis coming.
From comments: "No sign of Kagan`s wife among the demonstrators on this occasion---no expletives---are
East Ukrainians less deserving of our sympathy than westerners---are they not people too with families
and dreams of the future---are "liberals" liberal only when it serves their interests?"
Word spread quickly through the few hundred
pro-Russian protesters in Donetsk in eastern
Ukraine: "The miners are coming!"
The crowd parted as a group of a dozen or so burly men in orange work helmets marched past barbed-wire
and tyre barricades into the 11-storey
administration building, which protesters seized last weekend as they demanded greater independence
from Kiev.
"Glory to the miners!" the crowd began chanting. "Glory to Donbass!" they shouted, much as protesters
at Kiev's Euromaidan demonstrations had shouted "Glory to Ukraine!" before they ousted the president,
Viktor Yanukovych,
in February.
... ... ...
"It's hard to arouse the miners, but when you do, there will be trouble," said Artyom, a former
miner who was guarding the administration building on Friday night. "If the miners all rise up, it
will be an economic, physical and moral blow. It will be hard for everyone."
... ... ...
"There's only one position, only in support of the referendum," said a miner who identified himself
only as Vitaly. "But we can't stop working today, or tomorrow I'll be on the street," he added, saying
that any strike would put the mine out of commission for a significant period.
Oleg Krymenko, another local miner, said he did not support the occupation but worried about rising
prices – the cost of utilities and basic goods has been shooting up in recent months – and said ties
with Russia should be close. "They work and that's it. Before their shift, they have to relax. Coalminers
don't engage in nonsense," he said about the protests.
A miner's work is tough, especially in the ageing coal mines of the Donbass. Local miners descend
to depths of up to 1,300 metres and often work in temperatures pushing 100 degrees fahrenheit. Fatalities
are common, and 111 died in a series of explosions at the local Zasyadko mine in 2007. Flags were
lowered to half-mast in Donetsk on Friday after seven miners died in a gas explosion at the Skochinsky
mine.
Equipment is often worn-out and safety procedures are frequently violated, according to Oleg Obolents,
a retired miner who recently formed an independent miners' union to fight for better pay and safety
standards. Donbass miners are "breathing incense", he said, using an expression that refers to the
incense burned during Russian Orthodox funeral services and is roughly equivalent to having "one
foot in the grave".
A local miner named Andrei said he came to the barricades every day after work, wearing his orange
helmet and headlamp. He and his comrades often discussed the political situation when descending
into their mine outside the city, he said.
"We need to fight for our rights and protect the Donbass from Bandera supporters. I don't
like the Kiev regime," he said, referring to Stepan Bandera, a second world war nationalist
leader who is commemorated with dozens of monuments in western Ukraine but widely reviled as a Nazi
collaborator in the east. Many protesters see the new Kiev government as dominated by nationalists
from western Ukraine, which has a largely agrarian economy.
... ... ...
Most of the major mines in Donbass are owned by Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest man, who has
served as a mediator in negotiations between the Donetsk protesters and the Kiev-appointed governor.
In a speech on Friday at a meeting with Ukraine's prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Akhmetov said
he supported the protesters' demands for preserving the Russian language and greater independence
from Kiev, but added: "For me, Donbass is Ukraine."
Valera, a miner who said the Kiev regime was cracking down on the Russian language, predicted
"trouble for the bosses" if the mines stopped working. "If they stop, there will be war," he said.
domeus
No sign of Kagan`s wife among the demonstrators on this occasion---no expletives---are East
Ukrainians less deserving of our sympathy than westerners---are they not people too with families
and dreams of the future---are "liberals" liberal only when it serves their interests?
Why can't our media tell it like it is? It's a no brainer - an unpopular, but legitimately
elected government is overthrown by a bunch of thugs in a violent coup d'etat. US and EU handpick
several front men to be the replacement government, but - unsurprisingly - the coup fails because
the Quizzlings don't have the support of the population of Ukraine.
People from eastern Ukraine are raising a revolution in protest, and I'd be gobsmacked if the
people from western Ukraine really want to be ruled by a bunch of greedy and violent thugs, especially
now that they know that EU won't give them money or jobs, or do anything to improve their lot.
In the meantime, a bunch of self-interested arms manufacturers and military profiteers from
the "international community" are doing their utmost to start World War 3, and the rest of us
are likey to feel the chill next winter, because our gas central heating won't work or will be
too expensive to afford.
I just hope that the UK media come to their senses before this gets worse. Mainstream media
have lost their credibility over their handling of the Ukraine story - it's time to sober up and
start telling it like it is.
More than five years into his presidency, Barack Obama has failed to take full control over his
foreign policy, allowing a bureaucracy shaped by long years of Republican control and spurred on
by a neocon-dominated U.S. news media to frustrate many of his efforts to redirect America's approach
to the world in a more peaceful direction.
But Obama deserves a big dose of the blame for this predicament because he did little to neutralize
the government holdovers and indeed played into their hands with his initial appointments to head
the State and Defense departments, Hillary Clinton, a neocon-leaning Democrat, and Robert Gates,
a Republican cold warrior, respectively.
Even now, key U.S. diplomats are more attuned to hard-line positions than to promoting peace.
The latest example is the Ukraine where U.S. diplomats, including Assistant Secretary of State for
European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, are celebrating the
overthrow of an elected pro-Russian government.
Occurring during the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, the coup in Ukraine dealt an embarrassing
black eye to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had offended neocon sensibilities by quietly cooperating
with Obama to reduce tensions over Iran and Syria, where the neocons favored military options.
Over the past several weeks, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was undercut by a destabilization
campaign encouraged by Nuland and Pyatt and then deposed in a coup spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias.
Even after Yanukovych and the political opposition agreed to an orderly transition toward early elections,
right-wing armed patrols shattered the agreement and took strategic positions around Kiev.
Despite these ominous signs, Ambassador Pyatt hailed the coup as "a day for the history books."
Most of the mainstream U.S. news media also sided with the coup, with commentators praising the overthrow
of an elected government as "reform." But a few dissonant reports have pierced the happy talk by
noting that the armed militias are part of the Pravy Sektor, a right-wing nationalist group which
is often compared to the Nazis.
Thus, the Ukrainian coup could become the latest neocon-initiated "regime change" that ousted
a target government but failed to take into account who would fill the void.
Some of these same American neocons pushed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, not realizing that
removing Saddam Hussein would touch off a sectarian conflict and lead to a pro-Iranian Shiite regime.
Similarly, U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011 eliminated Muammar Gaddafi but also empowered
Islamic extremists who later murdered the U.S. ambassador and spread unrest beyond Libya's borders
to nearby Mali.
One might trace this neocons' blindness to consequences back to Afghanistan in the 1980s when
the Reagan administration supported Islamic militants, including Osama bin Laden, in a war against
Soviet troops, only to have Muslim extremists take control of Afghanistan and provide a base for
al-Qaeda to plot the 9/11 attacks against the United States.
Regarding Ukraine, today's State Department bureaucracy seems to be continuing the same anti-Moscow
geopolitical strategy set during those Reagan-Bush years.
Robert Gates described the approach in his new memoir, Duty, explaining the view of President
George H.W. Bush's Defense Secretary Dick Cheney:
"When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement
not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again
be a threat to the rest of the world."
Vice President Cheney and the neocons pursued a similar strategy during George W. Bush's presidency,
expanding NATO aggressively to the east and backing anti-Russian regimes in the region including
the hard-line Georgian government, which provoked a military confrontation with Moscow in 2008, ironically,
during the Summer Olympics in China.
Obama's Strategy
As President, Obama has sought a more cooperative relationship with Russia's Putin and, generally,
a less belligerent approach toward adversarial countries. Obama has been supported by an inner circle
at the White House with analytical assistance from some elements of the U.S. intelligence community.
But the neocon momentum at the State Department and from other parts of the U.S. government
has continued in the direction set by George W. Bush's neocon administration and by neocon-lite Democrats
who surrounded Secretary of State Clinton during Obama's first term.
The two competing currents of geopolitical thinking -- a less combative one from the White House
and a more aggressive one from the foreign policy bureaucracy -- have often worked at cross-purposes.
But Obama, with only a few exceptions, has been unwilling to confront the hardliners or even fully
articulate his foreign policy vision publicly.
For instance, Obama succumbed to the insistence of Gates, Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus to escalate
the war in Afghanistan in 2009, though the President reportedly felt trapped into the decision which
he soon regretted. In 2010, Obama backed away from a Brazilian-Turkish-brokered deal with Iran to
curtail its nuclear program after Clinton denounced the arrangement and pushed for economic sanctions
and confrontation as favored by the neocons and Israel.
Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing
In Defense of Empire. Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having
any representation. The lunacy of his arguments can be show best when one substitute the object of
his essay:
Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery, Western
or Eastern. Anarchy reigned in the interregnums. To wit, the British may have failed in Baghdad,
Palestine, and elsewhere, but the larger history of the British slaveholdership is one of providing
a vast armature of stability, fostered by sea and rail communications, where before there had
been demonstrably less stability.
...
But slavery is now seen by global elites as altogether evil, despite slaveholdership having
offered the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal,
and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum. Compared with slaveholdership, democracy is a
new and uncertain phenomenon. Even the two most estimable democracies in modern history, the United
States and Great Britain, were slaveholdership for long periods. "As both a dream and a fact the
American slaveholdership was born before the United States," writes the mid-20th-century historian
of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto. Following their initial settlement, and before their incorporation
as states, the western territories were nothing less than slaveholdership possessions of Washington,
D.C. No surprise there: slaveholdership confers a loose and accepted form of sovereignty, occupying
a middle ground between anarchy and full state control.
...
Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts
of the world a modicum of slavery order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must
presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic heartland of the world economy
and the home of American treaty allies.
...
That, I submit, would be a policy direction that internalizes both the drawbacks and the benefits
of slaveholdership, not as it has been conventionally thought of, but as it has actually been
practiced throughout history.
It is somewhat frightening that people believing such nonsense have influence in political circles.
Crest
Imperialism benefits no one but a small slice of the ruling class. But it's always defended
as if it's the only thing providing food for the average person. It's been true since the Roman
empire. The looting oriented British Raj stripped away so much and somehow almost none of it ended
up in the hands of the average Briton. Same for the Kingdoms of Spain and Portugal. It's just
no good. I don't know how long it will take for average people to understand it.
Noirette
The interest in slavery is not just neo-connish etc. but in a way, underground, an interest
of Big Corporations (1).
Not, imho, in first place because of the 'cheap labor' but because of issues of control.
Right now we are living in a world that is organized in part by nation-states (as a kind of
ultimate authority) and for another part, not well coordinated with the first, by Big Corporations,
who increasingly control Banking and Finance, thus also say pol. contributions in the US, territory
(2) and its uses, supra-territorial matters such as communications and benchmarks (internet, the
control of space, rating agencies, for ex.), and other related matters like patent laws.
Slavery as an official doctrine is not in their interests, cheap labor is already available
thru modern slavery. So they keep a low profile, and let their 'elected' representatives take
the flack.
Such clashing interests are well illustrated in the case of Ukraine, where the confusion of
the Western 'nation-states' has become pathetically ridiculous, as they cannot make public their
lack of power and attendant subservience to Corporate interests. They are kind of 'holding on'
to keep some hand in the game, and mobilizing their 'electorate' with propaganda, as that is where
their livelihood come from.
1. Shell, BP, Total, plus many others in the energy field. Also the likes of Glencore Xstrata,
Cargill, AXA, Monsanto, Nestlé, JP Morgan, etc. etc. all entwined in a kind of global network.
2. Straight out buying and leasing land; owning thru investments and 'deals', exploration rights,
mineral rights, agriculture, transport hubs (pipelines, shipping, ports, the machines that implement
the transport, etc.)
"...insofar as Nuland working as an assistant to Cheney, it bears noting she had been at the center
of this world class criminal's epoch
of invasion, destruction, kidnap and murder. And let us not forget Nuland's buddy 'Condi' has worn
many hats, including
authorizing
CIA rendition to torture:
"Nicolo Pollari, former head of the Italian military intelligence service SISMI, asks for former
US national security adviser and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify in his defense
in a kidnap case. The case concerns the 2003 rendition from Italy to Egypt of Islamist extremist Hassan
Mustafa Osama Nasr (see
Noon
February 17, 2003). SISMI and the CIA worked together on the abduction and several operatives of
both organizations are now on trial for it. Rice approved the operation shortly before it was carried
out"
In this case, it should be no stretch of the imagination to arrive at hypothesis of who is actually
behind what was certainly a 'false flag' sniper attack
murdering both police and protestors
in Kiev…
…considering the photo of close Bush buddy, erstwhile CIA director Robert Gates, pinning a medal
on Victoria Nuland taken together with the aggregate facts, recalling CIA and the Department of State
are Siamese twins, I think it is a safe presumption to say Nuland profiles as having been the senior
CIA coordinator/operative running operations to take Ukraine over for the Christian domionists who run
CHEVRON. Particularly when she'd
been leaked giving instruction to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine on who to put in the post of Prime
Minister.
This is a philosophical query, without any clear answer, into how it is necrotic social phenomena
can cross-dress or socialize with natural enemies in a world that makes little sense at first glance.
Or, this is a post about unconscious faith in amorality and associated moral inversion. It is about
a weaponized Gospel of Jesus Christ. And finally it is about where malignant social phenomena converge
with lust for power and associated greed. All in all, it is a story of a sociopath, institutionalized
murder and power politics. And why these things transcend any sense of sane or sensible relationships.
Donald Rumsfeld sits with Victoria Nuland
Insofar as Nuland sitting with Don Rumfeld, she is in attendance with one of the great promoters
of extremist Christian hate responsible for
putting utter evil in charge of our military's most lethal assignments:
"Boykin would appear onstage in churches and other locations around the nation in his full
Army uniform, pointing to posters of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and
stating that "Satan
wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a
Christian army… [they] will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus." It was
around this time that then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld successfully nominated Boykin for
a third star, placing the dominionist fascist Boykin only one rank/grade below the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff"
Yes, this preceding is about the very same General Boykin who, just the other day had stated "Jews
are the problem"
Victoria Nuland begins her employ with Dick Cheney
Other than wondering whether the book Nuland is swearing her allegiance to Cheney on (perhaps
a Bible, Brzezinski's 'Grand
Chessboard' or the Encyclopedia Britannica, a Torah is in the form of a scroll), insofar as Nuland
working as an assistant to Cheney, it bears noting she had been at the center of this
world class criminal's epoch of
invasion, destruction, kidnap and murder:
"Without fear of prosecution, Cheney persists in lying about the reasons he took America into
two wars and how he cherry-picked information to forge fictitious links between Iraq's former leader
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, alleging they both plotted together the 9-11 attacks.
"He even has the audacity to blame his lies about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction
on others while still justifying an Iraq war that cost over a trillion dollars, thousands of American
lives, and an untold number of dead Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi death toll has been estimated at anything
between 100,000 and 1 million. The true figure may never be known.
"Also, Cheney masterminded the official U.S. program that involved kidnapping foreign nationals
for the purpose of sending them to CIA black sites, where they would then be transferred to friendly
intelligence services in countries like Egypt, Jordan and Syria to be tortured. There is also his
unabashed claim he advocated the use of interrogation techniques banned by the Geneva Conventions,
and had plans to mercilessly bomb other nations"
But without fear of prosecution, Cheney persists in lying about the reasons he took America into
two wars and how he cherry-picked information to forge fictitious links between Iraq's former leader
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, alleging they both plotted together the 9-11 attacks.
He even has the audacity to blame his lies about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction on
others while still justifying an Iraq war that cost over a trillion dollars, thousands of American
lives, and an untold number of dead Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi death toll has been estimated at anything
between 100,000 and 1 million. The true figure may never be known
Insofar as Nuland chumming with 'dubya' .. here's a few 'dubya' associated members from the international
criminal dominionist 'Family'
that sponsors the National Prayer Breakfast:
"Men under the Family's religio-political counsel include, in addition to Ensign, Coburn and
Pickering, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, both R-S.C.; James Inhofe,
R-Okla., John Thune, R-S.D., and recent senators and high officials such as John Ashcroft, Ed Meese,
Pete Domenici and Don Nickles. Over in the House there's Joe Pitts, R-Penn., Frank Wolf, R-Va., Zach
Wamp, R-Tenn., Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., Marsha Blackburn,
R-Tenn., Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and John R. Carter, R-Texas. Historically, the Family has been strongly
Republican, but it includes Democrats, too. There's Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, for instance,
a vocal defender of putting the Ten Commandments in public places, and Sen. Mark Pryor, the pro-war
Arkansas Democrat responsible for scuttling Obama's labor agenda. Sen. Pryor explained to me the
meaning of bipartisanship he'd learned through the Family: "Jesus didn't come to take sides.
He came to take over." And by Jesus, the Family means the Family"
"I really am so honored that Dr. Condoleezza Rice is going to share some comments with you.
It is fitting that we have a National Prayer Breakfast. It is the right thing to do, because this
is a nation of prayer" -George W Bush
Ok, so maybe this immediate preceding doesn't seem all that vile (other than the personalities
Nuland associates with.)
Victoria Nuland with 'Condi'
Now, is when things get really interesting. Digging into Condi's past with Nuland is like stepping
into the La Brea tar pit together with the CIA, CHEVRON and Christian fundamentalism. Only last month,
the patriarch of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, a rival
of the Russian Orthodox church in Ukraine, is quoted at the most recent National Prayer Breakfast
by the CIA's
Voice of America:
"The patriarch, who was attending his first prayer breakfast, said it was a good opportunity
to meet other leaders. "It was a great possibility, not only to represent Ukraine, but also make
connections, meet people and transmit truth about Ukraine and the situation in Ukraine""
The VOA (CIA) article concludes with:
"While the U.S. president hosts the National Prayer Breakfast, the event is sponsored by members
of Congress and organized by a conservative Christian organization often known as "The
Family"
The CIA most certainly would know. So now, let's back up a moment. What has Nuland's buddy Condi
been up to since she (mostly) dropped out of sight after 2008? It's safe to say Leopards don't change
their spots, as
'Dr Rice'
pairs CHEVRON up with The Center for Strategic and International Studies:
"Development can help avoid the next Afghanistan or the next Somalia, she said, by building
responsible sovereigns who can provide for their people. In doing so, the public and private sectors
have complimentary, overlapping roles, Dr. Rice argued, with governments taking
responsibility for creating the environment for trade, job creation, and foreign investment"
Huh. I wonder what "governments taking responsibility for creating the environment" might have
to do with 'Chevron Ukraine' and Victoria
Nuland reporting back to CHEVRON this past December the fact 5 billion dollars had been invested
in (one presumes
through CIA fronts such as USAID) what not long after became the putsch
bringing neo-nazi rule (and wide open territory for CHEVRON fracking) to Kiev:
And let us not forget Nuland's buddy 'Condi' has worn many hats, including
authorizing
CIA rendition to torture:
"Nicolo Pollari, former head of the Italian military intelligence service SISMI, asks for
former US national security adviser and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify in
his defense in a kidnap case. The case concerns the 2003 rendition from Italy to Egypt of Islamist
extremist Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (see
Noon
February 17, 2003). SISMI and the CIA worked together on the abduction and several operatives
of both organizations are now on trial for it. Rice approved the operation shortly before it was
carried out"
In this case, it should be no stretch of the imagination to arrive at hypothesis of who is actually
behind what was certainly a 'false flag' sniper attack
murdering both police and protestors
in Kiev…
Victoria Nuland and Robert Gates
…considering the photo of close Bush buddy, erstwhile CIA director Robert Gates, pinning a medal
on Victoria Nuland taken together with the aggregate facts, recalling CIA and the Department of State
are Siamese twins, I think it is a safe presumption to say Nuland profiles as having been the senior
CIA coordinator/operative running operations to take Ukraine over for the Christian domionists who
run CHEVRON. Particularly when
she'd been leaked giving instruction
to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine on who to put in the post of Prime Minister.
Generals John Abizaid & James Jones with Nuland
Considering the photo of Nuland with Pentagon Christian extremists
John Abizaid
and James Jones,
both avid 'Prayer Breakast' speakers, and furthermore, General Jones having retired to
service with CHEVRON, here is an
interesting article 'Forbidden Love: Anti-Semites Who Loved Jews…And the Jews Who (Sometimes)
Loved Them Back' interested people might be well advised to read. Especially considering the company
Nuland keeps
embraces the following:
"Will Unsaved Jews Enter the "Future" Promised Land? No, absolutely not. No unsaved Jew will
ever enjoy the splendors of the future Promised Land .. "Clearly, the Word of God teaches that "Jew"
in the Bible, as regards all the future promises to Israel, refers ONLY to born-again Christian Jews.
It is the circumcision of the inward heart, and not the outward flesh, that makes one a Jew in God's
eyes. No unconverted Jew can ever claim the promise of God concerning Palestine, unless he first
BELIEVES on Jesus Christ as his personal Messiah. You Need HIS Righteousness! .. "The Bible teaches
that God's promises were not made to all Jews; but only to saved Jews…
"How tragic that most Jews today have been blinded by sinful pride and false religion, that
they reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Only by faith in Jesus Christ can any Jew claim the promise
of the future Promised Land. All unbelievers, whether Gentile or Jew, will be cast into the Lake
of Fire (Revelation 20:11-15) .."Romans 11:19-23 plainly teaches that unbelieving Jews are already
cut off. Only Christian Jews have been grafted back into the tree of God's people. All else are branches
broken off and cast into the fire""
I have little patience with 'World Jewish Conspiracy' freaks, if only because there are corrupt
people in every ethnicity on this planet and the fact that a handful of the world's most powerful
or corrupt people happen to be Jewish, only argues to establish the fact the Jews are no different
to the rest of us as peoples in this regard. By far more interesting to me is how it is a person
of Jewish heritage, such as Victoria Nuland, can become devoted to the cause of people who are in
turn devoted to the literal extinction of Jews.
Now, this is to point out Victoria Nuland is in the service of some of the world's most powerful
anti-Semitic personalities. These personalities may not all have been individually labeled as anti-Semites
perhaps, but each and every one of them is 'Christian
Dominionist', in effect they believe not only 'God's Law' trumps the constitutions and laws of
all secular democracies, they also
believe in literal Armageddon
and the utter and total destruction of all Jewish people as a matter of religious belief. That is,
all Jews who do not 'convert.'
Victoria Nuland would likely meet Bibi Netanyhu's definition of a "Self-Hating
Jew" simply for the fact she works in the Obama administration and Obama seems to have arrived
at a cold, political calculation; Netanyahu's determination to use the USA to crush any Palestinian
right of self-determination via AIPAC, simply cannot hold up and keep pulling in the neo-liberal
vote in today's America. And mid-term elections are on the close horizon.
But in regards to establishing the new, neo-nazi regime in Kiev, one must question Netanyahu's
perception of what actually constitutes a 'self-hating Jew.' In Netanyahu's perception, this pejorative
term is largely limited to Jews who believe Palestinians are living, sentient beings. Conversely,
Victoria Nuland seems to believe neo-nazis are generous, law-abiding, tolerant people, capable of
being outstanding citizens worthy of running a nation (Ukraine) on behalf of CHEVRON, as well on
behalf of Kiev's new natural gas personalities closely
connected to Joe
Biden & John Kerry. Makes perfect sense, eh?
Секретарь Совета национальной безопасности и обороны Украины Андрей Парубий заявил, что его страна
находится перед угрозой масштабного российского вторжения. Он привел цифры: на границе более 80 тысяч
личного состава, до 270 танков, до 380 реактивных систем залпового огня и так далее.
Парубий был
комендантом Майдана. Вот что о нем в интервью "России-24" рассказал экс-глава СБУ Александр Якименко:
"Выстрелы прошли со здания филармонии. За это здание отвечал комендант Майдана Парубий. С этого
здания 20 числа работали снайперы и работали люди с автоматическим оружием. Когда же первая волна
отстрелов закончилась, то многие зафиксировали выход 20 человек, хорошо одетых, специальная форма
была. У них были саквояжи, сумки специально для переноски оружия, в том числе и снайперских винтовок.
Были при них автоматы КМ с оптическими прицелами. А самое интересное, что это видели не только
наши оперативные сотрудники, но и представители Майдана. Видел "Правый сектор", видели представители
"Свободы", видели представители "Батькивщины", "Удара".
Для того чтобы зайти на Майдан, мне нужно было согласование и Парубия, иначе мне бы ударили
силы самообороны в спину. Парубий не дал такого согласия.
На Майдан ни один элемент вооружений не мог завезтись без разрешения Парубия.
Парубий же ушел в сторону, его перетянул к себе Порошенко, перетянул к себе Гвоздь, Маломуж.
Это представители разведки. Его подтянул Гриценко, который участвовал в этой же группе. Это силы,
которые выполняли все, что говорилось им руководителями, представителями США. Они, по сути, каждый
день жили в посольстве. Не было такого дня, чтобы они не посещали посольство.
Майдан этих людей не назначает, их назначают Соединенные Штаты. Возьмите последние назначения:
Парубий, Гвоздь, Наливайченко. Это все люди, которые выполняли волю, и волю не Европы даже. Это
люди, которые напрямую связаны со спецслужбами США".
По словам Александра Якименко, важную роль в событиях на Украине сыграла также Польша, чей гражданин
Ян Томбинский, который является представителем ЕС на Украине, стал посредником между Европой и оппозицией.
Миллионы наличных долларов, по словам Якименко, передавались диппочтой. Её количество со времён
нач в увеличилось в 10 раз. Но были и местные спонсоры.
Александр Якименко:
"Как и Порошенко, так и Фирташ, Пинчук - они финансировали Майдан. Они заложники данной
ситуации, потому что почти весь бизнес, все их активы расположены за рубежом, и они выполняли
команды Запада. Им не оставалось ничего другого, как поддержать Майдан и финансировать его, так
как в противном случае они остались бы без своих активов. В данном случае эти люди не думали о
стране, они думали только о своих возможностях, о своих финансах".
Александр Якименко возглавлял Службу безопасности Украины чуть больше года. В январе 2013 на эту
должность его назначил Виктор Янукович, а в феврале текущего года Верховная Рада сняла с должности.
В ближайшие дни, а возможно, часы, украинские военные проинспектируют с воздуха российские приграничные
области. Официальное разрешение дало Минобороны РФ. Как заявил замминистра обороны РФ Анатолий Антонов,
такая миссия запрашивается впервые в рамках Договора по открытому небу с момента его подписания в
1992 году.
Минобороны также сообщило, что армейские подразделения наращивают интенсивность полевых занятий
- в полном соответствии с планом боевой подготовки. Задействованы полигоны Ростовской, Белгородской,
Тамбовской и Курской областей.
At first glance it may seem that the future is dark and uncertain, especially immediate future.
But actually in all events there is a hidden logic (which may annoy some with particular agenda),
and based on this logic certain thing can be predicted. Because any society (and humanity in General)
operates in accordance with certain laws and cannot violate laws of "celestial mechanics" of human
societies.
To understand how the situation will develop, it is necessary to understand who are real the parties
of the conflict and what are their motivations. The most important aspects of the current Ukrainian
conflict, at first glance, with different degrees of involvement are the following six: Ukraine,
Novorossia, USA, Russia, EU and China.
Postulate 1. Maidan in Ukraine happened because China has overtaken the United States.
It is not clear? Any Doubts? Let me explain.
Age-old cycle of hegemony, when one of the Imperial country is losing the leadership in the world
economy to the another country may well be in place as for the USA and China. At some point things
became irreversible and as substantial part of the capital (and production capacity) inevitably flows
into the new center. And the old hegemon, as usual, clinging to the last straws of leadership and,
as usual, those desperate attempts does not work.
In this sense nothing new under the sun, and such cycles occurred a hundred, two hundred, three
hundred years ago and further back into history. The last time UK lost leadership to the USA (unleashing
two world wars to fight back this slide, but it did not help), before it was the domination of Paris,
Madrid, Antwerp, Genoa and so on.
Falling hegemon is experiencing a phenomenon known as "Imperial exhaustion" (It's very expensive
to contain hundreds of military bases all over the planet; troops are tired to kill and die for wars
which are fought for goals they do not understood and do not share). There is a rapidly growing number
of people in the USA living on food stamps. China in 2014 is still had grown in 2014 with official
figure of 7% GDP growth.
So it might well be an attempts to protect the hegemony of the U.S. that caused unleashing a new
conflict throughout the world, and Ukraine (as well as Russian which are the main target) is just
an episode of this "strategy" of containment of China.
So if you think that Ukraine is waging war against Russia (or Vice versa), you are wrong. IMHO,
it's the US fight against rising China. While Russia, Ukraine and the EU here, only the players of
the second order, being simultaneously players and "prizes" of this conflict.
Postulate 2. Neither Russia nor Ukraine nor EU are the main parties to the conflict.
Most have probably seen the famous film with Mel Gibson "Braveheart". Remember the episode, when
the British king throws Irish infantry against the Scottish rebels. Can we say that Ireland is at
war against Scotland? No, that Britain is at war against Scotland using the hands of the Irish.
Is there anything in this episode any political identity among the Irish? It appears only at the
moment when they decide to go to the side of the rebels (before they didn't choose this, they were
puppets).
How "appreciates" the British king his "Irish nationals" show when he orders British archers to fire
into the crowd, where everything is mixed together, not sparing "their" and massively hitting them
with "friendly fire".
The Parallels are obvious. So Ukrainians now are infantry of the American imperialists (who also
the Anglo-Saxons, among other things) and those puppets are thrown to the slaughter like regular
cannon fodder, completely without worrying about losses.
The motivation of the parties
China does not want to confront the United States. He would prefer not to fight, allowing the
States to quietly fade, but Beijing is well aware that, most likely, this strategy will not work,
and the Washington hawks will try to arrange if not direct conflict, but at least a number of local
conflicts on the periphery, trying to "encircle" Chine. If Ukrainian conflict destabilized Russia,
China would soothe, as it will make the transit of its goods to the EU more difficult and more dangerous
(however, most of it takes place in other ways, so it's not the strategic direction for China).
The US elite needs a war. At any price. Until the last Ukrainian. To break the trade, economic,
financial and energy ties between the EU and Russia is their strategic objective in Ukraine. Even
if to achieve this purpose you need to turn the entire country into ashes. After Vietnam, Somalia,
Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and other "democratized" countries we have no doubt that this
objective is quite achievable.
However, the Russian decision about the upcoming termination of gas transit through the territory
of Ukraine deals a serious blow to those plans. Now energy can be supplied by other route. The only
chance to do mischief, is to completely poison relations of Russia and the EU, so that that EU politically
preferred gas from other sources. That's why "sanctions" were imposed and that's why they meets more
and more resistance in Europe.
Russia needs in Ukraine peace and tranquility as well a neutral military status. If it were not
Russophobic EuroMaidan, Gazprom will still supplied gas to EU through the Ukrainian gas transport
system. It does not need extra expenses to build another pipeline, and it would be easier to order
many products at Ukrainian plants than to create from scratch a new or search for alternative suppliers
of similar products in the EU and Asia. And even the operation "Crimea is ours" would not be necessary,
because the lease of fleet base in Sevastopol was until 2042. It was a direct reaction of EuroMaidan.
The "Euro-integrators" that came to power proclaim that they will take "Moskals" on knives and break
all economic relations with Russia. Or rather, not them, but the Producers of this staged performance,
suppliers of cookies. And even now Russia is trying to defuse the situation and offered situation,
arranging negotiations and supplying to Ukraine hydrocarbons and electricity, despite all the attempts
of the Kiev regime and behind them the Americans to escalate the confrontation to open war.
The EU wanted to gain access to Ukrainian markets, so it willingly got involved in this adventure
with the "European integration". They, and first of all Merkel, tried to play neoliberal economic
expansion card. Now, a year later, when the Ukrainian market was destroyed and became much less interesting
(given the apparent lack of purchasing power), the EU wants to jump out of the financial costs of
the situation they created, became it became an apparent financial burden and will not bring any
profits in foreseeable future. Preferably without losing face. But the main motivation of the EU
now, of course, "out of sight, out of mind". constantly and aggressive begging for financial assistance
Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko became to annoy their European benefactors.
Novorossia wants "junta" leave it alone. They agree to "never we will be brothers". They are to
be a "depressed region" and so on. It would be great that those Kiev guys quietly march to Europe,
and stopped send tanks and artillery to Donbass as demonstration of their slogan "nationalism is
love" and "patriotism is above everything" (as in Deutschland uber Alles).
And Ukraine in as a country not can't want anything. In order to want something, you need to be
a little bit more independent. Meanwhile the Ukrainian junta tries to impose on everybody such intrinsic
"European value" as unitalism, reckless militarism "aka glory to heroes", the hatred of the Russians
(the "quilted jackets" and "Colorados bugs") and things like that. And while the Ukrainians don't
start thinking with YOUR head and YOUR interests, they will continue to be managed by the Georgian
and Baltic protégés of the USA, providing control over the disenfranchised colony, which Ukraine
has become through the efforts of those who organized the Maidan.
And while Ukraine remains an object under external management, Ukrainians will continue to be
send to slaughter. The US needs a war, so a few days ago, the junta forces has increased the intensity
of the shelling of Donetsk, Lugansk and other cities, provoking retaliatory counterattack from Novorossia
militia.
What will happen next? It's obvious. If troops and battalions of Kiev were unable to suppress
the militia in the summer 2014 when they had a huge superiority in armor and artillery (I'm not talking
about the presence of aircraft). Now the more they gamble, and for example try to attack the Donetsk,
in my opinion, the more hopeless for them situation will develop. Violating the Minsk agreement,
they untied the factions of the militia, which now displaces "cyborgs" from the airport, liberated
several villages in the North, came close to Schastye (Happiness) and meeting no resistance, entered
the suburbs of Mariupol.
I have very strong doubts that pensioners, which Poroshenko going to throw into battle, can change
the military situation at the East. Many of them lost their former military skills and physical conditioning
(and I doubt that any of them even will want to go there). And "hurrah-patriots" who hate "vatu",
are sitting on the Internet in their comfortable offices. They will not volunteer iether. Therefore,
after the coming defeat of the current group near Donetsk, there will be not many people to protect
junta in Kiev.
Meanwhile the Polish Embassy is now stormed the crowd of people wishing to obtain a card of a
pole or a visa. All flights from Ukraine to Russia are completely booked (although thanks Russophobic
policy regime in Kiev with the new year to find a job Ukrainians in Russia has become much more difficult,
however, still easier then to get a visa in the EU).
People are fleeing en masse from "westernized" of Ukraine – from war, from unemployment,
from lawlessness of "ATO death squads", from new taxes and exorbitant utility bills, from the endless
stream of lies and hatred in the media, from roaming the streets armed crazies and other calamities
brought to the country by Euromaidan color revolution...
Former State Security Head of Ukraine Oleksandr Yakimenko blames Ukraine's current government
for hiring snipers on Feb. 20, when dozens of people were killed and hundreds more wounded. The victims
were mainly EuroMaidan Revolution demonstrations, but some police officers were also killed. This
was the deadliest day during the EuroMaidan Revolution, a three-month uprising that claimed 100 lives.
Yakimenko also blamed the United States for organizing and financing the revolution by bringing
illegal cash in using diplomatic mail.
The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine dismissed the charges as ludicrous, while another official with the
current government called the accusations "cynical" propaganda with no factual basis.
... ... ...
Yakimenko made these and other accusations in a 10-minute exclusive interview to Russia's Vesti
channel in an undisclosed location.
"The shots sounded from the building of Philharmonics," Yakimenko told Vesti. "This was the building
supervised by (now National Security Council Chief Andriy) Parubiy."
He said the snipers were shooting in the back of the running police, as well as at protesters.
He said there were two groups of "well-dressed" snipers, each composed of 10 people, operating in
the building. Yakimenko said their exit was witnessed by both SBU operatives and protesters themselves.
He said one of the groups of snipers disappeared, but the other one relocated to Hotel Ukraina
and continued to kill the protesters at a slower pace. Yakimenko said at that point representatives
of Svoboda and Right Sector appealed to him to deploy SBU's special unit Alfa to destroy the snipers.
Yakimenko claims that he was ready to do it, but did not get the permission of Parubiy, who supervised
the self-defense forces.
"To get inside EuroMaidan I needed Parubiy's permission because the forces of self-defense would
hit me in the back," Yakimenko said. "But Parubiy did not give me such a permission."
"Not a single weapon could get onto Maidan without Parubiy's permission," he said, adding that
EuroMaidan protesters used mercenaries from former defense ministry's special units, as well as foreign
mercenaries, including those from former Yugoslavia.
... ... ....
Yankimenko says that Parubiy, as well as a number of other organizers of EuroMaidan, received
direct orders from the U.S. government. Among those people he named former and current intelligence
chiefs Mykola Malomuzh and Viktor Gvozd, former Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko and leader of
the opposition Petro Poroshenko.
"These are the forces that were doing everything they were told by the leaders and representatives
of the United States," he says. "They, in essence lived in the U.S. embassy. There wasn't a day when
they did not visit the embassy."
... ... ...
SBU chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko is also accused of playing to the tune of the Americans. The
U.S. Embassy in Ukraine commented on these accusations in just one word: "ludicrous."
All orders were given either by the U.S. or EU ambassador Jan Tombinski, "who in essence is a
Polish citizen."
"The role of Poland cannot be evaluated," Yakimenko said. "It dreams about restoring its old wish,
Rzeczpospolita."
The EU Delegation had no comment about the accusations.
The former SBU chief also talked at length about the financing of EuroMaidan protests, saying
much of it came directly from the U.S., and that some Ukrainian oligarchs, including Poroshenko,
Dmytro Firtash and Viktor Pinchuk.
"From the beginning of Maidan we as a special service noticed a significant increase of diplomatic
cargo to various embassies, western embassies located in Ukraine," says Yakimenko. "It was tens of
times greater than usual diplomatic cargo supplies." He says that right after such shipments crisp,
new U.S. dollar bills were spotted on Maidan.
He said Ukraine's oligarchs were also financing Maidan because they were "hostages of the situation
and had no choice" because most of their assets are located in the west.
I take it that "hard-charging" is an American euphemism for foul of mouth and coarse of temperament?
Nuland is a grotesque horror-show whose motivations and revenge fantasies color everything she
does. We would never let an Albanian or Serb tell us what to do about Kosovo, and yet these Nuland types
are given free reign wherever they like. How can they be good for the US?
Vicky's triumph was set things in motion, to get the crisis going. But Putin may still end this
crisis in a way that Vicky and her clique will hate. He's at least as skillful as they are.
My eyes must be going: I read that as "the hard-charging assistant secretary of state for Empire".
I take it that "hard-charging" is an American euphemism for foul of mouth and coarse of
temperament?
Freddo, 3/2/14, 2:11 AM
So what exactly constitutes this new hard-charging engagement? It probably has four phases:
look away, whimper, roll over and hide under the couch.
Given that the White House just released a picture of Obummer on the phone we are now in stage
Whimper.
Anonymous, 3/2/14, 3:32 AM
yeah it mean she shouts and cusses a lot
leftist conservative said...
jewish? Check!
Ivy League degree? Check!
David Brooks gushed over her? Check!
Uses profanity==Strong Woman? Check!
She's a rising star!
Anonymous ,
This doesn't make much sense for the Jewish conspiracy crowd.
Why would a "Jewish controlled" US government oust Ukraine's leader with the help of neo-nazis,
who, it is reported, are attacking jews as we speak.
""The greatest worry now is not the uptick in anti-Semitic incidents but the major presence
of ultra-nationalist movements, especially the prominence of the Svoboda party and Pravy Sektor
(right sector) members among the demonstrators. Many of them are calling their political opponents
"Zhids" and flying flags with neo-Nazi symbols. There have also been reports, from reliable
sources, of these movements distributing freshly translated editions of Mein Kampf and the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Independence Square."
("Anti-Semitism, though a real threat, is being used by the Kremlin as a political football",
Haaretz)
Chicago, 3/2/14, 5:31 AM
There's a lot of people who at the moment are screaming that we should 'do something'. They're
short on specifics, though. What precisely this something to be done happens to be is quite vague.
Let's see their blueprint first and then discussion should follow. Perhaps they want a rerun of
the Crimean war.
There's always been a lot of incompetence and miscalculation in the foreign affairs of just about
any country one can think of. Supposed shrewd operators and great intellects have blundered immensely
time and again yet they seem to go on in their careers as though nothing happened. In the popular
discourse aimed at the masses everything is reduced to an analogy with kids in the playground:
the president must act tough, bullies should be punched in the face, don't be a sissy, can't act
scared, and so on. It's all a reckless egging on of the public.
Anonymous said... 3/2/14, 6:59 AM
It's really sad we don't permit the likes of Jim Bakers and George Kennans around anymore to
help steer US foreign policy. Is it just nostalgia or were those guys really as non-ideological
as they seemed. Certainly compared to this Nuland creature, but any comparison is absurd.
Nuland is a grotesque horror-show whose motivations and revenge fantasies color everything
she does. We would never let an Albanian or Serb tell us what to do about Kosovo, and yet these
Nuland types are given free reign wherever they like. How can they be good for the US?
Whatever you want to say about our old-line WASP elite of generations ago, they had a little
class.
Black Death
This whole thing is starting to feel like "The Guns of August.". To paraphrase one of my heroes,
Otto von Bismarck, the whole of the Ukraine isn't worth the bones of a single American soldier.
During the Cold War, Russia (as the USSR), controlled the Ukraine. Didn't' seem to do us much
harm. Undoubtedly, some Ukrainians would prefer to live as part of Russia. Others despise the
Russians. Best to let them sort it out.
It's obvious that Obama doesn't care very much about foreign policy, so he delegates it to
underlings and lets them do what they want. Obama prefers to work on domestic policy and produce
such triumphs as Obamacare. On to Belgrade!
Anonymous, 3/2/14, 9:55 AM
Vicky's triumph was set things in motion, to get the crisis going. But Putin may still
end this crisis in a way that Vicky and her clique will hate. He's at least as skillful as they
are.
Anonymous, 3/2/14, 11:44 AM
they put out a false story about a shootout to justify bringing more troops into Crimea
and now I see a false story about 600k Russian Ukrainians fleeing eastern Ukraine... I realize
the Russians are mad their guy was couped, but he was couped fair and square. It's their fault
they didn't stop it.
Yea, I agree. It reminds me of those stories the US carried about 100,000 Albanians and
how the Serbs were rounding them up for the camps.
Anonymous said...
Vicky's triumph was set things in motion, to get the crisis going. But Putin may still
end this crisis in a way that Vicky and her clique will hate. He's at least as skillful as
they are.
I second that. Putin plays a long hand, whereas Neocons/Zionists are often fanatically driven
by revenge for perceived injustices.
Anonymous said...
DR:
A transition back to the Russia of the 1990s should be the central goal of American foreign
policy. Russia has vast mineral and energy resources. The optimal situate is for the IMF to
structure the economy to make sure the proceeds from those resources are going to oligarchs
who will blow them on soccer teams and luxury goods.
The central goal of American foreign policy should be creating transnational structures of
peace to help the common development of the European world - Vancouver to Vladivostok and Santiago
to Sydney, not antagonizing Russians by consigning them to economic and demographic doom under
the exploitation of corrupt oligarchs. We need to move beyond a world model that can only picture
world power structures with one nation on top and one elite on top of that one nation. The development
of civilization depends upon harnessing our best minds from all civilized countries to progress
the human condition on the shoulders of those who have come before us, and in this regard, the
Russians are key actors because of their resources, smarts, and capabilities.
Germans fought to the bitter end in WWII because of useless propaganda like Kaufmann's "Germany
Must Perish" calling for the sterilization of all German men. Lets not make the same mistake with
Russians calling for the perpetual debt bondage that Americans each might earn $1000 more per
year. It is not in America's interest for any white nation to perish. And with Russia especially
if for no other reason than that unlike Nazi Germany, they have nuclear weapons, and strike me
that if backed into a corner, they are most likely to lash out to presere their place in the world.
Anonymous said...
"Russia has proved time and time again that it will never give up on its desire to be a
great empire."
... which is why Russia sold Alaska.
... which is why Germany attacked Russia and not the other way around.
... which is why the USSR gave up and ended the iron curtain and broke apart.
... which is why Russia did nothing about Yugoslavia.
Russian imperialism must have things backward.
Russian imperialism has always been around Russia itself and some peripheral areas. As for
eastern europe, it never would have fallen into Russia's trap had it not been for HItler's invasion
and then FDR's willingness to let Stalin have it.
The only reason why Russian imperialism took on a globalist scope in the 20th century was the
communist bug, and Russians didn't come up with Marxism. Another people did. Eventually, Russians
cast it off.
Though Assad is no saint, he seems somewhat saner than the some of the rebels who are downright
crazy in Syria. And do we want a massacre of Christians that will follow the fall of Assad?
What happened to Christians in Iraq as the result of the invasion? What happened to Libya?
Did Russia create all that mess?
Will neocons and liberal globo-Zionists take responsibility for all the mess they caused?
While Cohen has some interesting observations, I didn't get the impression that Nuland and Pyatt
were discussing plans for a coup. To me, it seemed that they were talking about the possibility of
Arseniy Yatseniuk taking a position in the Yanukovych government while excluding the other two opposition
leaders they mentioned.
The recorded conversation was heard by many people and no one else has suggested that a coup was
in the works till today. If anyone else is interested in having a listen to the intercepted phone
call, here it is. A transcript of the conversation is below.
Nuland: What do you think?
Pyatt: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders]
piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime
minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying
to get a read really fast, on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which
you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you
made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on
the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary,
I don't think it's a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and
do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead
we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok,
the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych
is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience.
He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them
four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working
for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the
next step?
Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going
into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation
or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's
been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever
meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching
out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a
chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains
why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before
or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told
you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General
for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you
that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry
could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to
have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you
can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind
the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying
to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions
faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group
at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work
on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality
to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych
but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser
Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden
and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's
willing.
"F**k the EU" as an indicator of American strategic thinking".
"...US Think Tankland now also peddles the notion that the Obama administration is expertly adept
at a balance of power strategy. To include Libya as part of this "strategy" is a sick joke; Libya
post-Gaddafi is a failed state, courtesy of humanitarian bombing by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Meanwhile, in Syria, the US "strategy" boils down to let Arabs kill Arabs in droves.
..."
"...In already trademark Obama administration style, the State Department's support for anti-Russia,
pro-EU protests in Ukraine qualifies as "leading from behind" (remember Libya?) "
"...Stephen Cohen, who cut to the chase in this piece, stressing that the essential revelation of Nulandgate "was that high-level US officials were plotting to
'midwife' a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its democratically
elected president - that is, a coup". "
"...Here the "strategy" clearly reveals itself as a US puppet now - coup or no coup - instead of an
EU puppet later. No one in the Beltway gives a damn that Viktor Yanukovich was legally elected president
of Ukraine, and that he had full authority to reject a dodgy deal with the EU. "
Meet the new (cold) war, same as the old (cold) war. Same same, but different. One day, it's the
myriad implications of Washington's "pivoting" to Asia - as in the containment of China. The next
day, it's the perennial attempt to box Russia in. Never a dull moment in the New Great Game in Eurasia.
On Russia, the denigration of all things Sochi - attributable to the inherent stupidity of
Western corporate media "standards" - was just a subplot of the main show, which always gets personal;
the relentless demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin. [1]
Yet Nulandgate - as in US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria "neo-con" Nuland uttering her
famous "F**k the EU" - was way more serious. Not because of the "profanity" (praise the Lord!), but
for providing what US Think Tankland hailed as "an indicator of American strategic thinking".
Here's the game in a nutshell. Germany remote controls one of the leaders of the Ukrainian protests,
heavyweight boxer Vitali Klitschko. [2]
"F**k the EU" is essentially directed towards Berlin and Klitschko, its key protege. Washington
sees this going nowhere, as Germany, after all, has been slowly building a complex energy-investment
partnership with Russia.
The Obama administration wants results - fast. Nuland herself stressed (check it out, starting
at 7:26) that Washington, over the past two decades, has "invested" over US$5 billion for the "democratization"
of Ukraine. So yes: this is "our" game and the EU is at best a nuisance while Russia remains the
major spoiler. Welcome to Washington's Ukrainian "strategy".
The Ukrainian chessboard
US Think Tankland now also peddles the notion that the Obama administration is expertly adept
at a balance of power strategy. To include Libya as part of this "strategy" is a sick joke; Libya
post-Gaddafi is a failed state, courtesy of humanitarian bombing by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Meanwhile, in Syria, the US "strategy" boils down to let Arabs kill Arabs in droves.
Iran is way more complex. Arguably, the Obama administration calculates that through talks
between Iran and the P5+1 - the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus
Germany - it will be able to outmaneuver the Russians, who are close to Tehran. This assuming
the Obama administration really wants a nuclear deal with Iran that would later release the floodgates
of Western business.
On Syria, it's the Russian positions that have kept the upper hand; not to mention that Putin
saved Obama from yet another Middle East war. As Syria was a Russian win, no wonder Washington dreams
of a win in Ukraine.
We can interpret what's goin' on now as a remix of the 2004 Orange Revolution. But The Big Picture
goes way back - from NATO's expansion in the 1990s to American NGOs trying to destabilize Russia,
NATO's flirt with Georgia, and those missile defense schemes so close to Russian borders.
In already trademark Obama administration style, the State Department's support for anti-Russia,
pro-EU protests in Ukraine qualifies as "leading from behind" (remember Libya?)
It comes complete with "humanitarian" appeal, calls for "reconciliation" and good against evil
dichotomy masking a drive towards regime change. Abandon all hope to find voices of sanity on US
corporate media such as NYU and Princeton's Stephen Cohen, who cut to the chase in this piece, stressing
that the essential revelation of Nulandgate "was that high-level US officials were plotting to
'midwife' a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its democratically
elected president - that is, a coup".
Here the "strategy" clearly reveals itself as a US puppet now - coup or no coup - instead of an
EU puppet later. No one in the Beltway gives a damn that Viktor Yanukovich was legally elected president
of Ukraine, and that he had full authority to reject a dodgy deal with the EU.
And no one in the Beltway cares that the protests are now being led by Pravy Sektor (Right Sector)
- a nasty collection of fascists, football hooligans, ultra-nationalists and all sorts of unsavory
neo-Nazi elements; the Ukrainian equivalents of Bandar Bush's jihadis in Syria.
Yet the US "strategy" rules that street protests should lead to regime change. It applies to the
Ukraine, but it does not apply to Thailand.
Washington wants regime change in the Ukraine for one reason only; in the wider New Great Game
in Eurasia context, that would be the rough equivalent of Texas defecting from the US and becoming
a Russian ally.
Still, this gambit is bound to fail. Moscow has myriad ways to deploy economic leverage in
Ukraine; it has access to much better intel than the Americans; and the protesters/gangs/neo-Nazis
are just a noisy minority.
Washington, tough, won't give up, as it sees both the political crisis in Ukraine as the emerging
financial crisis in Kazakhstan as "opportunities" (Obama lingo) to threaten Moscow's economic/strategic
interests. It's as if the Beltway was praying for a widespread financial crisis in the Russia-led
Customs Union (Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus).
Pray in fact is all they've got, while the EU, for all the grandiose, rhetorical wishful thinking,
remains a divided mess. After Sochi, Vlad the Hammer will be back in business with a vengeance. Nuland
and co, watch your back.
Notes:
1. Journalistic malpractice & the dangers of Russia-bashing, RT, February 9, 2014.
2. EU Grooming Klitschko to Lead Ukraine, Der Spiegel Online, December 10, 2013.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid
War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007),
and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
Its not about petty hegemons, nor even the people who appointed them to serve, its about the dollar
and our need to back it by something tangible, fungible and under our thumb/sphere of control (since
we're busy shipping all the gold not screwed down to China/India with glad abandon).
Did you hear the audio of the phone call between Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
and the American ambassador to Ukraine? The Russians apparently recorded it, and leaked it.
Here's a transcript from
the BBC. I agree with the analysis of BBC's Jonathan Marcus:
The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting
that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript
suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to
achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs
– no more than Moscow, the cynic might say – but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The
clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible
to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.
Marcus goes on to say - rightly, I think - that this episode makes both the US and Russia look
bad (the Russians, because it makes clear that they're intercepting US diplomatic communications
… but then, our NSA has been doing the same thing to foreign leaders, e.g.,
Angela Merkel, who leads a nation that is not an enemy or a rival, but an ally). Still, the big
difference is that Ukraine is on Russia's border, and well within its sphere of influence. I haven't
been following the Ukraine situation closely, and for all I know, those Europhile Ukrainians protesting
the Yanukovych government are entirely in the right. But what business is it of the United States
to manipulate Ukrainian politics? Marcus, the analyst, says that the EU is holding back on involving
itself in Ukraine's power struggle because it doesn't see the relative value in offending Moscow
over Kiev. Nuland's response: "F–k the EU."
Lovely. From a realist perspective, doesn't the EU have the better of the argument? Last December,
Robert Merry wrote about the Ukraine mess, explaining that Ukraine is divided between its Catholic,
Europe-oriented west, and its Orthodox, Russia-oriented east. It's not simply a matter of a corrupt
authoritarian regime standing against the People. Excerpt:
Ukraine will have to find its way through its historical predicament. Russia no doubt will
play a role in whatever outcome emerges, if any. After all, Russia has been involved in the fate
of Ukraine since 1654. Europe may have a role to play as well, given its proximity and the Western
affinity of Ukraine's western regions. But the United States has almost no standing to interfere.
What will be the outcome? Will Ukraine eventually split in two, each half going in its favored
direction? It's difficult to see such an eventuality absent a major international crisis in the
region, although there will always be those who advocate such a course. As one Russian general
once mused, "Ukraine or rather Eastern Ukraine will come back [into the Russian fold] in five,
ten or fifteen years. Western Ukraine can go to hell!"
More likely, the country will continue to muddle through its current political conundrum as
best it can. Huntington speculated that "Ukraine will remain united, remain cleft, remain independent,
and generally cooperate closely with Russia." He quotes author John Morrison as saying that the
Russian-Ukrainian relationship is to Eastern Europe what the Franco-German relationship is to
western Europe. Huntington explains, "Just as the latter provides the core of the European Union,
the former is the core essential to unity in the Orthodox world."
The point is not that Russia's hands are clean with regard to interfering with Ukraine's internal
affairs. Of course they aren't; only a fool would believe that they are. The point is that the United
States is involved in Ukraine's internal politics so deeply that a senior American diplomat asserts
the right to decide who among the Ukrainian opposition should go into the government, and who should
not. Why? Why is this in America's interest? As a general matter, it is better to have a pro-American
government in power in a given country than an anti-American one. But is Ukraine really so important
a prize as to risk our relationship with Russia, and with the EU? One understands that
a crackpot hawk like John McCain would think so, but is this really how Barack Obama wants to
carry on?
William Dalton says:
February 11, 2014 at 12:57 am
Public Defender:
"I also agree with those who say that Dreher's reading of the excerpt of the conversation was
hyperbolic. This often happens when he blogs about topics he doesn't know much about (or at least,
no more than most of the people who post on his comboxes). In this case, the diplomat's statements
can be reasonably seen as the kind of frank advice given when nobody else is listening. And one-on-one
conversations don't bind the US the way presidential orders do, so the risks of further entanglement
are much, much smaller.
"The biggest screwup probably was having the conversation on an unsecured line."
I think I might find your argument persuasive, except for one thing. The substance of her obscenity-loaded
comment betrayed the real fault in the thinking of the Obama Administration represented by Ms.
Nuland, a political appointee in the State Department. There is clearly a contest between Russia
and the EU to see which can draw the Ukraine more closely into its orbit. The EU made an offer
Ukraine was about to accept when Russia made a better one. Now the EU is not showing much interest
in getting into a bidding war with Russia. They know that Ukraine is more important to Russia
than it is to the EU. In fact, with all its other obligations to support weak member states, the
economic powers of the EU are not eager to take on underwriting the Ukraine's economy as well.
And the U.S., as is obvious from Ms. Nuland's statement, is aware of this. So why would any rational
American diplomat be seeking to push together the Ukraine and the E.U. more than is the E.U. itself,
let alone a much divided Ukaine? It betrays a policy which has neither the best interests of the
Ukraine or the E.U. at heart, but rather is interested in playing the petty games of international
intrigue and rivalry that cost so much blood and treasure in the 20th Century. It sustains the
military-industrial complex of the Washington-London axis, not the aspirations of any foreign
peoples towards either liberty or democracy. It should be called out for what it is.
MrsKrishan says:
February 11, 2014 at 3:11 pm
"Why is this in America's interest?" Rod your naivete in geopolitics is remarkable for its dogged
persistence… have you never looked on a map at where the borders of the Ukraine actually lie?
Along the natural gas pipeline that US-Islamic Gulf Monarchist petrochemical interests would so
like to build up through Syria (or Iran) and on into Europe via Turkey?
Its not about petty hegemons, nor even the people who appointed them to serve, its about the
dollar and our need to back it by something tangible, fungible and under our thumb/sphere of control
(since we're busy shipping all the gold not screwed down to China/India with glad abandon).
simon94022 says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm
This is how everyone in our government carries on. The assumption that the US can and should
"manage" the rest of the world is the common denominator of neo-conservatism and liberal internationalism.
The former is quicker to resort to military force and threats of force, while the latter prefers
to enlist international institutions and threaten economic sanctions. But the assumptions and
goals are identical.
Both approaches focus on short term outcomes, long term consequences be damned. Both brush
aside deep cultural, religious and historical roots of conflicts in favor of a Disneyfied focus
on Getting Rid of the Bad Guy. And neither has outgrown the Cold War assumption that America actually
has the ability to shape other countries to our liking.
TomB says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:53 pm
There's a good article at the National Interest blog interpreting Nuland's call as showing the
U.S. trying to essentially split the difference between the Ukranian factions:
Ukrainians in the USA are disproportionately Catholic. But in Ukraine itself, Catholics only form
a majority in the far west of the country. The "yellow" part of the map from the WaPo that keeps
getting posted is still majority Orthodox.
SteveM says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Neocon Hack Nuland has been in Ukraine glad-handing the protesters. (BTW, at what point do
protesters storming buildings and chucking Molotov cocktails become rioters?)
But that's beside the point. What if Ukrainian, (or Russian) diplomats visited Occupy Wall
Street protests and distributed cookies as an act of solidarity like Nuland did in Kyiv? And insisted
on the replacement of the democratically elected government? They could even make the accurate
claim that Obama garners less than 50% of voter support to rationalize their intrusive behavior
like Nuland did with Yanukovych.
Arrogant U.S. Political Elites can't fix Detroit or Newark, yet they claim the unique skills
and insights, (apart from dropping f-bombs) necessary to rescue, Baghdad, Kabul, Tripoli, Damascus
and now Kyiv. Oh, and while regularly lecturing Moscow how it should run a country with 7 time
zones.
The sad thing is that objective journalism that challenges the status quo has pretty much collapsed.
The mainstream media is part and parcel of the Elite class and will do next to nothing in examining
the continuation of the obsolete and unaffordable America as World Cop model.
When I think of the Crony-Politico Apparatus these days, the word "repulsive" keeps popping
up in my mind.
John says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Ukraine is a sovereign state that should be allowed to solve these problems on their own terms
and through the democratic process we should but out.
Ukraine's president was duly elected by the people. If they don't like it, they can always
vote for his opponent when his term in office comes to an end. To equate what is going on in Ukraine
to what is going on in either Russia or Belarus would be ridiculous.
These protests are the result of a sharp divide between the Russophile Ukrainians and the Europhile
Ukrainians. Any government, should it want to maintain power, would straddle this fence and try
to maintain close relations with both, the western democracies and Russia.
It is not a sworn enemy. Our interests are served by maintaining the status quo. Attempts to
determine Ukraine's destiny, however, could push them into Rusdia's orbit. Quite counterproductive
in my humble opinion.
burton50 says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm
"The point is that the United States is involved in Ukraine's internal politics so deeply that
a senior American diplomat asserts the right to decide who among the Ukrainian opposition should
go into the government, and who should not."
No, Chris1, IMHO, it's not really an overstatement of fact. By Nuland's own admission, we have
at least 5 billion invested on the Ukraine "project". To be sure, it's chump change in comparison
to the analogous regime-change "projects"in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, probably on a par with
the Georgian operation. As a U.S. citizen, I don't see any return on such "investments". Like
most Americans, I think we might consider minding our own business, eh?
Substitution code says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:10 pm
the Russians [are] intercepting US diplomatic communications
That's not entirely clear yet in this case. If true, heads should roll. If Nuland and that
ambassador were yakking on an open line they should both be fired. If State Department diplomatic
voicecom is so vulnerable to decryption that crystal clear recordings can be released within a
few days of a conversation, then those responsible for securing them should be fired.
Fran Macadam says:
February 10, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Don't be too sure about the source of this leak being Russian, without proof. Our authorities
can find out who posted it to YouTube very easily by tracking IP addresses; absent specifics the
allegations are only convenient.
The NSA and U.S. spy services are the real masters at gobbling up everything regardless of
side and they collect everything from our own communications as well, with capabilities far beyond
those of foreign intelligence services. They don't know for sure unless they listen and analyze,
whether or not those on our own side aren't disloyal. And there is as we see from the latest Snowden
documents attempts at Hoover-style leverage over citizens and internal opponents of policy.
The Ukraine is riddled with U.S. and western listening technology. Thus, it's more likely this
recording has come from within an official Washington addicted to leaks that serve the purposes
of internecine squabbling and careerist backstabbing. Washington's pols and agencies are bitterly
divided and always seeking advantage over one another.
Not everyone in the administration is an admirer of neocon Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan,
Dick Cheney's senior national security adviser.
Yes, the NSA "collects it all," spying on its own people in full Hoover mode, but on cyber
steroids. It's a matter of standard NSA tradecraft exposed in the latest Snowden whistleblowing
documents that these domestic target operations are then made to conveniently appear to come from
foreign adversaries, killing as it were two birds with one stone and casting suspicion elsewhere.
Leo H says:
February 10, 2014 at 5:43 pm
Is the Western Ukrainian opposition really "Europhile" as reported by hopeful sympathizers?
Uh, no. Not at least in the sense of our dopey elites. Svoboda, the fastest growing party in the
Western Ukraine, and the controlling faction on the barricades is not squishy rainbow friendly.
As Nuland imperiously tries to push out this reality in favor of appointed stooges like the former
boxer turned Merkel water-boy, Klitshcko, she may unwittingly teach real Ukrainian nationalists
that Moscow is now a better option for genuine European nationalists. At least better than the
EUSSR.
And Putin really is that clever to let us divide his opposition for him. Of course they bugged
the dummy's phone!
"That's some pretty impressive tradecraft," said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
of the interception and leak of her now-infamous
call to US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoff Pyatt. The call consisted of the two plotting to install
a US puppet government in Ukraine after overthrowing the current, democratically elected government.
Tradecraft means "spycraft." In other words, Nuland was crediting a foreign intelligence service
with impressive use of technology to be able to hack into her call to the ambassador. Everyone knew
she was talking about Russia, partly because the Administration had been blaming Russia from the
moment the recording was made public.
However, Nuland knew all along that this was not the case, and she did nothing while the Administration
continued to escalate the accusations against Russia.
Jay Carney, White House Spokesman, "It says something about Russia," that they would tap the telephone
call. State Department Spokeswoman Jan Psaki was even harsher,
calling it "a new low in Russian tradecraft."
But the telephone call between the two, we learned yesterday, was not conducted on a secure, encrypted
telephone line that the State Department requires for such sensitive conversations and communication.
Rather, the call was made over
unsecured cell phones and thus easily intercepted with basic equipment that is widely available
to anyone. Therefore it was not "impressive tradecraft" at all that led to the capture and release
of the conversation.
Nuland and Pyatt obviously knew that at the time, being the two parties to the call. They then
either sat by and allowed US government official one after the other accuse Russia of going to great
lengths to hack the call without admitting this fact, or they did inform their superiors but Administration
officials decided to ignore this critical fact and push accusations against Russia anyway. You never
want a serious crisis to go to waste, as it is said.
RPI contacted a former State Department official to clarify security procedures for such a telephone
conversation between high-level personnel. The official was clear:
I know well the seriousness of using an open line (aside from anodyne conversation) for high-level
classified information that would clearly be embarrassing, if not damaging, not only for the US
but also the EU. For using an open line for discussing highly sensitive national security matters,
both [Nuland and Pyatt] should be reprimanded, at the very least.
So this was a serious security violation.
The former official continued:
Assuming the telecon was made on insecure line, I find it curious, if not thought provoking,
that Nuland's profanity has managed to overshadow both the apparent security violation as well
as the potential damage to national security of the substance of the conversation itself.
Indeed, the fallout from "Ukraine-gate" is astounding but sadly not surprising. The mainstream
media in the US has focused solely on the Russian angle (now discredited) and on the salty language
and particularly the false supposition that Nuland was using sailor's language to indicate a serious
rift with the EU on Ukraine policy. In fact, US and EU policy toward Ukraine is identical: regime
change. The dispute is merely over velocity and is therefore cosmetic rather than substantive: should
we travel 100 miles per hour or only 75 miles per hour toward regime change?
As far as we have seen, there has been virtually no discussion of the substance of the telephone
conversation in the US media. But the conversation was a confirmation of all theretofore denied accusations
of US involvement in the current unrest in Ukraine. It was not simply US well-wishing toward the
opposition parties. It was not simply a bit of advice and a wink toward the opposition. It was wholesale
planning and brokering a post-regime change governing coalition in Ukraine, with the UN being ordered
to come in and "glue" the deal.
More precisely, as the Oriental Journal
points out:
They agreed to nominate
Bat'kyvshchina Party
leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench
Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko from the game for a while and to discredit neo-Nazi
Svoboda partychief
Oleh Tiahnybok as "Yanukovych's project"
Shortly after "Ukraine-gate" broke, Sergei Glazyev, advisor to Russian president Putin
claimed that the US
was spending $20 million per week on the Ukrainian opposition, including supplying opposition with
training and weapons.
Nuland
replied that such claims are "pure fantasy."
Perhaps, but that is just what Nuland had said previously about claims that the US was meddling
in the internal affairs of Ukraine. And then the tape came out. That was just what she said about
Russia's "impressive tradecraft" in intercepting the telephone call. Then we discover that she was
discussing highly sensitive issues over completely unsecured telephones.
Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself
claimedin December that
the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On what would
she like us to believe the money had been spent?
We know that the US State Department
invests heavily – more than $100 million from 2008-2012 alone - on international "Internet freedom"
activities. This includes heavy State Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's…
…Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet
in a Suitcase"). This is an initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative
to build a mobile mesh network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase, to allow activists
to continue to communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened
in several Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.
"Commotion Project." What an appropriate name for what is happening in Ukraine.
It is not a far leap from the known billions spent on "democratization" in Ukraine, to the hundreds
of millions spent on developing new tools for regime-changers on the ground to use against authorities
in their home countries, to the State Department from the US embassy in Kiev providing training and
equipment to those seeking the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.
The apparent goal of US policy in Ukraine is to re-ignite a Cold War, installing a US-created
government in Kiev which signs the EU association agreement including its
NATO cooperation language to effectively push the Berlin Wall all the way to the gates of Moscow
and St. Petersburg.
NATO has expanded to central Europe, despite US assurances in the 1980s that it would not do so.
The US rolled over Russia in its deceptive manipulation of a UN Security Council resolution on Libya
to initiate an invasion. The US continues to arm jihadists seeking to overthrow the secular Assad
government in Russia-allied Syria. The US and EU have absorbed the Baltics, leaving their large ethnic
Russian populations to dangle in non-person limbo. The US and EU had all but absorbed Georgia. Now
the US is clearly in the process of absorbing Ukraine, with its strategic importance to Russia, its
proximity, and its nearly 10 million ethnic Russian minority.
Surely there is a point to where Russia will take steps to concretely limit its losses. In December
Russian president Vladimir Putin
said in a meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yanukovich that Russia and Ukraine should
resume comprehensive military cooperation. Other bilateral defense agreements are already in place.
What would have to happen to trigger a Ukrainian request to its close neighbor for assistance
putting down a bloody and illegal coup d'etat instigated by foreign governments? Will US serious
miscalculation of Russian resolve over Ukraine lead to a tragedy of almost inconceivable proportions?
What if this time Russia does not blink?
This article was posted: Monday, February 10, 2014 at 5:47 am
[Feb 10, 2014] The assumption that the US can and should "manage"
the rest of the world is the common denominator of neo-conservatism and liberal internationalism
simon94022 says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm
This is how everyone in our government carries on. The assumption that the US can and should
"manage" the rest of the world is the common denominator of neo-conservatism and liberal internationalism.
The former is quicker to resort to military force and threats of force, while the latter prefers
to enlist international institutions and threaten economic sanctions. But the assumptions and
goals are identical.
Both approaches focus on short term outcomes, long term consequences be damned. Both brush
aside deep cultural, religious and historical roots of conflicts in favor of a Disneyfied focus
on Getting Rid of the Bad Guy. And neither has outgrown the Cold War assumption that America actually
has the ability to shape other countries to our liking.
TomB says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:53 pm
There's a good article at the National Interest blog interpreting Nuland's call as showing the
U.S. trying to essentially split the difference between the Ukranian factions:
Ukrainians in the USA are disproportionately Catholic. But in Ukraine itself, Catholics only form
a majority in the far west of the country. The "yellow" part of the map from the WaPo that keeps
getting posted is still majority Orthodox.
SteveM says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Neocon Hack Nuland has been in Ukraine glad-handing the protesters. (BTW, at what point do protesters
storming buildings and chucking Molotov cocktails become rioters?)
But that's beside the point. What if Ukrainian, (or Russian) diplomats visited Occupy Wall
Street protests and distributed cookies as an act of solidarity like Nuland did in Kyiv? And insisted
on the replacement of the democratically elected government? They could even make the accurate
claim that Obama garners less than 50% of voter support to rationalize their intrusive behavior
like Nuland did with Yanukovych.
Arrogant U.S. Political Elites can't fix Detroit or Newark, yet they claim the unique skills
and insights, (apart from dropping f-bombs) necessary to rescue, Baghdad, Kabul, Tripoli, Damascus
and now Kyiv. Oh, and while regularly lecturing Moscow how it should run a country with 7 time
zones.
The sad thing is that objective journalism that challenges the status quo has pretty much collapsed.
The mainstream media is part and parcel of the Elite class and will do next to nothing in examining
the continuation of the obsolete and unaffordable America as World Cop model.
When I think of the Crony-Politico Apparatus these days, the word "repulsive" keeps popping
up in my mind.
John says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Ukraine is a sovereign state that should be allowed to solve these problems on their own terms
and through the democratic process we should but out.
Ukraine's president was duly elected by the people. If they don't like it, they can always
vote for his opponent when his term in office comes to an end. To equate what is going on in Ukraine
to what is going on in either Russia or Belarus would be ridiculous.
These protests are the result of a sharp divide between the Russophile Ukrainians and the Europhile
Ukrainians. Any government, should it want to maintain power, would straddle this fence and try
to maintain close relations with both, the western democracies and Russia.
It is not a sworn enemy. Our interests are served by maintaining the status quo. Attempts to
determine Ukraine's destiny, however, could push them into Rusdia's orbit. Quite counterproductive
in my humble opinion.
burton50 says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm
"The point is that the United States is involved in Ukraine's internal politics so deeply that
a senior American diplomat asserts the right to decide who among the Ukrainian opposition should
go into the government, and who should not."
No, Chris1, IMHO, it's not really an overstatement of fact. By Nuland's own admission, we have
at least 5 billion invested on the Ukraine "project". To be sure, it's chump change in comparison
to the analogous regime-change "projects"in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, probably on a par with
the Georgian operation. As a U.S. citizen, I don't see any return on such "investments". Like
most Americans, I think we might consider minding our own business, eh?
Substitution code says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:10 pm
the Russians [are] intercepting US diplomatic communications
That's not entirely clear yet in this case. If true, heads should roll. If Nuland and that
ambassador were yakking on an open line they should both be fired. If State Department diplomatic
voicecom is so vulnerable to decryption that crystal clear recordings can be released within a
few days of a conversation, then those responsible for securing them should be fired.
Fran Macadam says:
February 10, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Don't be too sure about the source of this leak being Russian, without proof. Our authorities
can find out who posted it to YouTube very easily by tracking IP addresses; absent specifics the
allegations are only convenient.
The NSA and U.S. spy services are the real masters at gobbling up everything regardless of
side and they collect everything from our own communications as well, with capabilities far beyond
those of foreign intelligence services. They don't know for sure unless they listen and analyze,
whether or not those on our own side aren't disloyal. And there is as we see from the latest Snowden
documents attempts at Hoover-style leverage over citizens and internal opponents of policy.
The Ukraine is riddled with U.S. and western listening technology. Thus, it's more likely this
recording has come from within an official Washington addicted to leaks that serve the purposes
of internecine squabbling and careerist backstabbing. Washington's pols and agencies are bitterly
divided and always seeking advantage over one another.
Not everyone in the administration is an admirer of neocon Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan,
Dick Cheney's senior national security adviser.
Yes, the NSA "collects it all," spying on its own people in full Hoover mode, but on cyber
steroids. It's a matter of standard NSA tradecraft exposed in the latest Snowden whistleblowing
documents that these domestic target operations are then made to conveniently appear to come from
foreign adversaries, killing as it were two birds with one stone and casting suspicion elsewhere.
Leo H says:
February 10, 2014 at 5:43 pm
Is the Western Ukrainian opposition really "Europhile" as reported by hopeful sympathizers?
Uh, no. Not at least in the sense of our dopey elites. Svoboda, the fastest growing party in the
Western Ukraine, and the controlling faction on the barricades is not squishy rainbow friendly.
As Nuland imperiously tries to push out this reality in favor of appointed stooges like the former
boxer turned Merkel water-boy, Klitshcko, she may unwittingly teach real Ukrainian nationalists
that Moscow is now a better option for genuine European nationalists. At least better than the
EUSSR.
And Putin really is that clever to let us divide his opposition for him. Of course they bugged
the dummy's phone!
ВАШИНГТОН - Запись телефонных переговоров между чиновником Госдепартамента и послом США на Украине,
опубликованная на YouTube, предала гласности откровенность Вашингтона в отношении передачи власти
на Украине и пренебрежительные высказывания о Евросоюзе, тон которых Германия сочла "абсолютно неприемлемым".
Утечка способна привести в замешательство США и придать вес звучащим со стороны России и других
обвинениям, что украинской оппозицией манипулируют из Вашингтона - утверждение, которое энергично
оспаривает администрация Барака Обамы.
Обвинения со стороны США, что Россия помогла в публикации записей переговоров, также несут угрозу
дальнейшего осложнения и без того натянутых отношений Вашингтона с Москвой.
Аудиоклип, размещённый в сети во вторник, но вызвавший взрыв интереса в четверг, как представляется,
демонстрирует, как заместитель госсекретаря США Виктория Нуланд взвешивает варианты формирования
нового правительства Украины.
На записи слышно, как Нуланд говорит послу США Джеффри Пайетту, что она не думает, что Виталий
Кличко - чемпион мира по боксу, оставивший спорт ради политики - должен быть в составе нового кабинета.
"Так что я не думаю, что Клич (Кличко) должен входить в правительство", - говорит она на записи,
которая, похоже, описывает события конца января.
"Я не думаю, что это необходимо. Я не думаю, что это хорошая идея".
Нуланд в пятницу отреагировала на сообщение из Киева, назвав утечку "весьма впечатляющей операцией",
но предположила, что она не навредит её отношениям с украинской оппозицией. На брифинге в украинской
столице Нуланд также отвергла утверждения Москвы, что антиправительственных демонстрантов тренировали
в американском посольстве в Киеве, назвав это "чистой фантазией".
В четверг высокопоставленный советник Кремля Сергей Глазьев в газетном интервью обвинил США в
вооружении украинских "мятежников" и предупредил, что Россия может вмешаться для обеспечения безопасности
в соседней стране. Нуланд назвала высказывания Глазьева "чистой воды выдумкой".
"Он мог бы быть автором-фантастом", - сказала замгоссекретаря.
Американские чиновники, отказавшись подтвердить содержание разговоров на аудиозаписи, не оспаривали
её подлинность.
"Я не сказал, что она не аутентичная", - ответил на вопрос представитель Госдепартамента Джен
Псаки на пресс-конференции.
Псаки раскритиковала российских официальных лиц, опубликовавших ссылку на эту утечку, и заверила,
что Вашингтон не пытается посредничать или конструировать какой-то конкретный исход в Киеве.
"Абсолютно нет", - сказала она.
"Не должно быть сюрпризом, что американские представители говорят о проблемах в мире. Конечно,
мы говорим. Это наша работа как дипломатов".
Аудиозапись первым запостил в твиттер Дмитрий Лоскутов, помощник вице-премьера России Дмитрия
Рогозина, сообщил дипломатический источник.
ТРЕНИЯ СОЮЗНИКОВ ИЗ-ЗА УКРАИНЫ
Аудио на YouTube, вкупе с ещё одним, на котором фигурируют переговоры между высокопоставленными
европейскими дипломатами, обнаруживают очевидные расхождения между Америкой и ЕС относительно того,
какую политику проводить в отношении Украины.
На первом аудио слышно, как Нуланд и Пайетт обсуждают стратегии работы с тремя основными оппозиционными
фигурами: Кличко, экс-министром экономики Арсением Яценюком и Олегом Тягнибоком, лидером крайне правых
в парламенте.
Нуланд коснулась вопроса вовлечения ООН в политическое решение в Киеве.
"Так что было бы здорово, я думаю, помочь скрепить это и подключить к этому ООН, и знаешь,.. пошёл
к чёрту этот Евросоюз", - говорит она на записи, которая сопровождается неподвижной картинкой с изображениями
людей, упоминаемых в этом телефонном звонке.
"Конечно", - ответил Пайетт.
"И я думаю, что мы должны сделать что-нибудь, чтобы прочно увязать всё это, потому что, будьте
уверены, если этот процесс не начнёт набирать обороты, русские поработают за сценой и попытаются
торпедировать его".
Псаки сказала, что Нуланд извинилась перед партнёрами в ЕС за преданные огласке комментарии.
Дата переговоров на записи не указана, но описываемые события, похоже, имели место в последние
дни января.
Вторая запись, подразумевающая переговоры между двумя чиновниками ЕС, была размещена в Сети в
тот же день на том же аккаунте YouTube, который ранее постил видеозаписи, выставлявшие украинских
протестующих в неблаговидном свете.
На записи слышно, как Хельга Шмид, помощник комиссара ЕС по внешней политики Кэтрин Эштон, жалуется
на критику США по поводу того, что европейцы не поддерживают санкции в отношении конкретных лиц на
Украине в ответ на насилие в отношение антиправительственных демонстрантов.
"Это очень раздражает, что американцы выдвигают претензии ЕС и говорят, что мы слишком мягки",
- говорит Шмид послу ЕС на Украине Яну Томбински.
Представитель Эштон сказал, что ЕС не будет комментировать "вероятные утечки" переговоров.
Одновременное предание гласности двух записей выглядит как попытка одновременно дискредитировать
участие западных стран в украинских событиях и вбить клин между Брюсселем и Вашингтоном.
Канцлер Германии Ангела Меркель нашла пренебрежительный тон американских дипломатов относительно
роли ЕС в украинском кризисе "абсолютно неприемлемым", сказала в пятницу её пресс-секретарь.
Кристиана Вирц сказала на брифинге, что Меркель ценит работу Эштон, которая возглавила усилия
ЕС в поиске компромисса на Украине.
"Канцлер находит эти ремарки полностью неприемлемыми, и хочет подчеркнуть, что госпожа Эштон делает
выдающуюся работу", - сказала Вирц.
"КУКЛЫ С МАЙДАНА"
Нуланд в четверг встретилась с украинским президентом Виктором Януковичем, чтобы обсудить антиправительственные
протесты, которые захлестывают 46-миллионную страну с ноября. Они поговорили о политической реформе
и возможности дальнейшего диалога между лидерами "евромайдана" и Януковичем, сообщил его сайт.
После этого президент улетел в Сочи, где в пятницу открывается Олимпиада. Как ожидается, он встретится
с российским лидером Владимиром Путиным.
Опубликованный анонимно первый аудиоклип был озаглавлен как Puppets of Maidan (Куклы с майдана),
явно стремясь изобразить лидеров оппозиции как марионеток американских дипломатов, которые решают,
какое предложение оппозиция может сделать Януковичу в ходе формирования правительства.
Майдан, в переводе с украинского "площадь", стал символом протестного движения. Критики Януковича
заняли площадь в ноябре и не покидают её.
Немедленных комментариев Москвы не последовало, но запись очевидно идёт в унисон с обвинениями
с российскими страны, что Запад вмешивается во внутренние дела Украины. Россия рассматривает последнюю
как сферу своих интересов и предложила испытывающему нужду в деньгах Киеву 15 миллиардов долларов.
Протесты начались, когда Янукович передумал подписывать соглашение о торговле с ЕС ради укрепления
связей с Россией. Протестующие с тех пор заняли ряд государственных зданий и устроили массовые уличные
акции, вылившиеся в насилие, которое унесло как минимум шесть жизней.
"Я думаю, (Яценюк) - тот парень, у которого есть опыт экономиста и правительственного чиновника",
- сказала Нуланд на записи. Она добавила, что Кличко и Тягнибоку лучше быть "в стороне" и консультировать
Яценюка "четыре раза в неделю".
Пайетт предложил, чтобы Нуланд лично связалась с Кличко, чтобы урегулировать чувствительные для
него как для лидера детали.
"Я думаю, если вы свяжетесь с ним напрямую, это поможет... Это даст шанс ускорить события, а мы
останемся в тени к тому моменту, когда они сядут за стол переговоров и он объяснит, почему ему не
хочется этого (поста в правительстве)", - сказал посол.
serg 5628: Это даст шанс ускорить события, а мы останемся в
тени.
09/02/2014, 10:26
Марионетки и кукловоды. Кукловоды грубы друг с другом, но откровенны. Куклы тупы и послушны. Прямо
Карабас и Пьеро.
peter_shantarin:Собственно говоря главные марионетки сидят в правительствах стран ЕС.
09/02/2014, 11:05
Собственно говоря главные марионетки сидят в правительствах стран ЕС. А Евромайдан, это такая
политическая заготовка для России и США плевать хотели на на всех майданутых, это проплачеченое
политическое "мясо" скоро пойдёт на жарёху на сале.
Все эти Кличко, Яценюки и Тягнибоки не пользуются уважением на западе (там своих таких хватает)
и пыжатся для майданутых, которые их не очень то и слушают. Вся интрига в том, что всей этой агрессивной
толпой кто-то грамотно управляет из-за кулис (угадайте с 3-х раз), платит очень большие бабки
тренирует и направляет движение. Эти майданутые напрягают не только Януковича, но и эту марионеточную
троицу, которые уже болтаются как говно в политической проруби - они и не у власти Украины и не
у власти майданутых, они просто ширма, или даже как женская прокладка во время болезни. Итог для
этой троицы будет один, ох кинут майданутые и они реально не смогут быть у власти Украины. Так
что они уже сами себе подписали политический приговор. А что до высказываний со стороны США, так
это просто истерика, вон в других странах они даже особо то и не разговаривают, сразу бомбят,
а потом начинают говорить об угрозе США со стороны этих стран. Их бредни уже известны заранее,
потому что тяжело больной человек не может быть адекватен.
сердитый дед:"Нуланд назвала высказывания Глазьева "чистой воды
выдумкой".... "Он мог бы быть автором-фантастом", - сказала замгоссекретаря."
09/02/2014, 11:22
- Значит, правду Глазьев сказал. (обвинил США в вооружении украинских мятежников)."
wilitatosh:Кстати,спасибо Нуланд и всему Госдепу!
09/02/2014,
11:29
Лучшего способа внести раскол между тремя амбициозными политиками придумать нельзя! Это еще
раз доказывает отсутствие системной политики госдепа и показывает уровень политического руководства
страны.
Политика основаная только на принятии импровизационных решений приводит страны,куда США вмешивается,
к хаосу.
Лучше бы они печеньки на майдане раздавали,как раньше.
a--z:пиндосы считали себя самыми крутыми в песочнице,
09/02/2014,
11:33
оказалось, чо энто не так.
у других есть не только технологии, но есчо и мозги как их использовать.
пиндосы могут только собирать тонны мусора с айфонов и фейсбука, которыми все равно никто из нормальных
людей не пользуется, мозгов нет считай калека.
K. Nemo:Псаки раскритиковала российских официальных лиц, опубликовавших
ссылку на эту утечку, и заверила, что Вашингтон не пытается посредничать или конструировать какой-то
конкретный исход в Киеве.
09/02/2014, 11:36
И о ЧЁМ можно говорить-договариваться с ЭТИМИ???(пиндосами, да и со ВСЕМ продажным
Западом)...
Гадят повсюду и...- "МЫ это не МЫ"!!!
Какими БЫЛИ - "отмороженными"!!!
ТАКИМИ и - остануться!!!
Скутер:Сложности перевода????
09/02/2014, 11:39
"и знаешь,.. пошёл к чёрту этот Евросоюз" - так вот как теперь переводится глагол "фак"
- идти к чёрту...
"Это даст шанс ускорить события, а мы останемся в тени к тому моменту...." - даже не
надейтесь. Американцы такое шило, что никакой мешок не скроет...
В общем то, что и так было понятно: американцы ведут свою стратегию: кролик премьер помогает
освободить рулеголовую в аккурат к президентским выборам....а у немчуры свое видение: кличок президент,
и "девушка Украина" в позе перед Германией...
wilitatosh:Кстати,прошу прощения за свой комментарий выше.
09/02/2014, 11:56
Никакого раскола нет. Буквально на следующий день после разговора Нуланд с послом Виталий Кличко
заявил, что не собирается входить в правительство Яценюка, но будет за него голосовать. А Арсений
как по нотам согласился стать премьером.Тягнибок молчит и будет молчать. Вопрос: кто принимает
решение за лидеров Майдана? Правильный ответ - украинский народ! В лице ДаДая,Бердичева и пр.
:)))
atrium:(без заголовка)
09/02/2014, 12:16
С куклами не разговаривают, с ними не надо искать переговоров, у них не спрашивают согласия, их не
уговаривают. Не важно что пишете тут вы, а важно как это воспринимает мир. А мир кстати знает, что
Янукович сам предлагал оппозиции идти в правительство, так же Янукович сам заигрывал с ЕС, поэтому
запад тут как раз причем, помогает путем переговоров урегулировать конфликт, а вот россия не у дел,
ибо никто ее не спрашивал. Это провал российской дипломатии.
K. Nemo:�Так что я не думаю, что Клич (Кличко) должен входить
в правительство�,
09/02/2014, 12:25
ИСТОРИЯ - повторяется.......
-------Ну что сынку, помогли тебе твои ляхи?-----(Т.Бульба)
Эх, боксёр,..боксёр!!! Не ТУДА тебя занесло......
ТН: и вбить клин между Брюсселем и Вашингтоном.
09/02/2014,
12:29
Так оно и есть.
Это будет продолжаться до тех пор, пока Европа (Германия) окончательно не поймет,
что ей необходима Россия как основной, единственный союзник. Пока не появится желание и силы сбросить
пиявку с тела.
В принципе, Штаты делают то же самое, пытаюся вбить клин между Россией и Европой, тесное сотрудничество
которых для них смерти подобно. А если сюда еще и Китай подключится.
Так что выбор у Европы невелик. Сама постарела, охромела, выдохлась. Штаты давят и в конце концов
раздавят. Они по другому не умеют. Китай со всоей мощью поглотит/проглотит и не заметит.
Выходит, других союзников у нее, кроме России, быть не может.
K. Nemo:Канцлер Германии Ангела Меркель нашла пренебрежительный
тон американских дипломатов относительно роли ЕС в украинском кризисе �абсолютно неприемлемым�, сказала
в пятницу её пресс-секретарь.
09/02/2014, 13:10
А "шефининя" то Германская - ой как КРУТАЯ!!!
ЕЁ прослушивают!, ЕЁ - посылают!!!(открытым
текстом)..
А ОНА - �абсолютно неприемлемым�,!!! Во как!!!
ЧТО уж говорить, о остальной Эвропе!?!?!?
Петр Франт:Откинув в сторону эмоции, остается лишь констатировать
простой факт :
09/02/2014, 13:26
Одна из самых лучших республик СССР за время самостоятельности превратилась в жалкую нищую
колонию, что как бы прямо говорит о способоностях настоящих вукраинцев. Как они были хуторянами,
так ими и останутся. Эти самые настоящие вукраинцы, машут флагами, поют гимны и с пеной у рта
орут о том, какие они патриоты своей самой прекрасной страны, но при этом, никто из них не замечает
простого факта, причем уже свершившегося, что правительство на вукраине назначают не вукраинцы,
а совершенно другие страны. Но настоящему вукраинцу думать об этом противопоказано, его вукраинский
мозг может этого не выдержать. А президент "независимой вукраины" после этой утечки ещё и встречается
с госпожой Нуланд. Нормальные руководители, уважающие свою страну и народ, никогда бы пошли на
такие унижения. Хотя какой народ, такие и правители. Всё по справедливости!
die_welt:канцлер есть не EU и F... the EU канцлера не касается..
09/02/2014, 13:30
�,Эштон делает выдающуюся работу� - забавный ответ канцлера, Нуданд ведь сказала F... the EU, а не
F... the госпожу Эштон.
Толи канцлер считает что госпожа Эштон есть EU, то ли канцлер есть не EU и F... the EU канцлера
не касается..
Ты им ... в глаза а им все роса.
старый геолог:Oбидно конечно!
09/02/2014, 15:23
Делят вас хохлов, как стадо баранов! А вы идиоты думаете, что это вам предлагают ЛУЧШУЮ ЦЕНУ. Хоть
вы и на ОКРАИНЕ, но вы же Русские люди? Когда же ваше самосознание ВЕЛИКОГО народа проснется? Cтыдно
на вас со стороны смотреть, а до вас это даже не доходит.
Этот тяни-толкай украинский ещё долго продлится. И старушка-хохлушка ещё долго будет мучиться в злодейских
опытных руках. Если победит майдан и трёхголовая гидра придёт к власти, то на другой день нужно будет
ехать договариваться о таможенных правилах и цене на газ. С какими глазами они поедут в Москву договариваться.
Может быть надеются на посредничество Меркель (остальные лидеры ЕС для Москвы явно не авторитетны),
но фрау не дура, и понимает - когда нищеброды молят о спасении, с них можно взять многое, почти всё.
Человек, умирающий от голода, готов отдать всё ради спасения. Или гордо умереть.
In this flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and
the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt agreed to nominate Bat'kyvshchina Party leader Arseniy
Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko off the game for
a while and to discredit neo-Nazi Svoboda party chief Oleh Tiahnybok as "Yanukovych's project". Then
Mrs. Nuland informed the US Ambassador that the Washington's hand by the UN Secretary General, Under-Secretary
for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had already instructed Ban Ki-moon to send his special envoy
to Kyiv this week "to glue the things". Touching the European role in managing Ukraine's political
crisis, she was matchlessly elegant: "Fuck the EU".
In a short while, after nervious attempts to blame Russians in fabricating (!) the tape (State
Department: "this is a new low in Russian tradecraft"), Mrs. Nuland brought her apologies to the
EU officials. Does it mean that the Washington's repeatedly leaked genuine attitude towards the "strategic
Transatlantic partnership" is much worthy of apology than the direct and clear interference into
the internal affairs of a sovereign state and violation of the US-Russia-UK agreement (1994 Budapest
memorandum) on security assurances for Ukraine? Meanwhile this document inter alia reads as follows:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles
of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of
Ukraine.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons
will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter
of the United Nations.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles
of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own
interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure
advantages of any kind.
Back to the latest Mrs. Nuland's diplomatic collapse made public, it is hardly an unwilling and
regretful fault. Andrey Akulov from Strategic Culture Foundation has published a brilliant report
(Bride at every wedding [1])
a couple of days ago depicting a blatant lack of professionalism and personal intergity of Mrs. Nuland.
He described in details her involvement in misinforming the US President and nation on the circumstances
of the assasination of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012 and
her support of the unlawful US funding of a number of the Russian "independent" NGOs seeking to bring
a color revolution to Russia.
Her diplomatically unacceptable behavior on the Ukrainian track, which culminated on YouTube
this week (video and full transcript are available below), suggests that Mrs. Nuland is perhaps a
wrong person in a wrong position for protecting American interests in Eurasia.
* * *
Full transcript of the telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt (posted on YouTube on Feb 6, 2014):
Victoria Nuland (V.N.): What do you think?
Geoffrey R. Pyatt (G.P.): I think we are in play. The Klitchko piece is obviously the most complicated
electron here, especially the announcement of him as Deputy Prime Minister. You have seen my notes
on trouble in the marriage right now, so we are trying to get a read really fast where he is on the
staff. But I think your argument to him which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone
call that you want to set up is exactly the one you made to Yats (Yatsenuk's nickname). I'm glad
you put him on the spot. <…> He fits in this scenario. And I am very glad he said what he said.
V.N.: Good. I don't think Klitsch (Klitschko's nickname) should be in the government. I don't
think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.
G.P.: Yeah, I mean, I guess… In terms of him not going into the government… I'd just let him stay
out and do his political homework. I'm just thinking, in terms of sort of the process moving ahead,
we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is gonna be with Tyahnibok and his guys.
And, you know, I am sure that is part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
V.N.: I think Yats is the guy. He has economic experience and governing experience. He is the
guy. You know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnibok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them
four times a week. You know, I just think if Klitchko gets in, he's going to be at that level working
for Yatsenuk, it's just not gonna work…
G.P.: Yeah, yeah, I think that's right. Ok, good. Would you like us to set up a call with him
as the next step?
V.N.: My understading from that call that you tell me was that the big three were going into their
own meeting and that Yats was gonna offer in this context, you know, a "three plus one" conversation
or a "three plus two" conversation with you. Is that not how you understood it?
G.P.: No. I think that was what he proposed but I think that knowing the dynamic that's been with
them where Klitchko has been the top dog, he'll show up for whatever meetings they've got and he's
probably talking to his guys at this point. So, I think you reaching out directly to him, helps with
the personality management among the three. And it also gives you a chance to move fast on all this
stuff and put us behind it, before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.
V.N.: Ok. Good. I am happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before
or after.
G.P.: Ok, I will do it. Thanks.
Nuland-YouTube V.N.: I can't remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this: when
I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning he had a new name for the UN guy – Robert Serry. I wrote you
about it this morning.
G.P.: Yeah, I saw that.
V.N.: Ok. He's gotten now both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry will come on Monday or
Tuesday. That would be great I think to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and,
if you like, fuck the EU.
G.P.: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you
can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude that the Russians will be working behind
the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I am still
trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych <…> that. In the meantime there is a Party of Regions
faction meeting going on right now and I am sure there is a lively argument going on in that group
at this point. But anyway, we could land
jelly side up on this one if we move fast.
So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… I think we just want to try to get somebody
with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue
is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things
start to fall into place.
V.N.: So on that piece, Jeff, when I wrote the note Sullivan's come back to me V.F.R., saying
you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta boy and to get the details to stick. So,
Biden's willing.
G.P.: Ok. Great, thanks.
* * *
Transcript of the telephone talk between the Deputy Secretary General EE AS External Service Helga
M. Schmid (H.S.) and Jan Tombinsky (J.T.), EU Ambassador to Ukraine (rendering, starting 0:04:13
on the tape):
Helga M. Schmid: Jan, it's Helga once again. I'd like to tell you one more thing, it's confidential.
The Americans are beating about the bush and saying that our stand is too soft. They believe we should
be stronger and apply sanctions. I talked to Cathy (Cathrene Ashton – OR) and she agrees with us
on the matter we were discussing last time. We will do it but we must arrange everything in a clever
way.
Jan Tombinsky: You know we have other instruments.
H.S.: The journalists are already talking that the EU stand is "too soft". What you should really
know is that we are very angry that the Americans are beating about the bush. Maybe you tell the
US Ambassador and draw his attention to the fact that our stand is not soft, we've just made a hard-line
statement and took a tougher stance… I want you to know that it would be detrimental to our interests
if we see in the newspapers that "The European Union does not support freedom". Cathy will not like
it.
J.T.: Helga, we do not compete in a race. We should demonstrate that this situation is not a competition
in diplomatic toughness. I've just heard about the opposition's new proposal to the president. I'll
write Cathy about it right now.
An apparently bugged phone conversation in which a senior US diplomat disparages the EU over the
Ukraine crisis has been posted online. The alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt,
appeared on YouTube
on Thursday. It is not clearly when the alleged conversation took place.
Here is a transcript, with analysis by BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus:
Warning: This transcript contains swearing.
Voice thought to be Nuland's: What do you think?
Jonathan Marcus: At the outset it should be clear that this is a fragment of what may well
be a larger phone conversation. But the US has not denied its veracity and has been quick to point
a finger at the Russian authorities for being behind its interception and leak.
Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko,
one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially
the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles
in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff.
But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you
want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader].
And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad
that he said what he said in response.
Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful
solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However
this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and
is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in
Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its
own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for
audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic
affairs.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think
it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay
out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving
ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh
Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President
Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing
experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking
to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level
working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with
him as the next step?
Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were
going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one
conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic
that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up
for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think
you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives
you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and
he explains why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk
before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember
if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United
Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN
guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?
Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on
at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts
to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big
guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private
words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree
that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing
and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration
at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine
crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly
cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the
cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction
over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because
you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working
behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm
still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party
of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in
that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So
let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international
personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach
to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security
adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe]
Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's
willing.
Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.
Jonathan Marcus: Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody
really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal
in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the
ease with which their communications were hacked. But is the interception and leaking of communications
really the way Russia wants to conduct its foreign policy ? Goodness - after Wikileaks, Edward
Snowden and the like could the Russian government be joining the radical apostles of open government?
I doubt it. Though given some of the comments from Vladimir Putin's adviser on Ukraine Sergei
Glazyev - for example his interview with the Kommersant-Ukraine newspaper the other day - you
don't need your own listening station to be clear about Russia's intentions. Russia he said "must
interfere in Ukraine" and the authorities there should use force against the demonstrators.
Ukraine unrest: Timeline
21 November 2013: Protests start after Ukraine announces it will not sign a deal aimed at
strengthening ties with the EU
17 December: Russia agrees to buy $15bn of Ukrainian government bonds and slash the price
of gas it sells to the country
16 January 2014: Parliament passes law restricting the right to protest
22 January: Two protesters die from bullet wounds during clashes with police in Kiev; protests
spread across many cities
25 January: President Yanukovych offers senior jobs to the opposition, including that of prime
minister, but these are rejected
28 January: Parliament votes to annul protest law and President Yanukovych accepts resignation
of PM and cabinet
29 January: Parliament passes amnesty law for detained protesters, under the condition occupied
buildings are vacated
BERLIN - Germans were already smarting from revelations that U.S. intelligence listened in on
the phone conversations of Chancellor Angela Merkel. Then came Nulandgate.
On Thursday, a video was posted on YouTube in which Victoria Nuland, the top U.S. diplomat for Europe,
disparagingly dismissed European Union efforts to mediate the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine by bluntly
saying, "F--- the E.U." On Friday, Merkel, through press attache Christiane Wirtz, described the
gaffe as "absolutely unacceptable," and defended the efforts of Catherine Ashton, the E.U.'s foreign
policy chief.
"The chancellor finds these remarks absolutely unacceptable and wants to emphasize that Mrs. Ashton
is doing an outstanding job," Wirtz said.
Still freshly furious over the phone-tapping scandals, Germans took to Twitter and other social media
in a litany of bitter comments. "Since we know now that the leadership circles in the #USA don't
give a s--- about Europe, we should just stop the Free Trade Agreement," came one tweet from @kl1lercher,
referring to ongoing negotiations to forge a transatlantic free-trade deal. Meanwhile, a spokesman
for the German Foreign Ministry said at a media briefing Friday that "this just goes to show once
more that wiretapping is stupid."
[Read a quick guide to who's who on the call]
Protests against the government continue in Ukraine
0View Photos
; protesters and riot place clashed in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital. Meanwhile, Ukraine's parliament
was considering measures to grant amnesty to those arrested in the unrest, which began in November.
Some German news media, however, were quick to warn against overreaction. Der Spiegel online published
an opinion column titled "Relax, Europe."
"Europe should simply laugh about the American F-word," the outlet said in an editorial that also
offered a critique of the E.U.'s diplomatic efforts in the Ukraine. "Some humor would do no harm
to the transatlantic relationship at the moment."
In Brussels, E.U. officials remained publicly mum. Though the story played big across the continent,
the official response beyond Germany appeared relatively muted. But the Germans were not the only
ones smarting. Reactions among Austrian members of the European Parliament ranged from outrage to
schadenfreude.
"Victoria Nuland must step down after these remarks, otherwise there has to be a suspension of negotiations
about the E.U.-U.S. free-trade agreement," Jörg Leichtfried, leader of the Austrian Social Democratic
delegation in the European Parliament, told the Austrian press agency APA, according to the daily
Die Presse.
Nuland quickly apologized for the comments, with the United States pointing the finger Thursday at
the Russians for recording and posting her private conversations with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
"We have a long and enduring relationship with Germany," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said
in Washington. She noted that Secretary of State John F. Kerry was in Germany last week.
"We expect we'll be back to business as usual with them as well," Psaki said.
Nevertheless, analysts said the unscripted moment served to underscore a serious point: the increasingly
strained nature of the U.S. relationship with continental Europe - and, first and foremost, with
Germany. In the aftermath of the exposure by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden of U.S. intelligence-gathering
efforts in the region, distrust of the American agenda in Germany has jumped appreciably.
Experts say the image of the United States has suffered deeply, with the Nuland gaffe reinforcing
perceptions of American heavy-handedness at a highly sensitive time. This week, for instance, the
Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper published fresh allegations that the United States had wiretapped
former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder. In response, Schröder gave an interview to the Bild newspaper
in which he said, "The U.S. has no respect for a loyal ally and for the sovereignty of our country."
Olaf Boehnke, head of the Berlin office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the gaffe
could not have come at a worse time. To some extent, German officials - particularly Merkel - have
sought to put the wiretapping scandal behind them, pragmatically attempting to move forward and mend
the transatlantic relationship. Nuland's comments, he said, had just made that effort more difficult,
particularly with the increasingly skeptical German public.
"It was really the worst thing that could happen; Germans will be going home tonight to discuss this
at dinner," Boehnke said. "It fits into a broader picture that German people have of the U.S. betraying
the trust in them."
Anne Gearan and Stephanie Kirchner contributed to this report.
"The paper also refers to Nuland as "the daughter of Moldovan Jews" and adds, "Madame Nuland doesn't
only swear. She also gives detailed instructions on how the three puppets from Kyiv's Maidan should
act." "
The United States has apologized for the content of a leaked telephone call in which U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland apparently uses strong language to dismiss EU involvement in Ukraine
and doubts opposition leader Vitali Klitschko's ability to occupy a senior government post. RFE/RL
looks at reactions in Russia, Ukraine, and the European Union.
EUROPEAN UNION
In the leaked phone call, which seems to be between Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador to Kyiv, Geoffrey
Pyatt, she uses the strongest possible language to express her disdain for European inaction in Ukraine.
The European Union's role in attempting to broker a solution to Ukraine's political standoff between
president Yanukoych and antigovernment protesters comes in for particularly harsh criticism, with
Nuland appearing to suggest that the UN would do a better job.
"[It] would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it, and
you know f*** the EU!" she said.
The US state department has not directly confirmed the authenticity of the audio clip, but U.S.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that Nuland "has been in contact with her EU counterparts
and, of course, has apologized for these reported comments"
The EU has remained largely silent on the issue, with the exception of a spokeswoman for German
Chancellor Angela Merkel who today called the comments "totally unacceptable."
Paul Ivan, an analyst with the Brussels-based European Policy Center, said most European officials
will likely forgive the heated words -- and that some may even agree with them.
"A lot of member states are also, let's say, frustrated with the slow pace of decision-making
in the EU, so there is some empathy towards the [U.S.] views," he said. "Obviously it's not exactly
the best kind of language that the EU would like to hear from their strategic partners. [But]
it's clear that it was a sign of frustration and not a general attitude towards the EU."
In the call, Nuland also seems to express reluctance to grant UDAR opposition leader Klitschko
a spot in a future government, saying he is inexperienced. That view appears to differ from EU heavyweight
Germany, whose Foreign Ministry backs Klitschko over Batkivshchina's Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
LISTEN: Victoria Nuland And Geoffrey Pyatt's YouTube Conversation
The EU response may be relatively muted because of its own reported leak. The same YouTube channel
that posted the leaked U.S. call on February 4 posted a second recording that appears to catch Helga
Schmid, deputy to EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton, complaining about the United States to
the EU's ambassador to Kyiv, Jan Tombinski.
The recording appears to
show Schmid expressing annoyance at the United States for criticizing the EU for being "too soft"
to impose sanctions and other pressure tactics against Ukraine. "It's very annoying," she adds.
Some EU observers have speculated that the synchronized leaks appear aimed at driving a wedge
between the EU and the United States, or simply discrediting both sides -- a theory that, for some,
only bolsters suspicion that Russia is behind the leaks.
The leak scandals come at a time when the EU is grappling with its own internal divisions over
Ukraine. Many member states are eager to move forward with sanctions and have grown increasingly
angry with countries, such as Germany, that are stalling.
Tempers are also running high over remarks by Ashton, who announced that Western powers were cooperating
on a major financial plan for Ukraine in an interview with "The Wall Street Journal" last week. The
remark appeared to catch a number of EU and U.S. officials unawares and underscored a worrying lack
of coordination between Ashton and other EU officials.
Ivan says that, if anything, the leaked calls have sent the EU and the United States an important
message. "They should work better together," he said. "And they should also have more secure phone
lines."
UKRAINE
Nuland appears to have reserved her sharpest language for the EU, but the rest of her reported
conversation may have hit Ukrainians equally hard.
First there was her dismissal of Klitschko as a component of any future Ukrainian government.
"I don't think Klits should go into the government," she said, using a nickname for the boxing champion
and UDAR party leader. "I don't think it's necessary; I don't think it's a good idea."
The conversation, which appeared to take place on January 25, came as Klitschko was mulling an
offer by President Viktor Yanukovych to enter government as deputy prime minister.
Klitschko has yet to respond to Nuland's dismissive remarks, but her matter-of-fact tone in discussing
government posts may have disappointed many Ukrainians who prefer to see the Euromaidan movement
as homegrown, and have even complained about the lack of U.S. and EU support as the protests
continue.
Both Nuland and Pyatt also seem to express doubts about the opposition troika's third member,
Oleh Tyahnybok, the head of the nationalist Svoboda party, who they say should remain "outside" government.
Yuriy Syrotyuk, a Svoboda lawmaker, told RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service that he saw no reason to pay
attention to a revelation that many see as a provocation by Russian secret services (FSB).
"There's no reason to take it seriously," he said. "The FSB conducts some kind of operation, and
what, we're supposed to react like fish to bait? Let the FSB prove that this is a genuine conversation.
I don't see any reason for us to respond."
The leaked telephone conversation, with its detailed discussion of Ukrainian government posts,
also unintentionally lends fuel to Russian arguments that the United States is masterminding the
Euromaidan protests.
But some Ukrainians reserved their anger not for Nuland, but for Russia, which they believe was
behind the leak. Serhiy Sobolev, a Batkivshchina deputy, said the content of Nuland's conversation
is not the key issue.
"The key question is who was listening in?" he asked. "Because everyone in dictatorships and democracies
alike was shedding crocodile tears about the U.S. wiretapping that [Edward] Snowden revealed. But
what's happened now is literally a clear-cut example that this practice is being used not only by
Americans, but by Russians. So either you accept that this is going on or you stop going around telling
people that Americans shouldn't eavesdrop."
RUSSIA
The United States was quick to point the finger at Russia for rapidly tweeting news of the story,
if not leaking the recordings themselves. Some pointed remarks have emerged in the Russian press
since then, with the state-friendly "Komsomolskaya Pravda" quipping, "The U.S. assistant secretary
of state and the U.S. ambassador in Kyiv agreed on how they will set up Ukraine. Ukraine itself was
not asked for its opinion."
The paper also refers to Nuland as "the daughter of Moldovan Jews" and adds, "Madame Nuland
doesn't only swear. She also gives detailed instructions on how the three puppets from Kyiv's Maidan
should act."
"It will now be difficult to accuse Russia of meddling," the newspaper added.
The state-run RAT television station went one step further in seeking to distance itself from
the leak, saying one of the clips posted on YouTube "attributes the authorship to Ukraine's security
services."
Dmitry Loskutov, a Russian deputy prime ministerial aide, has fought off accusations that he was
the first to tweet a link to the secret recording. The "disseminating started earlier," he tweeted.
He added that his Twitter post on February 6 was being used as a pretext to "hang the blame" on Russia.
Other media simply grappled with the difficulty of translating some of Nuland's spicier phrasing.
"Kommersant" noted drily: "The phrase used by the assistant secretary of state can be translated
in different ways."
RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service and correspondent Claire Bigg contributed to this report
Застоявшееся было противостояние на Украине внезапно перешло в активную фазу. Внезапно, но не
неожиданно. Все внимательные наблюдатели прекрасно понимали, что рано или поздно унылая фаза закончится,
поскольку ресурсы захвативших мэрию Киева людей не бесконечны. Поговаривают, что помощник госсекретаря
США по вопросам Европы и Евразии Виктория Нуланд еще в декабре требовала от триумвирата Кличко-Яценюк-Тягнибок
немедленно объявить о создании параллельных структур власти и начать писать свою конституцию.
Методика, в общем, известная, и для Украины даже традиционная. Виктор Ющенко однажды уже приносил
президентскую присягу, не выиграв выборы. Руку на Библию клал и всё такое. Потом, после не предусмотренного
украинским выборным законодательством (то есть - незаконного) "третьего тура" Ющенко снова приносил
присягу. О первой же, "ненастоящей" присяге теперь как-то не принято вспоминать.
То есть, украинская политическая традиция вполне допускает и параллельного президента, и даже
незаконного (хотя и легитимного) президента. Однако лидеры "Евромайдана" на радикальное обострение
никак не решались. И тогда на это обострение решились другие.
Довольно смешно было слышать в эфире одной из радиостанций слова какого-то украинского политика
о том, что беспорядки начали русские националисты. Мол, кричалки у них характерные, - говорил политик.
Однако уже через несколько часов свое участие в столкновениях с милицией подтвердило украинское националистическое
объединение "Правый сектор" - радикальное правое крыло "Евромайдана". Подсказали ли "Правому сектору",
что надо делать, и кто именно подсказал - я не знаю. Однако довольно интересным совпадением является
тот факт, что как раз во время начала беспорядков на улице Грушевского, Виталий Кличко на Майдане
(а это несколько в разных местах) объявлял досрочные выборы президента. А Олег Тягнибок предлагал
формировать "народные органы власти". Ну то есть ровно то, о чем еще в декабре их просила Виктория
Нуланд.
И поскольку манипулятивные практики "наших заокеанских партнеров", как и в 2004-м году,
столь очевидны, в России снова начинаются размышления на тему: А не заразимся ли и мы подобной болезнью?
Не подвергнется ли и наше общество внезапному стремлению в Евросоюз?
Смею вас заверить, что нет.
Во-первых, этому стремлению до сих пор не подверглось даже и украинское общество. Все эти недели
на Майдане и вокруг него тусовались одни и те же, допустим, полмиллиона человек. То есть - около
одного процента населения страны. Причем достоверно известно, что значительную долю этих людей составляют
жители Львовской области (горсовет Львова, например, официально отменял занятия в ВУЗах для того,
чтобы студенты могли ехать в Киев). Но послушайте, Львовская область - это всё таки не совсем Украина.
С 14-го века и до 1939-го года это была Польша. Польшей она, в общем-то, и осталась. Католической,
антирусской и евростремительной. А подавляющему большинству населения Украины, как мы видим, все
эти разборки "украинских националистов" с монументами Ленина глубоко параллельны. Страна живет своей
жизнью.
Во-вторых, и это наиболее важно - нам-то идти некуда. В России, конечно, тоже есть опасные регионы
- но куда им стремиться? В "имарат Кавказ", что ли? Вот вряд ли. Еще Александр Третий говорил, что
у России всего два союзника - армия и флот. Император забыл упомянуть территорию. Территория - вот
наш главный союзник. Вот наш главный ресурс и залог того, что мы никуда и никогда не интегрируемся.
Просто не влезем. Физически. Да и церковь у нас несовместимая.
А теперь, от обратного, применим те же тезисы к Украине. Она тоже не может быть интегрирована
в Европу, по тем же самым причинам: территория и несовместимость религий. Но если мы никуда никогда
не интегрируемся, то Украине-то как раз есть куда. В нас. У нас и территория подходящая, и религия
тоже подходит. И это не пустые мечтания, это природа вещей. Воссоединение Украины (как и Белоруссии)
с Россией - это вопрос времени, да и только. И там, в Львовской области, это тоже, разумеется, понимают.
А потому и форсируют.
Формальным основанием для битвы у стадиона "Динамо" стало принятие Верховной Радой пакета довольно
идиотских законов (например, запрета на распространение информации без разрешения), причем процедура
голосования была как будто бы нарочито сомнительной - депутаты голосовали поднятием рук, без точного
подсчета голосов. Складывается ощущение, что Янукович, которому надоела вся эта антисанитария в Киеве
и возле своей загородной резиденции, сам спровоцировал развитие ситуации. Просто для того, чтобы
получить весомые аргументы для беседы с лидерами Майдана. Он их и получил, и беседы были проведены,
и уступки сделаны - одиозные законы пока не будут опубликованы. Это известный политический метод:
создать проблему, а потом решить эту проблему. А все остальные, реальные проблемы оставить за скобками.
Таким образом Янукович, которого уличная оппозиция пренебрежительно зовет "уркаганом", на раз-два
обыграл Викторию Нуланд со всем ее Госдепом, и всё, что США теперь остается - это грозить Украине
какими-то санкциями. О разгоне мирных демонстраций теперь не говорят, говорят о необходимости прекратить
беспорядки - как будто это Янукович их начал. Впрочем, на администрацию Обамы сейчас, кажется, никто
уже внимания не обращает. Существуют вопросы поинтереснее.
Например - насколько глубоким может быть согласие между украинскими властями и лидерами оппозиции,
которым (за исключением, быть может, одного Тягнибока) всё это "стояние на Угре" тоже порядочно надоело.
Про евроинтеграцию все давно позабыли, а Януковича так просто не скинешь - он терпеливый и у него
миллиарды.
В любом случае, лидеры начавшего терять смысл протеста должны быть благодарны своему президенту.
Он наметил для них хоть какой-то выход из ситуации.
Потому что Майдан нельзя закончить. Его можно только прекратить.
But why would Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration agree to appoint to this politically
sensitive position someone who willingly served such a controversial figure in suppporting and implementing
the "war on terror" and all the baggage that comes with it?
First, Nuland comes from what has turned out to be an under-the-radar-non-job as a Special Envoy
to the moribund multilateral Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Talks. This position is nowhere equivalent
in stature to that of Ambassador to NATO a prestigious and high profile position she held under W and
Rice after leaving Cheney's office.
Seems like an Aipac direct appointment.
I don't know much about this woman but referring to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands as "special little
rocks" to a room of Chinese reporters while on assignment seems amateurish and petty.
Surely the State Department under Hillary Clinton could have found equally (or likely even better)
qualified career candidates who do not carry Nuland's political baggage.
Behind the scenes trade off?
Or was this some kind of behind the scenes deal – a trade off for who knows what - that those
of us innocents outside the inner circles are not privy?
Regardless, there are several particularly unique – or just plain peculiar – unsettling things
about this appointment depending upon the way one looks at it:
First, Nuland comes from what has turned out to be an under-the-radar-non-job as a Special
Envoy
to the moribund multilateral Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Talks. This position is nowhere
equivalent in stature to that of Ambassador to NATO a prestigious and high profile position she
held under W and Rice after leaving Cheney's office.
Since she's been Special Envoy, the CFE Talks seem to have gone exactly
nowhere. They were supposed to have ended some time ago and morphed into new talks about European
troop levels and numbers of non-nuclear weapons. But it doesn't look as if that has happened either.
Such a Special Envoy position does not appear to have required Senate
confirmation. Certainly I could find no evidence it did. Basically it even sounds like a demotion
of sorts – not another rung up on the hierarchical ladder to State's stratosphere.
Second,
Nuland has, in fact, never been a press spokesperson – even though Talbott tried to assure
Rogin that her stint as US Ambassador to NATO under the Bush Administration was qualification
enough.
Third, although Nuland knows Russia and NATO really well, what about the rest of the world?
I don't doubt that she is glib and a quick study but the Cold War is long over. Russia is just
one country – albeit large and the only real nuclear weapons threat this country has - and
NATO a single security relationship. Those pesky noon press briefings, nevertheless, cover
the entire globe.
Fourth, it's unclear to me whether Nuland will need to go through Senate Foreign Relations
Committee hearings for the new position because, well, the two-pronged job that Crowley held
did. The first prong was as highly visible spokesman. The second as Assistant Secretary for
Public Affairs. And I'm pretty sure that Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs did require
Senate approval. But will Nuland face Senatorial scrutiny just as Spokesperson or not? Maybe
not and for her, that could only be fortuitous. She's too closely associated with Cheney and
company to make this spokesperson appointment necessarily smooth sailing through a committee
controlled by Democrats.
Does Hilary have a choice. Seems like an Aipac direct appointment.
BJ44 :
From listening to Nuland handle the briefings, she seems to have a better grasp on international
relations than Hillary or the President.
ted
she's kind of hot. can't believe she's married to troll like Kagan
Beau:
I don't know much about this woman but referring to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands as "special
little rocks" to a room of Chinese reporters while on assignment seems amateurish and petty.
These are the people we send overseas to represent us? This is how our government hopes to
project an image of knowledge and expertise and they protect our interests and those of our allies?
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
