May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous
cells
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger
and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat
of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern
brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine,
fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels
of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best
way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the
cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. … Is there no other way the world may live?
"War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means. We deliberately use the phrase
'with the addition of other means' because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not suspend political
intercourse or change it into something entirely different. In essentials that intercourse continues, irrespective of the
means it employs. The main lines along which military events progress, and to which they are restricted, are political lines
that continue throughout the war into the subsequent peace."[17]
As "economic nationalist" I oppose both "ethnic nationalism" and neoliberalism. And in my view
EuroMaydan victory in 2014 in some way is similar to victory of Trump
in 2016: it confirmed that the far-right can serve as a fifth column, an emergency reserve for decaying neoliberalism, betraying the
majority of population and plunging them in poverty despite their lofty political slogans.
In Ukraine this "revenge of neoliberalism" turned into really tragic situation, with pensioners on the edge of starvation (with many beyond the edge; I
really do not understand how they are able to survive on 1000 grivna a month (around $36 at exchange rate of 28 per dollar ) pension
in cities. While I understand the tragic nature of the current situation I have no
recipes, or proposal for the improvement. The key weakness of my position is that I do not
understand what is emerging as the alternative to neoliberalism, if anything at all. This is distinct weakness of this introductory article.
The victims of color revolutions are always common people. The struggle for power within the Ukrainian neoliberal elite (and in this
sense Bat'kivshchyna is not that different from
the Party of Regions -- both serve neoliberal oligarchic clans) this time proved to be a bloody mess.
Along with its own elite Ukraine is a victim to tectonic shifts in geopolitical map, shift caused by forces that no small country can resist and
which revised the results on WWII and Yalta conference.
Although mistakes and greed of the Ukraine neoliberal elite played an important and continuing role, the key to events is US and EU
geopolitical interests in the region. Paradoxically Ukraine is still unable to
produce a real Nationalist leader, who would try to improve the life of ordinary Ukrainians. at least along the economic demands of
NSDAP program of 1920. Which included such economic
demands as:
The 25-point Program of the NSDAP … … … 7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the
opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State,
then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich. 8. Any further immigration of
non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced
immediately to leave the Reich. 9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations. 10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both
spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its
result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand: 11.Abolition of unearned (work
and labor) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery. 12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people,
personal
enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore,
we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated
industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. 15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age
welfare. 16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great
warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the
State, county or municipality. 17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free
expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national
criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race. …
… … 21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor,
by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost
support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
Poroshenko is clearly a neoliberal
oligarch, as was Yanukovich before him. None is a gifted politician. Actually the line of Ukrainian presidents since independence
consists of neoliberals only.
The only difference between them was the level of anti-Russian sentiments and the flavor of Ukrainian nationalism (greatly
simplifying Dnepropetrovsk "Kosak" nationalism is based on glorification of
Zaporozhian Sich and is somewhat more tolerant toward Russia, then adamantly anti-Russian Western Ukrainian nationalism which
glorifies such political figures as Stepan Bandera and
Symon Petliura) they supported:
Poroshenko is a neoliberal of clear pro-US orientation. He came to power in conditions in which
support of Western Ukrainian nationalist was the only option. He made his bet much earlier -- he was one of the main financial
supports of EuroMaydan among Ukrainian oligarchs (along with Ihor
Kolomoyskyi) . In some disclosed State Department telegrams he is viewed as the US asset.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk ( the leader of
Provisional government) was and is a hard core neoliberal, a puppet of financial oligarchy. During imprisonment of
Timoshenko Yatsenyuk was one of the leaders of Timoshenko Batkivshchina party (aka
All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland") From the very beginning he was the political figure heavily supported by the West.
Along with Yushchenko and Klichko he was probably the most heavily supported by EU and EC Ukrainian politician. The US
clearly preferred Yatsenyuk to Merkel's favorite Klichko which was disclosed in the intercepted Victoria Nuland call.
Yanukovich was a soft neoliberal, who tried to balance between West and Russia and was not so much hell-bent on
privatization (which in Ukrainian condition often means passing the control to the foreign capital). Still it was his
government which drafted the
Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement, about which he had second thoughts and did not sign it in Riga, upsetting
Merkel who was salivating for Ukrainian market and creating an impulse for EuroMaydan color revolution. He also was a
moderate Ukrainian nationalist who supported Western Ukrainian nationalists and actually converted them (with the help from the
US and EU) into real political force, the force which led to his demise.
Yushchenko was a weakling without any substantial political talent, but also a
neoliberal. He was supported mainly by Western Ukrainian nationalists and the USA. He was the first to use Maydan as a political tool to clear
the was to power: he forced new election after he lost the first (whether he lost illegitimately due to machinations
with counting of the votes or not is still hotly debated question).
Kuchma was the creator of oligarchic model that in now dominant in Ukraine. In a qys he is close analog of
Yeltsin in Russia, who organized privatization of state assets ofater which just a dozen of oligarchs controlled most of
Ukrainian wealth. He was more Dnepropetrovsk nationalism oriented and much less exited about Western Ukrainian nationalists
then his successors (which is Ukrainian political lingo is called pro-Russian), but his polices were clearly anti-Russian --
especially as for gas transit (where he deftly exploited Yletsin incompetence, alcoholism and authoritarian tendencies).
Oligarchic regime in Ukraine was created mainly by Kuchma. It led to an impoverishment
of the population and paved the way to Maydan, as a form of protest. It looks like he supported more Dnepropetrovsk
(Cossack) version of Ukrainian nationalism. Yanukovich as a politician is the product of Kuchma epoch and was Prima
minister in Kuchma government. He actually was betrayed by Kuchma during election of 2004 in favor of Yushchenko, as the
primary goal for Kuchma was preservation of his own family wealth (concentrated in assets of his son-in-law Pinchuk, one of the
top Ukrainian oligarchs) , the goal for accomplishing of which Yushchenko was the most suitable candidate.
Timoshenko who probably will replace
hated by the most population Poroshenko is also a neoliberal. She became that first female Ukrainian oligarch during Kushma
Presidency. Like Kuchma she also came from Dnepropetrovsk.
Nationalism as a natural reaction on worsening economic conditions
Governments having trouble meeting the needs of their citizens will be strongly tempted to turn to nationalism or
nativism to transfer blame to external enemies and distract from problems at home, while publics fearful of loss of jobs to
immigrants or economic hardship, are likely to be increasingly receptive to more exclusive ideologies and identities.
Office of the Director of National Intelligence Global trends main report
“How People Think” (2015)
Nationalism usually in on the upswing if we see the impoverishment of the population. In her groundbreaking book
The Shock Doctrine
The Rise of Disaster Capitalism Naomi Klein has shown how from Chile in 1973 to Iraq
today, neoliberals have repeatedly harnessed terrible shocks and violence to implement their radical
policies or neoliberalization and debt enslavement of the weaker countries. This concept is closely
related to the concepts of Military-Industrial
Complex and Predator state. Amazon review of the
book states:
Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine advances a truly unnerving argument: historically, while
people were reeling from natural disasters, wars and economic upheavals, savvy politicians and industry
leaders nefariously implemented policies that would never have passed during less muddled times.
As Klein demonstrates, this reprehensible game of bait-and-switch isn't just some relic from the
bad old days. It's alive and well in contemporary society, and coming soon to a disaster area near
you.
"At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq'' civil war, a new law is unveiled that will allow Shell
and BP to claim the country's vast oil reserves… Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration
quietly outsources the running of the 'War on Terror' to Halliburton and Blackwater… After a tsunami
wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts…
New Orleans residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals
and schools will never be re-opened." Klein not only kicks butt, she names names, notably economist
Milton Friedman and his radical Chicago School of the 1950s and 60s which she notes "produced many
of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington
today." Stand up and take a bow, Donald Rumsfeld.
There's little doubt Klein's book--which arrived to enormous attention and fanfare thanks to her
previous missive, the best-selling
No Logo, will stir the ire of the right and corporate America. It's also true that Klein's
assertions are coherent, comprehensively researched and footnoted, and she makes a very credible
case. Even if the world isn't going to hell in a hand-basket just yet, it's nice to know a sharp
customer like Klein is bearing witness to the backroom machinations of government and industry in
times of turmoil. --Kim Hughes
It is necessary to defend Ukrainian economic interests both against West and East;
nobody care about Ukrainian people
Even without this latest controversy over religion, it is clear that Ukrainians make the choice (or more correctly the USA made
it for them). Many Ukrainians still believe that the West is in love with them. Let me clear something for them: The west (its elites) are not in the business of love. They are in the business of
exploiting loser 80% of population.
Which means that they don't love even their own people, let alone the Ukrainians. Probably 10% of people (for example
working in retail and getting less then $10 per hour, or $1200 a month, if they have 40 hours working week -- many do not -- 36 or
less is common) in the USA live in such poverty that they can't find extra expense of $500 in case of emergency. They
essentially can't afford to live along and need to rent an apartment with somebody else. And that's the richest country of the
West. So ignoring economics in favor of politic is what I call degeneracy.
Both in Ukraine and the USA we see conversion from "classic neoliberalism" to "national neoliberalism" (In
Ukraine along with converting the
country into debt-slave of the West). Ukraine is a unique county which signifies the possibility of alliance of neoliberals
and far right nationalists in domestic policies, and further neoliberalization of Ukrainian economics, the alliance which would be anathema for nationalists in 1920th-1930th.
Similar to the opposition to Trump in the USA,
EuroMaydan faced a strong
resistance, as well as external interference, and in case of Ukraine eventually led to a civil war. Like Trump, Ukrainian nationalists, who came to power after
EuroMaydan are betraying economic interests of their key constituency due to
which they came to power:
Astute observers saw this betrayal coming. The argument that Trump would somehow overturn America’s neoliberal economic order
myopically focused on Trump’s trade policy. In doing so, it both misunderstood what Trump represented and the ideological
framework of neoliberalism. Trump’s fever pitch agonizing over the United States’ trade deficit with China and Mexico are both
the wallowing of an economic idiot and the maneuvering of a political savant. The issue was always economically inane. A trade
deficit in-and-of-itself reveals very little about the overall health of an economy.
Whether a nation should strive for or
against a trade deficit is more dependent on that nation’s strategic position within the global economy, and not necessarily an
indicator of the health of domestic markets. But, trade proved to be a salient issue for symbolic purposes.
Stagnation and
automation have compelled American middle and lower classes to accept an economic torpor. Making trade deficits a central
campaign tenant provided these people with an outlet for their class anxieties without having to question the nature of class
itself. Lethargic economic growth was blamed on Mexicans and the Chinese. The insinuation was for average Americans to take
back what was rightfully theirs by engaging in a new round of economic bargaining with these two nations, if not an open trade
war.
In case of EuroMaydan the economic alliance with EU was sold as a panacea for all economic devastation of people on Ukraine after
economic rape by West in 1991-1994 (common for all xUSSR countries; trillions of dollars floated to the West then assents built
during the USSR period were bought for penny on a dollar) and after President Leonid Kuchma (in power from 1994 to 2005) installed oligarchic neoliberal regime
with several major regional clans of oligarchs (Donetsk, Dnepropetrovsk, Kiev) having all the political power in the country. And which remained intact (sliding to more corruption) under Yushchenko despite
the fact that the
first Maydan was fought also under "anti-corruption" slogans.
And Yanukovich and Russians was blamed for all ills of his two predecessors. Which is similar to
the way Trump blamed Mexicans and Chinese for economic devastation of the US middle class under neoliberalism. But instead of
trade war with China like is happening in the USA under Trump, a Donbass civil emerged as the major side effect of transitioning to "national neoliberalism"
("externality" in neoliberal economics speak ). Steep deterioration of economic performance and hyperinflation followed.
The latter resulted in approximately 300% depreciation of the currency in three year (2014-2017), or 100% a year. Which put
pensioners at the edge of beyond the starvation.
In covering such events as civil wars and uprisings it is difficult to agree on common
narrative. We will cover the event from the view that the supreme duty of the national state is not it s own existence
at all costs ("classic nationalism"), but the well-being of its people and building the prosperous economy ("economic nationalism").
Of course those goals are interconnected, but one should not be scarified to another. And unleashing of a civil war under pressure
from foreign country which pursue its own economic and geopolitical interests a sure path to misery. As General Sun Tzu wrote in The Art
of War, “there is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.” Positioning Ukraine as the bitter enemy of
Russia does not benefit Ukrainians, but does benefit both the USA and EU. More flexible approach might be a better deal, but
currently is impossible. Ukraine might benefit from more tolerance and commitment to compromise. Even selling some territories
might be a better deal for straggling population of Ukraine then the prolonged warfare for the preservation of borders of the
Ukrainian state established under Bolsheviks. Buying the US weaponry is not the best use of Ukrainian money, at least not for
the majority of the Ukrainian population. And it does not change the balance of forces on Ukrainian border, although
defeated armies learn really fast and the Ukrainian army of 2018 is qualitatively different and better than the army that
suffered defeat from separatists before that. Just imagine that Canada leave NATO, doubles or triples its military budget and tried
to confront imperial ambitions of the USA. The same actually is true for Russian people, which now suffer under the burden of
Putin's military budget, which makes total rearmament of Russia the top national priority. And even the US people under Trump
with his enormous military budget. .
This position has its weaknesses, as interests of
people and the national elite under neoliberalism typically diverge and generally can't be reconciled. And it is common people
not the elite who die and receive grave injuries in those wars. The neoliberal elite often acts as occupying force of the
country (comprador elite) acting in the interests of a foreign state...
Economic nationalism should be understood as a set of practices to
create, bolster and protect national economies in the context of globalized markets by returning in some areas to protectionism and regulation of big business, especially multinationals, while easing regulation of small and medium businesses
and strengthening social security net. In case of
Ukraine EuroMaydan events forced Russian big business to leave Ukraine, but the tragedy is that the vacuum was filled with no less
predatory "new partners". The rise and institutionalization of economic nationalism
was a product of the crisis of neoliberalism starting from 2008, which revitalized ethno-nationalist movements in many European countries
including Baltic republics, Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine. As Bannon have said
Steve Bannon on white nationalism, Donald
Trump agenda - CBS News
“I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist,” Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week.
“The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to
not get f—ed over.”
Some economists like Richard Wolf view Trump as the last, desperate attempt to save "classic neoliberalism" (The
Coming Collapse of the American Economic System with Richard Wolff - YouTube). In Ukraine,
EuroMaydan might be viewed as the
desperate attempt to save oligarchic version of neoliberalism established by Kuchma.
I see Ukraine as a victim of policies of neoliberal globalization and the efforts to create global, led by the USA neoliberal empire
(which by extension requires weakening and possibly neutering Russia and China).
Simplifying, we can say that one of the most effective "disaster capitalism" scheme for establishing neocolonial control over the
country is the transition of the country to debt slavery is unleashing a civil war. In this regard, a simple formula:
works perfectly well. Around 11K people have been killed in the Ukraine between April 2014 and May 2017. Around 1.6 million
people have been internally displaced (mostly to central region of Ukraine and southern regions of Russia). European future dream proclaimed by
EuroMaydan turned into Middle Eastern civil war nightmare with crimes committed against the civilian population.
It is interesting to note that the carrot of "European future" proved to work extremely well in post-Communist countries, especially for students and
regions that depend on labor migrants for survival (Western Ukraine). Promising Ukrainian population "European future" was
a very effective, albeit almost obvious move.
And outside well qualified
professionals and entrepreneurs, or the top 10% of the population Ukrainian population is not needed (or wanted) in Europe. For lower 80% this
"European future" is a future of low paid service personnel and prostitutes in Western
cities. The status of a low paid gastarbeiters is the grim reality of the employment situation in most EU countries. Still this carrot
proved to be an extremely effective way to fool the population into actions which destroyed their achieved standard of living, as low as it
was in comparison with major countries of Western Europe such as France and Germany.
People generally hate and do not trust a
local neoliberal government (and Yanukovich government was clearly a neoliberal government),
so it, by definition, any such government is a low hanging fruit for a color revolution which typically installs even more rabid neoliberal and more
cruel government. such a Catch 22 on geopolitical scheme (with neoliberal regime instead of US army fighting in Europe ;-). With
a rather small financial infusion people from Western Ukraine (and not only Western Ukraine) were
easily recruited to participate in mass protest actions with the goal to depose the government. This was proven
during EuroMaydan in Ukraine and actually is true for all xUSSR countries. For example, in Russia there were significant
demonstrations of this type in 2011-2012.
First of all people are sick and tied of sliding and very low standard of living. As such they are highly susceptible to
any agitation that promise "better future for them and their children". Delegitimization of the ruling neoliberal elite
(aka "Yanukovich gang") via controlled by "color revolutionaries" MSM typically is presented via a more narrow
term -- corruption -- created revolutionary situation that just waited to be exploited. Actually corruption became the
code work for staging a color revolution in many countries. The fact the none of them managed to eliminate
corruption which is endemic for any neoliberal regime ("Greed is good") including the USA
( for example "Clinton Cash" Scandal: Hillary Clinton links to foreign donors and
financial industry ) does not matter. What matter is people perception of the issue as unfair and the current government
as corrupt. The idea the the next government can be even more corrupt does not enter the mental picture.
Secondly because Western
Europe that they knew only from TV or, at best, saw just its "tourist facade". Few people know the reality of living in Western Europe.
Which
definitely has a higher standard of living even if it was substantially weakened by neoliberalism, and also weakened (but still strong
in comparison with the USA) social security mechanisms.
But it is very far from "worker paradise." The real situation can be understood only after working in the
particular country for three or more years and I doubt that those people came to
EuroMaydan.
But it was relatively easy to use far right nationalists as a ram to depose Yanukovich
(a "no brainer" as some observers put it). This is done by rallying against the government a large part of the disaffected population. In
case of EuroMaydan, students
and small entrepreneurs took active part, because they were among social groups oligarchic regime of Yanukovich really oppressed; add to that media of a couple of
oppressed by and thus hostile to
Yanukovich oligarchs, such as Ihor Kolomoyskyi . It generally
talked about a decade for people to forget how they were deceived in the past. So the memory about the promises of the "bright future" in early 1990th
and the grim reality that followed already evaporated. Another problem is that young people who were
born after the first Ukrainian Great Depression that followed obtaining independence are not interested in a
real history of this period. This consideration suggests that in any xUSSR country you can stage a color
revolution each 20 years or so.
It is also very easy for MSM to channel objective process of impoverishment of population under neoliberalism into the charge of
corruption of the government. Which was definitely corrupt, especially Yanukovich himself, but no more corrupt the previous
(Kuchma, late Yushchenko) or subsequent Ukrainian governments (Provisional Government, Poroshenko). In this sense the civil
war in Donbass and its wide-range consequences is one of the most important "externalities" of
EuroMaydan (along with the loss
of Crimea), the price of
change of the government via violent uprising instead of regular election mechanisms.
Both EuroMaydan and the civil war in Ukraine are related to (or even stem from) efforts of the USA to encircle Russia
as a new geopolitical rival on one hand, as well as the desire of the EU to get a resource base at the East and expand its market into yet another country
cutting Russia (plus Russophobia of elites of several countries including Poland and Sweden). On the EU part, the "Economic
Anschluss" of Ukraine
can be viewed as a more gentle variant of "Drang
nach Osten" -- a drive to enlarge its (mostly German) economic space by absorbing all Eastern European countries under the EU economic space
umbrella.
Contrary to statements about pro-Ukrainian bias of the USA policies in the region, the US efforts were not pro, but clearly anti-Ukrainian.
Ukraine was viewed by the USA just as an important pawn in geopolitical chess game against Russia. And this game is mainly directed
by the goals of encircling, weakening and, if possible, dismembering of Russia.
In this respect Ukrainian national interests, especially economic interests, were never a consideration. At the core
of events was Obama administration pushback against Russian opposition to American
dominance and the EU and NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.
In this sense EuroMaydan was a logical continuation of a failed attempt to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012;
continuation of the same policy. This time the USA manage to inflict huge economic and
political losses to Russia as EuroMaydan not only broke economic cooperation of Russia and Ukraine, but was followed by damaging
Russian economic sanctions, as well as (naturally occurring, or artificially created) slump in oil prices
which last three and a half years (mid 2014 - 2018). It also created an enemy from previously friendly or at least
neutral state. And another hostile to Russia state on its borders is the last thing that Russia needs.
This EU Anschluss agreement (in the writing of which, at least formally, participated functionaries from Yanukovich government,
so, in some ways, it was a joint effort) also included such disastrous measures as adoption of EU standards in areas were Ukraine can't compete with the
EU companies and thus de-facto replacement of local production with imported. The process which in 2018 is very visible of the
shelves of supermarkets. Such a pro-Russian president ;-) “We want to move closer
to the EU in our day-to-day work,” he used to say. He wanted to sign it, but just wanted to bargain a little bit more. And he
managed to get 3 billion loan from Russia on a really good terms.
But by not signing the agreement in November 2013 he sealed his political fate (EuroMaidan
- Wikipedia) and endanger his life, as neither EU, nor the USA take "no" for an answer. And they did unleashed a color revolution against him:
The demonstrations began on the night of 21 November 2013, when protests erupted in the capital, Kiev, after the Ukrainian
government suspended preparations for signing the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement with the European Union, to seek
closer economic relations with Russia
This attempt to demonstrate some degree of independence was a fatal political mistake because Ukraine was
already under firm control of pro-EU/pro-US forces. Previous Yushchenko government was essentially a vassal of the West and his appointees
were deeply entrenched in all critical government structures including security services; media was also controlled by
neoliberal forces and hostile to Russia; the US NGO were extremely influential in Ukraine and influenced the media landscape
(Gromadske TV, etc) with
NGO officers enjoying diplomatic immunity due to a special agreement, signed, I think, by Kuchma government. Which is a
clear sign of sliding of the country to colonial status ( imagine this for a sovereign country, say for the Great Britain).
While from imperial standpoint such policy is logical as Russia is one of the main threat to the US-led global neoliberal
empire and the second largest nuclear power, is sows "dragon's teeth". As such it is dangerous to the USA too. But after the
USA became the only world superpower, Washington never played favorable for them situation strategically and
patiently. They became a real global bully. That's why we have this "F*ck EU" coupe d'état and the attempt to kill Yanukovich in February 2014. While
removing
Yanukovich was "slam dunk" thing, as he was widely hated by the Ukrainian population (which is actually typical for any neoliberal president in
xUSSR area with no exceptions) subsequent side effects of his removal did not played for the USA so well. They really antagonized Russia, which from this
point started to view the USA as the enemy, not as a dominant economic power and the competitor in xUSSR space. This led to informal
military and economic alliance to China which was the danger the Kissinger warned against.
Another nasty externality of
this
coup d'état is that it eventually led to an uprising in some parts of the Eastern Ukraine against Western Ukrainian attempt to colonize it, and eliminate
Russian language and Russian culture, which are native to the region (which might be one of the USA geopolitical goals, as it
further weakens Russia and make it n easy target for sanctions; which actually started before with
Magnitsky Act, which was adopted in 2012 and was the fiorst robin int his
area). BTW adopted on completely false premises as recent Nekrasov's documentary reveals (with a strong possibility of Browder
being connected to MI6)
So it really created an artificial ethnic conflict in the country
which basically was free of it. My impression is that before EuroMaydan most Russian-speaking Ukrainians
did not too closely associate
themselves with Russia, viewing Moscow with some degree of suspicion. Especially strong in "intelligencia" circles (which from
Soviet time resents the role of "smaller brother" and some level of discrimination). In other words, they viewed Russia much like Canadians view the
USA ("two countries separated by common language"). But now, at least in Donbass region, and probably in several other Eastern regions, the attitudes drastically changed. As well as
the attitude toward Western Ukrainian
nationalists (which were never viewed too favorably in Eastern regions of Ukraine to begin with.) In this sense Odessa fire was a
precursor to Donbass civil war.
For the country where the majority of population speaks
the same language as people in Russia and have many family level and cultural ties breaking such ties in the name of establishing a
new national identity is a very tricky political move.
BTW most Canadians do not like the USA for its Imperial Ambitions and
(by-and-large successful) attempt to convert Canada into de-factor colony of the USA ("two countries separated by common language")
But imagine
that Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada and outlawed the English language. And introduction of Ukrainian language repeats
that story of reintroduction of national language in Baltic countries (or enforcement of Hebrew in Israel) and in view of dominance of English language does not have any
real significance culturally (as the cultural life is now completely dominated by Western players and filmmakers in any case) and might
have slightly detrimental effect
on education and science.
I would be first to admit that it was a good time to replace Russian textbooks at universities with
English language textbooks: previously Ukrainian universities (with the exception of Lvov and couple of other cities) typically used Russian textbooks for natural sciences, which now is politically incorrect.
But they can't switch to English textbooks (potentially
better for natural sciences and very cheap if bought used or reprints from India).
The move which would instantly raise the level on
knowledge of English language in the country, especially among educated middle class.
As such would diminish Russian cultural
influence and, as such, strengthen the level of independence of the country from Russia. Although increase in intensity and quality of study of English language is
definitely one of the
few positive effects of EuroMaydan.
Yanukovich was a rather weak and deeply corrupt President, which was not favorably viewed in Russia (which refused to create and support
the government in exile after he
fled the country). Paradoxically he has no real friends ( other then Joe Biden,
who backstabbed him ;-). Politically at the beginning of 2015 he
was completely isolated due to his sling into authoritarianism. Now it became known that several members of his government
(for example Lyovochkin) were covertly working for "EuroMaydan".
One can also wander about Russia position in this area. Russia professes limited version of economic
nationalism, while remaining by-and-large a neoliberal country (which create a big weakness in Putin position, as you can't be
half-pregnant; if you profess neoliberalism inside the country, you should profess neoliberal globalization and by extension accept the role of Washington as the
center of global neoliberal empire). In other words, Russia invented Trumpism before Trump ;-).
So Russian neocolonialism is
the fact of life (as long as Russia remains neoliberal country) and Russia does want to keep the xUSSR states as its sphere of
influence, but on reality while it has definitely unequal terms might be more benign
toward Ukraine than EU neo-colonial expansion into Ukrainian space. Those
predators can really devour the country. And the first effect, is conversion of
the country into the debt slave. The second, if we view Baltic states as a example,
is
deindustrialization.
I suspect that there is no good guys in this drama.
After getting an independence (and even before that during last years of the USSR) there was a process of distancing of
Ukrainian population from Russia and Russian people. This process naturally was accelerated after independence and typical
attributes of a European nation (separate language, culture, often separate church) became "a must" to obtain for the new
Ukrainian
elite.
The key problem with forceful "Ukrainization" is that Ukrainian culture currently can't complete with Russian culture as the
latter is much richer than any of its nab ours (and that includes Baltic republic, Poland, Ukraine, Finland, etc). Actually rich
culture is one of the attributes of metropolia (for example China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain).
At the same time there are multiple countries which are independent and still share the same language (Canada is one close
example as its naibour is the USA with distinct imperial ambitions). As Bernard Show quipped about the USA and GB are "two
nations divided by a common language"
Another important factor is the quality of the elite. Without knowledge of English it is difficult to have high quality
elite those days. The level of deterioration of Soviet elite (which usually spoke only Russian; few members from the
Soviet elite studied in Western universities) was one of the decisive factors in the collapse of the USSR. When leaders became a
joke, the legitimacy of the Soviet Union was severely undermined and nationalist sentiments encouraged. Also deep
provinciality of Soviet politician -- clearly visible in Gorbachov and Yeltsin to name a few was also a native factor which allowed
"economic rape of Russia" in 1991-2000. The same was even more true for Ukraine and other former soviet republics. Some
years in Ukraine after 1991 (I think 1992-1996 until introduction of grivna) was absolutely desperate with rampant inflation (up to
10% a month) and the standard of living of population in single digits from previously level achieved during the USSR years.
While of course a large part of this were "tectonic shifts" -- global economic processes (ascendance of neoliberalism; in this
respect the USSR chose to dissolve in the worse time possible). neoliberalism smash weaker countries converting them into debt
slaves. But the provincialism (and greed which is related) of Russian and Ukrainian elite also played a role.
BTW there is an influential strata of Russian intelligentsia (so called "Zapandniki") who consider Russian culture inferior to
some European cultures such and French and German. And there was a long period in Russian history when the
aristocracy spoke French and Russian was relegated to "common people". During the Peritotic War of 1812 (Napoleon invasion of
Russia) the officer corps of two armies spoke the same language. russia was generally very lenient to usage of foreign
languages with German being "trade language" for centuries.
I think that now only English now can "painlessly" replace Russian in Ukraine and that "forced "Ukrainization" will work against
Western Ukrainian nationalists, although Donbass war proved to be a very influential factor which tremendously helped to overcome
the resistance of the population (as were switching of schools to Ukrainian language). My impression is that the
language situation in Kiev changes noticeably in just four years (2014-2018). While part of it is connected with the influx of
Western Ukrainian (which have a higher birth rate than other regions of Ukraine), much of it I would attribute to patriotic
sentiment among the population which is connected with sentiments created by Donbass war.
But the danger here is "provinciality" and it should be underestimated. BTW Ukrainian is not a native language for a
considerable portion of Ukrainian elite (especially in Eastern and Southern regions) and they support it only from the "sovereignty"
standpoint, if at all.
Like with any uprising the goals were noble. But they the net results are far
from the initial aspirations. If we view EuroMaydan as an upraising against
Kuchma's oligarchic neoliberalism, it proved to be a dismal failure. It became more cruel and more entrenched.
Despite all this rhetoric about "corruption", oligarchic neoliberalism survived and the cost of
uprising and dislocation the followed it were offloaded on the bottom 80% of
population. In you compare
NSDAP program on 1928 and the program of far
right forces in Ukraine it is clear that the latter are devoid of any positive
economic program of redistribution of wealth down.
Here is a sample from which it is clear that NSDAP program (never fully
implemented) includes several radical positions (which are anathema to neoliberals) such as "Abolition of unearned (work and
labor) incomes. Breaking of debt
(interest)-slavery." (p11) as well as "We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts)":
... ... ...
7.We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a
livelihood and way of life for the citizens
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or
physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the
universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of
all. Consequently, we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes. Breaking of debt
(interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands
of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the
people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate
communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms,
the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or
municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free
expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and
prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to
the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be
punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
21.The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and
child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the
legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all
organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22.We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23.We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.
24.We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long
as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race...
But nationalists the come to power as the result of EuroMaydan just wanted to kick the neoliberal can down the road with
the only difference that Russian oligarchs should be kicked out, economic ties
with Russia severed, and the EU and US oligarchs brought in. The
fact that their leaders are personally less corrupt does not matter. They
just served as a Trojan horse to let in EU and the USA oligarchs and
multinationals. And that was the net result of EuroMaydan.
What really happened in Ukraine due to EuroMaydan was the transition from
classic neoliberal social system created by Kuchma which was typical for
post-Soviet space and pioneered by Yeltsin clan in Russia (oligarchic
capitalism) to the military
plutocracy. This is the same process that is under way in the USA
since 9/11 (when the country was converted from democratic oligarchic capitalism
into national security state) and is typical for any neoliberal country as
the net effect of neoliberalism is increase of the debt (debt fuelled growth
model). With high level of debt democratic mechanisms of control of
population stop working. So after the level of debt ( and poverty/unemployment)
reached certain threshold the switch to national security state model ("militarized
plutocracy") is the only way for the neoliberal elite to preserve its dominant
position in the society.
I would like to stress that this is the same process of evolution of neoliberalism that started in the
USA after 9/11. The elections are now more tightly manipulated by media owners.
Existence of a convenient scapegoat make opposition by-and-large fruitless task
("war" mentality: who are not with us, is against us ). So replacement of
the leaders are now allowed only within the narrow circle of the ruling
neoliberal elite which deposed both Donetsk and Dnepropetrovsk oligarchic clans
which ruled under Yanukovich umbrella (or at least part of them). In this
sense Poroshenko election was exactly what would happen in the USA in
similar circumstances.
Strangely, the showdown between Timoshenko and Yanukovich was probably the first
and the last Ukrainian election, where the neoliberal establishment didn't get their
(wo)man. Yanukovich was also neoliberal and as such a second choice of the
elite, but not the most desirable
candidate. Timoshenko seemed scared a few powerful people - she is too
ruthless and had too many of her own "hungry people" who wanted to enrich
themselves as fast as possible at the expense of existing oligarchs (the sin
which Yanukovich clan actually shared with her and that was a key part of his
undoing).
Some key establishment players
switched sides, allowing Yanukovich to win. The USA did not object as
Yanukovich was no less controllable then Timoshenko and in some areas was even
preferable (with Joe Biden as a very capable mentor ;-).
But this attitude apparently hanged when he started to demonstrate some level of
independence and tried to balance between EU/USA and Russia. Disobedience to
Washington Obcom for which he paid the price. It was no brainer to organize
several oligarchs who were "suppressed" by Yanukovich oligarchic mafia into
"resistance movement" and use Ukrainian nationalists (which Yanukovich
supported) as the brute force to initiate the "regime change" As Victoria Nuland famously said "F*ck EU which while it
has a different meaning, can also be interpreted as "F*ck EU [aspirations of Ukrainians]" --
the net result of EuroMaydan European aspirations. The winner was the USA,
not EU or Ukrainian people. That was probably the most important geopolitical
victory of Obama administration.
Interestingly, it was farther of liberalism John Locke, who provided a philosophical justification for overthrowing the
government when it acts against the interests of its citizens. What Locke did not understand is that the next government can be
worse. Much worse, if the "revolution" was supported by powerful players who pursue their own geopolitical goals at the expense of
the citizens of a particular country. In many such cases creation of internal civil conflict is a hidden or at least
desirable goal as it greatly simplifies the conversion of the country into the debt slave (this tactics is called "disaster
capitalism").
It is difficult to talk about a single factor that created Donbass conflict, which later turned into civil war. There were
multiple factors that created preconditions to civil war in Ukraine:
Direct pressure from the USA which tried to exploit the
possibility of direct or indirect armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia
for their geopolitical interests. So the pressure on Provisional Government to use military force in Donbass probably was immense. From this point
of view Ukraine Civil war can be viewed as textbook case of "disaster capitalism"
in action. Neoliberals in general, and neoliberal countries in particular (read G7), are ready to use shocks and violence to
implement their policies of creating neocolonial states (aka Washington consensus).
The most powerful states practice neoliberalization and debt enslavement of the weaker countries.
A side effect of the neoliberalization of the country after Kuchma and "fast track" to EU Anschluss adopted
by Yanukovich government. As Wikipedia states "In 2002 Kuchma
stated that Ukraine wanted to sign an association agreement with the
European Union (EU) by 2003–2004 and that
Ukraine would meet all EU membership requirements by 2007–2011.[17]
He also hoped for a free-trade
treaty with the EU.[17]"
So Yanukovich actions were essentially continuation of the same policy.
An interesting nuance here is that economic difficulties
for the ordinary people, including mass unemployment and redistribution of wealth up inherent under any neoliberal or semi-neoliberal
regime (and which can be easily amplified by external actions) can also be
used for unleashing color revolution against the "corrupt
[neoliberal] regime" (as if the next will be less corrupt). Of course
this can be done under noble slogans of democratization, "fighting with corruption" (which is endemic under neoliberalism
including the USA and other G7 countries) and "better life promises", which creates
a mass support base
for the "neoliberal revolutionaries".
Essentially this means conversion of Ukraine into "EU village", a resource base of cheap
commodities and a very cheap workforce. Starting the same the process that is now fairly advanced in Baltic republics, Poland,
Bulgaria, Greece, as well as other central European countries.
The slide of Ukraine toward more nationalist government was also facilitated by the global crisis of neoliberalism of 2008.
In this respect Ukraine is not that different from, say, Hungary, or Poland, which also expense a resurgence of nationalist
parties. So the rise of far right nationalism in
not exclusively Ukrainian phenomenon, but a global trend caused by the crisis of neoliberalism both as an ideology and as a
social system after 2008. So not only EU and the USA
machination plus Yanukovich corruption and criminality caused EuroMaydan. It looks like Ukraine just is repeating the political trajectory
of Baltic Republics, but with 23 years delay. And probably inevitably destined to repeat the mistakes the Baltic countries, especially Latvia, made on this
path.
The natural result of obtaining independence and subsequent rise of political importance and power (as guarantors of
independence from Russia) of Western Ukrainian nationalists Parties and organizations, previously completely decimated and
eliminated as a political force. Theywere resurrected with the full and enthusiastic support of the
Ukrainian State, Ukrainian, especially Canadian and the USA, diaspora (which,
like any diaspora, are more radicalized and nationalistic then people living
in Ukraine; in this sense the existence of strong diaspora can be curse for a particular country). As well as some
neoliberal NGO such as Soros foundation, which openly promoted nationalism as a tool to blow off the Soviet Empire. The
undisputable fact is that Yanukovich
himself did quite a lot for resurrection of Svoboda as a viable political party. Usually this fact is swiped under the carpet by
Western MSM, which incorrectly (with complete contempt for evidence) proclaiming him being a pro-Russian political figure. While
in reality he was a moderate Ukrainian nationalist, who tried to extract some concession both from Russia and West trying to
perform
a delicate dance of balancing between them (he failed). In a sense Yanukovich brand of nationalism was not that different from the bran of nationalism which emerged in Dnepropetrovsk and
which was represented by Kuchma and later Kolomoiski. The fact that with Svoboda Yanukovich brought into the nest a cuckoo egg escaped this mediocre and
corrupt politician (who by the way was under heavy USA influence, with such names as Biden and Manafort and as mentors and
political consultant respectively) . Luckily he managed to escape the attempt to kill him after the coup.
It is kind of unsetting that a politician who used Joe Biden as a political mentor can be attested as pro-Russian. Which smells
with postmodernism "multiple truths" paradigm.
Oligarchic republics has their own dynamic of development and such a development in Ukraine led to
the loss of political power of "Donetsk elite".
The contributing factors were internal frictions within Donetsk oligarchic clan and the fact that Dnepropetrovsk oligarchs (and
first of all Kolomoski) openly sided with nationalists. In other words nationalists were used as the brute force in oligarchic
clans struggle to remove Yanukovich as a threat to other oligarchic groups and weaken the Donestk oligarch clan. Ukraine was
and still is an oligarchic republic -- owners of big businesses have a decisive impact on the politics and economic
policies of the government of the country. The Ukrainian oligarchic republic emerged during Leonid
Kuchma’s presidency (1994–2004). There were several oligarchic clans in Ukraine with two most important being Donetsk
clan (personalized by Akhmetov) and
Dnepropetrovsk clan (personalized by Timoshenko). They were the cornerstones of the Ukrainian oligarchic democracy. Yanukovich, who represented the Donetsk
clan and was closely linked to Akhmetov, was not a satisfactory President for other oligarchic groups. Yanukovich attempt to
create "the family" as a new oligarchic group consisting of his sons and loyal politicians were also viewed with great
suspicion by other oligarchic groups (see osw.waw.pl for more information)
A "blowback" of the efforts of the USA led global neoliberal
empire (of which EU states are vassals) to contain and encircle Russia. We can also view Ukraine as the latest victim of US geopolitics,
which is directed on encircling, weakening and/or possible dismembering of Russia
as well as German geopolitics with the kind of neoliberal version of "Drang
nach Osten"
Drang nach Osten, (German: “Drive to the East”), German policy or disposition to
colonize the Slavic lands east of Germany.
The term originally referred to the eastward movement of German settlers
in the 12th and 13th centuries but was resurrected by Adolf
Hitler in the 20th century to describe his plans for
acquiring Lebensraum (“living space”) for Germans.
Under neoliberalism we are talking not about direct occupation but by
opening and dominating Ukrainian market and displacing Russians from this
market.
I would like to stress again that EuroMaydan coup d'état represents the greatest
success of the US diplomacy (and personally President Obama) in this direction (and an important step in the defense of the global neoliberal empire led by the USA) since the dissolution
of the USSR.
The USA managed to turn a large, strategically positioned county into hostile to Russia
entity for a tiny sum of around five
billion dollars invested in organizing this color revolution (which exploited
real dissatisfaction with neoliberalism of Ukrainian population), spinet via multiple years via NGO, MSM and embassies. Please note that Israel in one year gets more. Later that led to forming
in March 2018 of anti-Russian alliance of
Geordia-Moldova-Ukraine
-- another severe knockdown for Russian diplomacy in the region. Donbass civil war can be viewed as externality of those
geopolitical efforts. Or desirable, if slightly unexpected, result.
There were also other contributing factors such as internal and external pressure on the Provisional Government (and euphoria from Maydan
success); the side effect of Putin "overextending" his promises to Donbass residents after Crimea referendum.
The latter and subsequent betrayal of those "Referendum => Ascendance to Russia" promises were especially tragic.
In other words Putin shares the responsibility for the Donbass civil war.
Looks like deposing the elected government with the hands of disgruntled (and agitated with controlled by NGO "opposition" MSMs)
citizens and few financial injections into opposition (with one stash of cash confiscated from Batkivshchyna
offices) is a "sure thing". Just a matter of time and skills of more or less competent intelligences
agencies operatives of any G7 country. This way it is possible to change the government
in any xUSSR country with some even rudimentary democratic structures, which experience slide in the standard of living of
population and/or
financial difficulties with payments of external debts. Neoliberalism caused gradual sliding of standard of
living of population and mass discontent. Which creates political instability
even in the USA. And thus opportunity to install a more pro-western government with minimal
spending of money and resources by any more powerful economically country, which is ready to spend money for such a revolution.
Kind of beating the person, who already fall on its knees.
If
this results in a subsequent civil conflict, that OK and does not interfere
(actually can greatly help) with getting control over strategic resources that happen to be in this
country. Which is all that matter in the large scheme of neoliberal
expansion into the country. So, paradoxically a civil was is even desirable outcome
for neoliberal conquistadors (which are no longer persons, but multinationals).
This is the essence of what is called "Disaster
Capitalism".
While there are regional variations most of post-Soviet republics are oligarchic republics. As such they have problem both
with the legitimacy of the ruling elite and withstand pressure form major western countries (where oligarchs
store their assets). See
It might well be that only "brutal dictatorships"
can mount some resistance to such color revolution attempts and "democracy" (the
rule of neoliberal elite) is a very bad idea for a country is low standard of
living.
As similar tensions exists in Baltic republics, Moldavia and Kazakhstan it looks like
t some state of development of post Soviet
republics with large Russian speaking minority involves some sort of conflict, as this population generally is not inclined to
accept more provincial culture and language of the republic in which they are now citizens or permanent residents (Latvia
discriminates against Russian minority). But whether such a conflict results
in the armed struggle and separation of some
territory depends on additional circumstances, which might ne present or not.
Long before Donetsk separatism, we have a similar situation in Moldavia
in the part of the country with dominant Russian speaking population. It
also formed de-facto independent republic (Transnistria - Wikipedia). In
Ukraine itself there were tensions due to attempt of "forceful Ukrainization" of Crimea as to a lesser extent other
Eastern regions (closure of Russian schools, etc). Even in Kiev population which
generally is probably more nationalistic than the countryside resented forceful Ukrainization. Especially
on the level of university education where it hit the wall of low quality or
complete absence of textbooks, the necessity of inventing "Ukrainian
terminology" for technical subjects (instead of switching to English; which
would instantly solve most of those problems) and low pay of professors, when
those who has some value of the marketplace "en mass" moved to private
industries.
what Ukraine showed us again is that the distance from such tensions to armed conflict
can be crosses very quickly even with the complete absence of ethnic tensions, if
foreign pressure is applied and favorite conditions arise. That's why sudden appearance of the scene a government
with a couple of mediocre and rather reckless politicians (Yatsenyuk and Turchinov) that
(especially the latter) behaves like a bull in a china store was
enough. You can imagine the situation if Quebec nationalists came to power and declared French language the only
official language of Canada in order to diminish/eliminate cultural and political influence of the USA on Canada
(which is an imperial power and generally is resented in Canada ;-).
The net losers were bottom 80% of Ukrainian population (especially in the
area of armed conflict and those who were drafted). Standard of living for whom
deteriorated two to three times in one year after EuroMaydan. The phrase
"My zdobuli" (with the meaning "We achieved the victory/independence" and
approximate translation "we obtained") now has sarcastic meaning in Ukrainian
language.
So the fact that Provisional government come to power in Kiev and in euphoria from their victory started to push Ukrainization
further down the road proved to be powerful enough trigger to light a civil war. Stupid and reckless actions when they
encountered some resistance only help further to ignite this conflict. It would be much wiser adding Russian as a state
language but also introducing English as a new official language and requiring police and courts to accept it. Ass well as switch to
teaching some subjects in English at high school and universities.
The Donbass region as an arena of this conflict was probably more or less
accidental. There were no notable ethnic tensions to justify it. Just a mild resentment to forceful Ukrainization
on one hand and mild anti-Russian sentiments on another (Russia was and still is
one of the most popular destination for Western Ukrainian
Gastarbeiters) . Only later two groups of population ("vatniki" vs. "banderovtsi")
became bitterly involved in this conflict and started killing each other. After several years of fighting and several thousands of civilians killed,
million or more displaced (with widespread looting or vacant houses and
apartments on both sides) re-integration of this
territory into Ukraine looks like a very difficult, if not impossible task.
Which requires huge investment and superhuman patience.
So Minsk accords, which proposes as a solution to the conflict federalizing Ukraine and
granting Donbass the status similar to Crimea autonomy as well as general amnesty ( in return for putting down all arms) are probably by-and-large dead
and can be used only for political games. Even conversion of Ukraine into federative republic and granting Donbass the status
of autonomy of a type formerly enjoyed by Crimean now is not enough for Donbass residents and represent too big concession for Kiev.
Partially because as economic situation deteriorates, other parts of Ukraine, especially TransCarpatian region might want the same status.
The most important effect of the EuroMaydan along with dropping of the standard of living of population is
an almost complete and long-term breakup of economic and cultural relations with Russia. The process which already started since
1991 and way well under way under Yanukovich. The civil war in Donbass only
accelerated and deepened those "pre-existing" trends.
We can view post EuroMaydan event as a Second Great Depression for Ukrainian population (the first was after the
dissolution of the USSR). Ukrainian GDP dropped considerably after EuroMaydan, although exact figures are difficult to come buy
( see Ukraine GDP 1987-2018). Probably at least 50% in comparison with the
level achieved in 2013. So it looks like another Great Depression in Ukraine. Also the fact that it is now under umbrella of EU will might eventually kill some Ukrainian high
tech industries and most of machinery manufacturing including auto industry. Without cooperation with Russia aviation industry is already dead (Ukraine has
large Antonov factory in Kiev which produced transport planes and couple
of other less important factories in Kharkov). Without Russia cooperation they
are mostly gone (some can still service Soviet aircraft but how long it will
last ?. Even advice manufacturing like manufacturing of engines
(Motorsich) experience huge difficulties as they lost Russia as a customer and
did nit have a replacement or compensation for those lost orders. That was, of
course a huge hit for Russia too, as to create the replacement requires time and
money. This is the same process of de-industrialization
that we observed in Baltic republics. But it probably
will have higher impact on Ukraine as this is a larger country and the loss of
Russian market is more critical and is not compensated by EU in any form.
Resulting economic chaos and civil war destroyed the standard of living of the majorly of Ukrainian population and created
more then a million
of refugees. Please take into account that one of the driving forces of
EuroMaydan was a high unemployment rate in Western
Ukraine, where the growth of population was fastest (Uniate religion is close to Catholicism and does not encourage birth control).
Now the majority of Ukrainian live of less then $2 a day and will do so for many, many years,
if not decades. And that's
what makes the whole EuroMaydan and subsequent Donbass conflict especially tragic, as most people who protested Yanukovich government were striving for better
life, for lower unemployment and better economic opportunities for themselves and their children.
And BTW all Donbass
residents initially wanted was just a small degree of cultural autonomy and adoption of Russian language as the second state language.
That was all.
Now due to deterioration of economics and flow of refugees both to in central regions of Ukraine (especially Kiev region)
and to Russia we have zugzwang situation both for Ukraine and Donbass. Only external forces can benefit from the continuation of the
war, but the common ground to bring parties to the negotiation table was lost.
In other word the net losers of those geopolitical games that created
EuroMaydan is, unsurprisingly, the Ukrainian population
and, first of all, the population of the Donetsk region. Common Ukrainians were forced into abject poverty as the result of a sophisticated geopolitical game played on them
with visa free travel and ability to work in EU as a carrot. After EuroMaydan
far right nationalism was unleashed to dull the pain of economic rape as some kind of "opium for the masses". It allowed to project
the ills brought by more deep neoliberalization of Ukraine and conversion it into
a debt slave nation on Russia. As the result the majority
of Ukrainian population now is more hostile to Russia. Of course, Ukrainians
were not the first, and they are not the last among the victim of the color
revolution for the installation of a "hardcore" neoliberal regime which started with the election of Reagan.
Arab countries such as Libya fared even worse.
It is surprising how resilient Ukrainians proved in such conditions. This was (and is) simply amazing to watch, despite the tragic
nature of the situation. Of course, in a typical development known since
WWII Kiev became an even larger sex shop for rich Western tourists and
pensioners, than under Yanukovich, but this is also typical for other countries in xUSSR space. Still there were no complete economic
collapse after EuroMaydan and most of infrastructure continued to function although in decrepit state and there is no money for its
modernization. Railways state is especially tragic. But trains are still running.
How Ukrainians survive food prices that approach the USA prices on their salaries
is a question that I cannot answer. Probably some local markets have lower prices and self-grown vegetables help a lot (many Ukrainians
has so called "dachas" from Soviet time, typically a plot 600 sq meters (around 6500 sq feet) where you can grow
fruits and vegetables. But transportation
costs now bite hard (public transport in Kiev is now around $.20 per ticket.)
Meat consumption for the majority of population is now severely restricted and all poor people can probably afford are
just eggs, milk and some pork fat. Price of chicken meat is almost on the USA
level and for a typical pensioner income represents a luxury.
I would like to stress that the process of cultural and economic separation of Ukraine from Russia was well under way since obtaining independence as the
result of dissolution of the USSR in 1991 and would occur anyway, but probably
will less economic losses for both Ukrainians and Russians. Those US propaganda tales about Yanukovich government being pro-Russian
are just what they are -- fairy tales for badly informed, or brainwashed. No Ukrainian government since independence was pro-Russian.
The only variable was the level of anti-Russian
sentiments (with Yushchenko Presidency being the most anti-Russian, which is
what you can expect from a Western Ukrainian nationalist in power). Moreover "pro-Russian" Yanukovich actually
supported creation of Western Ukrainian training camps which serve as indoctrination tool of Western Ukrainian youth into
anti-Russian mindset. He also supported Svoboda hoping to beat it in the elections. But they beat him on the barricades
playing "divide and conquer" card.
Now Ukraine started the process the results of which we can see in Baltic states: the
elimination of Russian culture and language and almost complete economic isolation
from Russia (while Russia still remains the largest economic partner), as well as opening the market to Western Europe and the USA on conditions dictated
by EU and the USA respectively (which are clearly neo-colonial conditions).
The key problem with the Ukrainian elite and the population in general is dismal level of knowledge of English language, which prevents receiving
many benefits of such an association.
The association remains one way street with EU multinationals getting the
Ukrainian market, and Ukrainians getting nothing in return although "free intellectual property" goods are definitely available and
some of them quite valuable. For example, high quality textbooks for universities (older university textbooks used in the USA
before "political correctness" are definitely of higher quality then corresponding Russian textbooks)
In Baltic republics the pain of deindustrialization was smoothed by financial transfers from EU. Ukraine faces full economic consequences of breaking of economic ties with Russia
and subsequent gradual elimination of whole sectors of manufacturing which can't compete with EU (which is the most
manufacturing sectors and large part of chemical industry; they probably will
soon be bought by transnationals) without any compensation and under pressure.
This de-industrialization process already started. As well as residential
building boom which probably can create a bubble in real estate market with the
subsequent crash and corresponding consequences.
All economic hopes of
EuroMaydan revolution -- higher salaries, more and better jobs, lower prices" were dashed very quickly as grivna was devaluated
from 8 per dollar to around over 20 per dollar (currently over 28 per dollar).
And with it the standard of living of the population (although not to the same extent, as food prices were increasing more slowly
then devaluation of grivna), but still dramatically. But it was the "liberalization" of gas prices for population which let to dramatic jump of the cost of heating of
houses and apartments, which in many cases exceeded the size of pensions of people living in those apartments. For many the only way to
survive was not to pay. And still is. Payment in winter for a modest one bedroom (two rooms and a kitchen) apartment of
say 35-40 sq meters exceeds average pension.
As the result of neoliberal policies pursued by new Provisional government and then Poroshenko government the price of hydrocarbons
for consumers (and first of all natural gas which is widely used in heating homes and for cooking) in Ukraine skyrocketed and the cost of heating in
winter became a huge problem
in many regions and even large cities like Kiev (where salaries are probably 30%-50% higher then
at the periphery). Economic promises of EuroMaydan now can be viewed only a big hoax and Poroshenko can be reelected
only via military hysteria and fuelling "Russian threat". Otherwise he is fully cooked and Timoshenko will be the next
President.
The cost of heating on one bedroom apartment (say 35 square meters; around 350 square feet) the last winter exceeded the half
of the average monthly salary (or full average pension). And that's a very modest apartment for a family. See Cost of Living in Kiev. Updated Prices
May 2017 for the current costs. Please note that average salary in Ukraine is around 3000 grivna (higher in Kiev, probably twice
higher) or $110 a month (with minimal 1000
grivna or $35 a month which is close to $1 a day -- an absolute, dismal, central
African level of poverty; see
Average Monthly Salary In Ukraine - Poltava Travel).
With food priced jumped and now in many categories reached the level of the USA (especially for meat; vegetables, especially
tomatoes, potato, are probably twice or three
times cheaper and are of higher quality). Ukrainians can only thank IMF for
their extreme generosity and valiant efforts in converting them into debt
slaves. But that's the nature of neoliberal world order and we can do nothing
about it.
Unlike far right forces in Hungary and Poland, Ukrainian far right in this case also proved as close to
the neoliberal economics platform as
one can get, real neoliberal stooges, which proved to be a really toxic combination.
If Russia cuts supplies of gas via Ukraine (for which Ukraine gets transit fees), or break economic ties with Ukraine, the country might
soon be bankrupt. Trump
is not willing to compensate for lost revenue and is generally adverse to economic aid. All he wants countries to buy as much the
US weapon systems as they can afford and pay for them. His concern is the
USA economics , not Ukrainian. And rightly so. He did sold Ukraine coal to substitute for higher quality Donbass coal at double prices (the
process that started under Obama I think; also South African coal was bought, which is cheaper,
but of lesser quality). Now he wants to sell Ukraine modern weapon systems with their exorbitant prices, such as Patriot
missiles and helicopters. Which is
completely
within the framework of the "The Art of the Deal".
The
USA now also supply fuel for the Ukraine nuclear stations, displacing Russia (with some technological risk, associated with the change
of the suppler), locomotives and several other types of heavy equipment. If the developments in Ukraine after EuroMaydan mirror the same in Eastern European counties Ukrainian energy
sector will soon be controlled by foreign multinationals, which will extract "a peace of flesh" from the population, no matter
what. Trump administration also is weighting selling Ukraine advanced weapon, for which Ukraine will need to pay, depraving population
of basic needs and fuelling Donbass war (Poroshenko government is locked into "Guns instead of butter policy" and can't change it )
While population hoped for changes of their economic conditions to the better and that was the main reason (along with
typical for color revolutions propaganda about corruption) gave nationalists power, they proved to be a part of compradors. And
Ukrainian wealth continued to be plundered just with a little bit different team of players. The terms of trade are very unequal
and structure of export from Ukraine significantly deteriorated. The standard of living of population, especially pensioners is
simply horrible. As I mentioned before I simply can' t understand how pensioners can survive in Ukraine. With
typical pension around 1.5K grivna and exchange rate around 28 that comes to $54 a month. Pension of retired professor of the
university is around 4K grivna or $142 a month. That's why Poroshenko regime lost legitimacy and he like used condom will
be replaced with another comprador (most probably with Yulia Timoshenko). The level of emigration from Ukraine the last
years is around 1 million people a year is not surprising.
Nationalists proved to be impotent and unable to run the country and instead the country got another neoliberal regime, only
worse. Much worse.
As James Petras noted about US LA colonies, "Neo-liberal regimes take power with loud Wall Street cheers and collapse with barely a
whimper." Latin
America- Rightwing Interlude and the Death Rattle of Neoliberalism (Sept 4, 2018). The conclusions of his article which I highly
recommend to read, because methods used in Ukraine are then same as in Latin America are well worth repeating here:
While financial journalists and private investment consultants express surprise and
attribute the ensuring crises to regime 'mistakes' and 'mismanagement', the real reasons for
the predictable failure of neo-liberal regimes is a result of fundamental flaws.
De-regulation undermines local industries which cannot compete with Asian, US and EU
manufacturers. Increases in the costs of utilities bankrupt small and medium producers.
Privatization deprives the state of revenues for public financing. Austerity programs lower
deficits, undermining domestic consumption and eliminate fiscal financing.
Capital flight and rising interest rates increases the cost of borrowing and devalues the
currency.
Devaluations and capital flight deepen the recession and increase inflation. Finance
ministers raid reserves to avoid a financial crash.
Austerity, stagnation, unemployment and social regression provokes labor interest and
public-sector strikes. Consumer discontent, bankruptcies lead to deep decline of regime
popularity.
As the crises unfolds, the regime reshuffles ministers, increases repression and seeks
salvation with IMF financing.
Financiers balk sending good money after bad. The neo-liberal regimes enter in a terminal
crisis.
While current neo-liberal regimes appear moribund, they still retain state power, a modicum
of elite influence and a capacity to exploit internal divisions among their adversaries.
The anti-neoliberal opposition demonstrates its strength in challenging socio-economic
policies but have difficulty in formulating an alternative political economic strategy for
state power.Financial editors worry that pressure is building for a social explosion –a
reply of Argentina 2001,when the President fled in a helicopter.
Russia also suffered
greatly from breaking ties with Ukraine, but this was Washington geopolitical design.
This was kind of knockdown for Putin, his major geopolitical defeat. That standard of living of
Russian population achieved at the end of 2013 did not return for the next 5
years and even in 2018 is still lower. Like Ukraine already did, Russia
plans to raise pension age in a typical neoliberal fashion -- without any
compensation.
Economic ties hit Russia directly as export to Ukraine was by-and-large eliminated.
Russian multinationals were kicked out in some case their property was
confiscated. Relations of Naftogas and Gasprom are commonly called "gas war"
(in which Ukraine plays the role of foot soldier of the USA). Import
of strategically important equipment from Ukraine was also gradually
eliminated. Export was either eliminated or curtained. The volume of Ukrainian
export remain high but it became by-and-large "colonial export" -- mostly
commodities and food. Ukrainians were kicked out from Russian transportation
sector with losses for both sides. Now Ukraine import uranium rods for its nuclear electric stations
from the USA, and recently started to import coal form the USA too. Paying probably twice more that comparable supplies from Russia.
I think that it is only a matter of time when the national energy
companies will change hands. Ukraine also started to buy the US arms and all cooperation in arms industry with Russia stopped.
The level of hostility to Russia which was present even under previous Ukrainian governments (especially Yushchenko), dramatically increased due to civil war in Donbass. For which Russia carry partial blame: when first
they encouraged people uprising against Ukrainian nationalists who took power in Kiev via a coup, and then abandoned them limiting themselves
to supply of weapons and volunteers despite implicit promises of repeating Crimea scenario, if population vote so in a referendum.
This is a personal fault of Mr. Putin. Donbass occurred on one hand because Putin irresponsible promise that Referendum would be treated
just like in Crimea, but then by even more irresponsible behavior of junta (pushed by the USA which pursued their own geopolitical goal
in the region in which Ukraine played the role of the patsy the only role of which is to weaken Russia as severely as possible). Far
right junta moved army forces to pacify essentially minor conflict which started because of their overzealous application of the language
law. There were no even minor ethnic conflict in this region with the rest of the county, which make this civil war and
this breakaway region
somewhat unique.
Russian now has a huge and long-term problem with Ukraine. This is now a hostile country
on the border, another Poland. But even more unpredictable
and hostile. And sharing the language means that Ukrainian intelligence agencies represent a huge threat
for Russia. Exactly like Washington wanted
them to be. As one member of Obama administration Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine, Evelyn Farkas
(Who the hell is Evelyn Farkas)
boasted "We have very good intelligence on Russia." Which is not bad from the point of preventing WWIII, but
also opens the door for
various false flag operations under Russian flag, like Russiagate.
Moreover it now is a perfect opportunity for EU to demonstrate its usual level of Russophobia. As Beckow aptly observer (June 17,
2018 at 6:01 pm GMT )
...EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export
to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the
dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the
security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed
in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of
history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about
perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards
anything 'eastern', and the traditional Anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional
hatreds have been added with endless demonizing Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays,
stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on
reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is
also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is
neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between
EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and
EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility
will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional
anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination
were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20
years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.
My advise to Russia would be to mind its
own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired
because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in
general. Business doesn't change that.
In other words the Ukrainian civil war triggered resurgence of pre-existing anti-Russian forces in Europe. Contrary to a
widespread myth,
European business interests do not represent a powerful anti-Russophobic force. The cancellation of SouthStream and Russian
troubles with NorthStream II clearly attest that. While anti-Russian sanctions have cost Europe billions, there is no
countervailing
force that can stop sanctions. Also the US influence is way to big for most
European governments even try. This is why for years
now various EU politicians and public figures have made some noises about lifting the sanctions, but when it came to the vote – they
all voted as told by the real bosses.
But this major geopolitical victory of the Obama administration may eventually
turn into Pyrrhic victory as it facilitated re-rapprochement
of Russia and China. With some signs of an economic and military union. Still Obama managed first to state color revolution in
Russia (which failed, but was no small feat) and then to inflict real and substantial economic and political damages
to Russia via Ukrainian civil war.
The Ukrainian civil war disrupted many vital supply lines from Ukraine which were inherited from the USSR times. Replacing them with native
production, or other foreign sources takes both time and money. Even Russian military-industrial complex was slightly disrupted
as some types of engines were produced only in Ukraine (but Russians got the signal that supplies from Ukraine for Russian military
industrial complex will be in 2005 with the election of Yushchenko, so they have has a decade to prepare for such a move). But the
damage in "leaking vital technologies" still was done -- in the USSR years Ukraine (unlike Baltic republics) was treated like
almost equal partner and now at the moment of dissolution had many critical USSR military technologies available. Which now
probably found new homes outside Ukraine, as Ukraine was always desperate for money and sold everything that can find a foreign
buyer, including a large part of the military arsenal inherited from the USSR.
In turn Ukrainian civil war also led to growth of anti-Americanism within normally pro-American part of Russian population. And
some cooling of normally very friendly relations with Ukrainian industrialists and gastarbeiters. Of course, Russian wave of
anti-Americanism never reached even one tenth of the Neo-McCarthyism witch hunt current in the USA. Where a simple contact with the
Russian ambassador is as close to the treason as one can get ;-). Russian elite generally tries to cool down hot heads,
understanding the key role of the USA as the major country in Western block as well as
the technological powerhouse. And the fact
is that after Yeltsin years of economic rape of Russia it remains weak economically and depends on the West in major technologies.
But still growing anti-Ukrainian and anti-American sentiments in Russia represent an important political factor... and
probably like growing hostility of Ukrainian population toward Russia is also a long
time factor. Which will survive when Putin leaves that political scene, and
might even be amplified.
First of all this factor almost completely eliminated political influence of Russian neoliberals (aka "Liberasts") for probably a decade or
more. They now are not visible politically; just look at the most recent Russian Presidential elections. Unlike in 2012, where they were very active and enjoyed support of US
NGO (now kicked out of the country) and financial support from Western embassies,
during the last Presidential election they were a sad joke. Even for such a major player in
Russian politics as USA
embassy support of neoliberal fifth column become more difficult and requires more inventive schemes, especially in
transferring funds. Now Russian neoliberals (including former cabinet members such as Kudrin) are viewed by population even less charitable than
lobbyists of the foreign interest in Russia (aka fifth column) and more like traitors.
Paradoxically Russia did not block Ukrainian gastarbeiters, despite rather
high level of unemployment and economic recession. Generally in economic relations with Ukraine Russia tried not to rock
the boat. Which just allowed full freedom to rock it by Ukrainian side as if cutting economic relations with the largest neighbor and
dominant in the region country is something that might be economically beneficial to Ukraine in a long run, outside plain
political revenge motives.
In any case, even without open military confrontation, this civil war
in Donbass guarantees that economic relations of Ukraine with
Russia will continue to be in the deep freeze for the foreseeable future. While state relations now are marketed by open hostility on the part of
Ukrainian
State and attempt to undermine Russia where they can.
And Ukrainian security services do have an opportunity to inflict
a damage on Russia.
although fear of retaliation might keep them in check. Still they provides great help the USA neocons, supplying all kind of
damaging information, which helps to turn Russia into the enemy of choice once
again (despite Russia being yet another neoliberal country), much like the USSR once was during the Cold War. So it is a part of
Cold War II.
It is interesting and pretty surprising that that ethno-linguistic nationalism proved to be not always an opponent of neoliberal
globalization. Especially in emigrant/diaspora communities. For example Canadian Ukrainian nationalists (which are more radical nationalists and more Russia-hating than most Ukrainians) played far from
constructive role in Ukrainian political life. Emigration breeds political extremism and combination of inflow of political extremists
with economic adventurists seeking "make money fast" ventures proved to be really toxic for Ukraine. Theoretically
Ukrainian nationalism should know the lessons from being a neighbor of a powerful nation with the large territory (the USA) and the problems with the
sovereignty that such an "oversized" neighbor creates (As
Eric
Margolis noted Washington treats Canada like a vassal,
though most Canadians don’t seem to care). And they should be voice of reason in relations between Ukraine and Russia. But this
was not the case. Canadian nationalists most put gasoline on nationalistic fire which started in Ukraine with the obtaining independence. Geography is a destiny in some way.
It is sad that they
like to fight with Russia until the last Ukrainian, excluding themselves and their families. It is the same problem as female
chickenhawks in the US government: female neocons are even more militaristic and chauvinistic then their male counterparts (look at
Victoria Nuland, or Hillary Clinton).
Far right nationalists were quickly sidelined by hard core neoliberals led by Yatsenyuk and lost any influence on economic
policy. Like Germans say "The
Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go". And Yatsenyuk was a neoliberal who only pretended to
be nationalist (much like his former boss Yulia Timoshenko).
While Yatsenyuk was a fake nationalist, he was forced to act as the real one: Provisional government did send the army to fight and die in Donbass region. As a result we
have what we have: neoliberalization, conversion of the country into a debt slave, loss of Crimea and the civil war in Donbass region
in a country with no ethnic conflicts before EuroMaydan. And Poroshenko government has even less sovereignty then the corrupt
Yanukovich regime. It's completely subservient to the USA and IMF. While Ukraine now is full member of "debt slave" club (Yanukovich
government actually managed to shrink national debt a little bit; at least not to enlarge it).
But an important fact is that all such color revolutions, being part of "disaster capitalism" games bring more poverty and sufferings
(often with the possibility of civil war) to the population. So they are essentially a counter-revolution, or more precisely revolutions by financial
oligarchy against people. But that becomes evident to agitated population only when it is too late (and now many Ukrainians are longing for the return of the times of "corrupt Yanukovich regime"). The Yanukovich story proves that it is really
dangerous to by a "half-neoliberal" and only "half of a dictator" (actually Yanukovich proved to be a despicable coward, who only accidentally,
by pure luck,
escaped the destiny of colonel Kaddafi.). As unforgettable Bush II used to say
You're either with us, or against us.
Due to civil war Ukraine lost probably up to a hundred thousand people
and a couple of millions were displaced. It also lost several hundred billion dollars as economic consequences of the war. Some found refuge in Russia, some in central and western regions of Ukraine, but their
social status and well-being were severely affected by this displacement. Tiny percentage managed to emigrate the western countries,
which are not that eagerly accepting a stream of Ukrainian refugees. Which they essentially created (making the situation very
similar with Syria). Please note that there
was no ethnic or religious tensions in Donbass under previous governments, which can at least partially justify this civil war. It really is an
100% artificial
creation, driven by the USA and EU geopolitical moves in the region as well as Russia counter moves.
Ukrainian nationalists also played pretty destructive role facilitating the abrupt and compete cut of economic relations with Russia, ignoring
devastating economic consequences of such a move. If Russia reciprocated by prohibiting Ukrainian nationals to work in Russia
and cutting the supply of gas via Ukraine, that might well lead to the bankruptcy of the country and splitting it into several independent statelets
with Western Ukraine probably being the first, or the second. So much for "Shche
ne vmerla Ukraina". The
road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When Poroshenko became a legitimate President via nationwide election (Yanukovich formally remained the legitimate president until
this moment, because he was alive and did not abdicate his post) he became the hostage of old policies of Provisional government
and the USA puppet,
despite having initial reservations about both. Some oligarchs clearly decided
to pour more kerosene on fire, especially Ihor Kolomoyskyi
New troubles for nationalist government in Kiev are on horizon as Trump administration might not willing to pay Ukraine the money
which were flowing to the country as low percent loans under Obama administration. As the same time they are encouraging the
Ukrainian government to buy as much of US arms and other goods (trains, coal, fuel for nuclear stations,
etc) as possible. They will sell
it even natural gas, if possible. At double prices.
As the result a severe pension crisis might loom on the horizon even taking
into account miserable level of pensions in Ukraine. In case the EU does
not come to the rescue, many Ukrainian pensioners will simply starve.
In no way Yanukovich's Ukraine should be viewed as a sovereign state. At best I would call it "semi-independent". The USA
actually has a big, if not decisive, influence on Ukrainian foreign policy. From this point of view
EuroMaydan changed very little.
After Kuchma Ukraine was already in semi-colonial state with most important decisions dictated by "Washington Obcom" (Joe Biden was a big friend
and mentor of Yanukovich until he put a knife into his back; Manafort was a US political operative who managed Yanukovich election
campaign; both names are hardly Russian). And Marafort was probably closely connected to the US intelligence
agencies and did pressed Yanukovich to pursue pro-US policies especially
economic cooperation with EU.
The Mueller Indictments Still Don’t Add Up
to Collusion The Nation:
There is widespread supposition that Manafort's dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion
with Moscow. But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in
Kiev. The opposite appears to be the case. The New York Times
recounts
that Manafort
"pressed [then–Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych to sign an agreement with the European Union that would
link the country closer to the West -- and lobbied for the Americans to support Ukraine's membership."
If that
picture is accurate, then Manafort's activities in Ukraine during the period for which he has been indicted were
diametrically opposed to the Kremlin's agenda.
He also was deeply unpopular and posed to be defeated in the next
Presidential elections.
In a way this new geopolitical arrangement represent the reversal of the result of WWII and partial accomplishment of the goals of Nazi Germany
as for Slavic people in Ukraine and Russia. The net result is close -- abysmal poverty of the majority of population. But without planned
by Nazi Germany extermination of Slavic population to make space for German colonists (essentially Hitler plan was a plagiarism from
the USA colonial past; with Slavonic nations instead of Indians). Remember General Plan Ost (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost):
German Plan Ost to exterminate ” inferior races ”
Percentages of ethnic groups to be destroyed and/or deported to Siberia by Nazi Germany from future settlement
areas.[15][16][3]
Ethnic group/Nationality Population percent subject to removal
Russians[17][16] 50–60% to be physically eliminated and another 15% to be sent to Western Siberia
Estonians[3][18] almost 50%
Latvians[3] 50%
Czechs[16] 50%
Ukrainians[16] 65%
Belarusians[16] 75%
Poles[16] 20 million, or 80–85%
Lithuanians[3] 85%
Latgalians[3] 100%
Country was forcefully converted into the debt slave without
any chances to get out, another "neo-colony" with formal sovereignty as a fig leaf and nationalism as "opium for the people".
Neoliberal colony controlled via financial instruments and local fifth column of compradors instead of occupation army. Ukraine
now repeats the history of Latin America: borrow billions of dollars from foreign banks, hand the money to the wealthy who immediately
deposit it right back to foreign banks, and let the ordinary people pay back the principal and interest.
The EU desire to increase the pace of colonizing Ukraine played a very important role in unleashing this civil war. EU along with
the USA was instrumental
in bringing far right junta to power as they correctly assumed that being in economics ersatz-nationalists they will suite EU
economic interests better then Yanukovich government. EU Anschluss agreement turns Ukraine into market for EU goods and source of cheap raw materials. It is undeniable
that under the slogans of democratization EU played a sinister, neo-colonial role in
EuroMaydan color revolution. Especially such countries
as Poland, Sweden and Germany. Which encouraged and participated in financing of the coup against the corrupt Yanukovich regime clearly
understanding that the next regime might be even worse, equally incompetent and no less corrupt, but were pursuing their own regional
interests, which at the time coincided with the USA geopolitical interests and have had a distinct anti-Russian angle (especially for
Poland and Sweden). At the expense of ordinary Ukrainians who became pawns in a bigger geo-political game. That reminds me XIX
century colonial policies of European powers. Just on a new level.
EU honchos correctly assumed that weakened after 1991 Russia with not cease supplying hydrocarbons to EU as the result of the coup and
the Russian sanctions, if any, will be minor (they were limited to food items so far) and Russia can't stop importing high
technology goods and machinery from the EU and the USA. Poland economics also depends on Russian gas
and transit fees and that cut would be a serious economic hit, although not to the extent of the same for Ukrainian economics, but
Poland government decided to take this risk and won.
Also the level of hate of Russia of Polish elite traditionally is one of the highest in Europe (although it is not yet shared by most
of Polish population). Just looks as such figure as former minister of foreign affairs in Tusk government
Radoslaw Sikorski
who was instrumental in forcing Yanukovich into complete capitulation (masked as an agreement with opposition leaders about peaceful
transition of power via forthcoming Presidential elections (which Yanukovich would definitely lose), but which opposition did not intended
to obey and used to depose him as police was withdrawn and did not defend government quarters (unlike President
Salvador Allende, who was one of the first victims of neoliberal coup
d'état, Yanukovich proved to be despicable coward, but that's another story). According to Wikipedia:
Sikorski was involved in the events of the winter 2014 Ukraine
Euromaidan protests at the international level. He signed
on 21 February along with Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovich and
opposition leaders Vitaly Klitchko,
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and
Oleg Tyagnibok as well as the
Foreign Ministers of Russia, France and Germany a memorandum of understanding to promote peaceful changes in Ukrainian power.[60]
In other words there are no good guys in this story, Yanukovich, Russia, the USA, the EU, provisional government and Poroshenko all
were essentially hostile to the interests of the Ukrainian population and were instrumental in driving the population to a really abject,
African level poverty. They all conspired to inflict hardships on Ukrainian population. Ukrainian neoliberal oligarchy proved
to be pretty destructive to the country, which reminds me the situation in Greece. And the country now is the same debt slave as
Greece. With the only difference that there is no civil war in Greece.
The problem of Donbass became frozen and with so much blood spilled by both sides re-incorporation of the region into Ukraine became
exceedingly difficult task which need huge amount of money, money that neither the EU which facilitated this crisis, not the US who
fanned insurgency against Yanukovich regime pursuing its own geopolitical interests are willing to pay. Shelling by Ukrainian side also
does not help to resolve tension (and reciprocated by shelling from separatists side) with people killed on the both sides.
Idea of conquering Donbass by military force might succeed at great cost at blood and treasure, but also might end the same
way as attempt for Georgia to conquer Abkhazia.
Attempts to solve the conflict by military means first by Provisional government (which was pretty stupid move, as initially the
conflict was minor and could be solve by minor concessions) and then by Poroshenko administration (which inherited the problem from nationalistic
hawks from Provisional government) put Ukrainian economics into a bigger and bigger hole. and remember the initial issue was
just a status of Russian language in the region. nothing else. That reminds me medieval religious wars. So far the net result is
loss of Crimea, destroyed industrial region and several millions
of displaced population. The initial attempt to crush Donbass by Yatsenyuk-Turchinov Provisional government (which was pushed by the
USA) failed dismally.
A couple of Ukraine-related items caught my attention this week.
The first is a report by
Baylor University professor Serhiy Kudelia which discusses how to bring peace to Donbass. Kudelia starts by saying that Western
states have regarded the resolution of the war in Donbass as being dependent on changing Russian behaviour. This is insufficient,
he says, for 'the successful reintegration of Donbas into Ukraine rests on designing a new institutional framework that can
provide long-term guarantees to civilians and separatist insurgents.' Kudelia says that academic literature on conflict
resolution would suggest four elements to such a framework:
Autonomy for Donbass within Ukraine. Such autonomy would come with risks, by entrenching local rulers with
patronage networks outside of central control and with the means to challenge central authority. To reduce these risks,
Kudelia suggests giving autonomy not just to the territories currently controlled by the Donetsk and Lugansk People's
Republics (DPR & LPR), but to the whole of Donbass, thereby bringing within the autonomous region some more pro-Ukrainian
elements of the population as well as groups not connected to the DPR/LPR power structures. He also suggests devolution of
power within the autonomous region to weaken the potentially disruptive consequences of hostile elements controlling the
region's government.
Transformation of the rebel state and military structures into political parties. Experience in other
countries suggests that when this happens, the prospects of a successful transition increase substantially.
Comprehensive and unconditional amnesty for everyone involved in the war. For obvious reasons, rebel
leaders won't agree to the first two proposals without an amnesty. Past experience speaks to the necessity of this measure.
No elections in Donbass for two to three years. Kudelia notes that, 'Holding elections in a volatile
post-conflict environment creates ample opportunities for voter intimidation, electoral fraud, and disinformation campaigns
that could build on conflict-related divisions.' Kudelia doesn't say who would rule Donbass in the meantime. I would have to
assume that it would mean that the existing authorities would remain in place. That could be problematic.
With the exception of that last point, these are sensible suggestions. But when boiled down to their essentials, they don't
differ significantly from what is demanded in the Minsk agreements -- i.e. special status for Donbass and an amnesty. As such,
while I don't think that the leadership of the DPR and LPR would like these proposals, my instincts tell me that they would be
quite acceptable to the Russian government, which would probably be able to coax the DPR and LPR into agreeing to them. If
implemented, the results would be something Moscow could portray as a success of sorts.
And there's the rub. For that very reason, I can't see Kiev agreeing to any of this. Kudelia's argument is founded on the idea
that there's more going on in Donbass than Russian aggression. Accepting that something has to be done to 'provide long-term
guarantees to civilians and separatist insurgents' means accepting that there are civilians and insurgents who need reassuring,
not just Russian troops and mercenaries. And that means changing the entire narrative which Kiev has adopted about the war. So
while Kudelia's proposals make sense (after all, what's the alternative? How could Donbass be reintegrated into Ukraine without
autonomy and an amnesty?), what's lacking is any sense of how to get there.
A large part of the problem, it seems, is the attitude in Kiev. This becomes very clear in the second item which caught my
attention -- an article on
the website Coda entitled 'Now Healthcare is a Weapon of War in Ukraine.' The article describes how the DPR and LPR are
encouraging Ukrainians to come to rebel territory to receive free medical treatment, and then using this as propaganda to win
support for their cause. This is despite the fact, as the article shows, that the medical facilities in the two rebel republics
are in a very poor state. Author Lily Hyde isn't able to confirm how many Ukrainians have taken up the rebel offer of free
medical aid, but does repeat a claim by the rebel authorities that 1,200 people have done so.
What interests me here is not the sensationalist headlines about healthcare being weaponized, but the question of why
Ukrainians might feel it necessary to go to the effort of crossing the front lines to get treatment. And the article provides an
answer, namely that parts of Donbass 'are trapped in a precarious limbo, still under Ukrainian government control but cut off
from key services like healthcare.' The war destroyed much of the healthcare system in Donbass, but 'Ukraine provides no
financial or other incentives for medics to work in frontline areas', and has done little to repair shattered infrastructure.
Healthcare seems to be a lower priority than fighting 'terrorism'.
While the DPR and LPR use healthcare as a 'weapon' by providing it to people, Kiev has 'weaponized' health in another way --
by depriving people of it. As the article reports:
Kiev has not outlawed receiving medical treatment in occupied Donetsk or Luhnaks. But collaborating with the separatists --
or supporting their propaganda efforts -- is illegal. How exactly such charges are defined is not clear, but past experience
has taught both individuals and organizations to be wary of such accusations. The Ukrainian authorities have investigated
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Ukraine who have provided foreign-funded medicines and other supplies to
occupied Donetsk and Luhansk. NGOs working there have been banned by the de fact authorities [of the DPR and LPR] on similar
charges. Doctors have found themselves placed on blacklists by both Ukrainian officials and the separatists, accused of being
'terrorist collaborators' by one side, or of being spies by the other.
Hyde contrasts the Ukrainian government's policies towards the DPR and LPR with that of Georgia, where:
The government offers free healthcare for people from Abkhazia, a breakaway territory it still claims which is now under de
facto Russian occupation. The government is building a modern hospital in the nearest town to the boundary line, aimed at
people from Abkhazia.
Essentially, says Hyde, it's 'a question of attitude'. She cites Georgy Tuka, Ukraine's Deputy Minister for Temporarily
Occupied Territories -- '"There's a wish to punish people," Tuka acknowledged.'
That's quite an admission from a government minister.
Even if the details need fleshing out, the institutional framework required to reintegrate Donbass into Ukraine has been
pretty obvious for a long time now. The problem has been getting people to accept it. It is indeed, therefore, 'a question of
attitude'. Sadly, the prevailing attitude stands firmly in the way of the institutional changes required for peace. The desire
seems to be to punish people, not to reach agreement with them in order to promote reintegration and reconciliation. The issue,
then, is whether this attitude can be changed (and if so, how) or whether it is now so firmly entrenched that there is nothing
which can be done. Sadly, I fear that it may be the latter.
Economically the situation for Ukrainian population is really grim. No
question about it.
To preserve the political stability of Ukraine and to start climbing out of the debt hole (or at least stop digging it
deeper) the slide in the standard of living of population needs to be stopped. It is easy to say but very difficult to accomplish.
The status of "debt slave" leave very little space for maneuvering. It also makes more difficult taming the political influence of oligarchs, halting the war and cutting military expenses.
Those three might be steps in the right direction.
The restoration of the standard of living of population at least to the level achieved under Yanukovich would be
the best revenge (before oil prices collapse, I saw figures that suggested that Russia has had the highest standard of living among xUSSR
countries, above $1K a month (close to 2K in Moscow) with free university education and basic medical care
and a large paid vacation for full time workers.
I do not know much about Russia but
after oil prices collapse officially median salary dropped to say 23500/50=$470 or approximately 50% (Зарплаты
в России — Русский эксперт) a month in 2016; they
gradually rose in 2017 and 2018 due to growth of oil prices are still nowhere close
to 2013 level ($23K a year). And purchasing power of $500 in Russia is probably around $1K-1.5K in comparison with the USA
or two to three times higher then in the USA (the same is true in Ukraine). This might be the benchmark to strive for.
From the other point of view, the transfer of Ukraine to a colony of EU is probably the event that should have been expected
after the dissolution of the USSR and now needs to be played with cool head and skilled hands. There is some
small space for
maneuvering even if this dismal colonial situation too. The task of extracting maximum benefits from this status and minimizing the damage is difficult,
but not impossible. But this needs talented politicians and cooperation of different political parties, who areas in which Ukraine currently is
severely lacking.
NOTE: In Eastern Europe there are very few regions
which does not changed hands several times in the last, say, 300 years. And as balance of power after the dissolution of the USSR
dramatically changed in favor of EU it is natural that it started absorbing the countries of
the former Warsaw block and some former Soviet republics. For example, Baltic countries are only nominally sovereign and are by-and-large ruled from
what is called "Brussels Obcom." With the current wave of neo-colonialism I would say that this EU might well
continue this process with Moldavia, Belorussia, and Armenia, as another possible "associated states" after Ukraine (Georgia actually
is already in EU orbit). Getting EU into "stans" might provoke a strong reaction from China, so EU probably with tread more
carefully in this space.
The Minister of foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavlo Klimkin tried to advertise in press the
fact that he that wrote the resignation which will send to the Verkhovna Rada on May 20 -- the
day of inauguration of the newly elected President of the country Vladimir Zelensky.
The Deputy of the Ukrainian Parliament Evgeny Balitsky told in an exclusive interview to
Federal News Agency that everything that occurs in his homeland recently, reminds flight of
rats from the ship.
"Now all run up, the administration leaves all systems, they, figuratively speaking, take
away even the coffee, slippers and caps from the bar, -- he noted. -- We have never seen such a humiliating
transition of power. It all. We saw similar episodes after (Viktor) Yushchenko and (Viktor)
Yanukovich, but never this behaviour was such rabid, widespread and ugly"
Such, as the representative of party "Oppositional block" called it, "swine behaviour", you know,
"digging out dirt from under nails in public" never occurred before. He noted that the current President of Ukraine
Petro Poroshenko, leaving, appointed new people to several departments.
"He does, you know, things that are not what the President, but any decent man would never
do because this is just too ugly to do - complained the MP. -- It make sense to go beautifully,
humanly, with dignity! And today that rats like Klimkin make statements how much they have done
for people. For us, it's a lost five years. Just lost."
The deputy stressed that Klimkin hardly ashamed of their work. "These people don't know the
word 'shame,' -- Balitsky said. -- These are people who for five years in the country destroyed
the relations with all neighbors. I'm talking not only about the Russian Federation! We
quarreled with Hungarians, Poles, Belarusians! We now have a conflict even with the Americans.
You see, how much harm this gang of American henchmen, have done to our poor country!"
The Deputy of Rada explained that "all these people" -- are corrupt businessmen who used
Ukraine to earn quick money.
"They invested money in the Maidan and came to power to get a royal return on the investment, -- Balitsky added.
-- For these people the word "shame" does not exists, this is a completely foreign concept. And they are now leaving, are trying
figuratively speaking to take the last pair of Slippers from their rooms, everything from the bar, grab from the buffet a couple
of sandwiches, as Zelensky said."
The MP concluded that this is a very humiliating process for all Ukrainians, and he is
personally ashamed of the power and statehood of his country.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko by his decree released Oleksandr Turchynov from the
post of Secretary of the national security and defense Council of Ukraine. This was reported on
the website of the presidential administration.
"To release Turchynov Alexander Valentinovich from the post of Secretary of the national
security and defense Council of Ukraine," the decree says.
Turchynov resigned the day before. The reason for dismissal - termination of powers of the
acting President of Ukraine who appointed Turchinov.
Secretary of the NSDC Turchinov has been working since December 2014. Prior to that, he
worked in the Verkhovna Rada, in the spring of the same year, acting President of Ukraine.
"... Almost as quickly as Chalupa's efforts attracted the attention of the Ukrainian Embassy and Democrats, she also found herself the subject of some unwanted attention from overseas. ..."
"... Chalupa, though, indicated in an email that was later hacked and released by WikiLeaks that the Open World Leadership Center "put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort." ..."
"... In the email, which was sent in early May to then-DNC communications director Luis Miranda, Chalupa noted that she had extended an invitation to the Library of Congress forum to veteran Washington investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Two days before the event, he had published a story for Yahoo News revealing the unraveling of a $26 million deal between Manafort and a Russian oligarch related to a telecommunications venture in Ukraine. And Chalupa wrote in the email she'd been "working with for the past few weeks" with Isikoff "and connected him to the Ukrainians" at the event. ..."
"... A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party's political department, not a researcher. She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its dossiers on the subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books on Trump and his ties to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms. ..."
Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked
in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant,
for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records,
though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate
Democrats around the world.
A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine,
Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching
Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych's political party.
In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative
journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle
centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign
began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well.
She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Chalupa said. In January 2016 -- months
before Manafort had taken any role in Trump's campaign -- Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign,
"I felt there was a Russia connection," Chalupa recalled. "And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to be involved
in this election," said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was "Putin's
political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections."
he said she shared her concern with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar,
during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy. According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very
much on his radar, but that he wasn't particularly concerned about the operative's ties to Trump since he didn't believe Trump stood
much of a chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency.
That was not an uncommon view at the time, and, perhaps as a result, Trump's ties to Russia -- let alone Manafort's -- were not
the subject of much attention.
That all started to change just four days after Chalupa's meeting at the embassy, when it was reported that Trump had in fact hired
Manafort, suggesting that Chalupa may have been on to something. She quickly found herself in high demand. The day after Manafort's
hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC's communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative
familiar with the situation.
A former DNC staffer described the exchange as an "informal conversation," saying "'briefing' makes it sound way too formal,"
and adding, "We were not directing or driving her work on this." Yet, the former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the
situation agreed that with the DNC's encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which Poroshenko
might discuss Manafort's ties to Yanukovych.
While the embassy declined that request, officials there became "helpful" in Chalupa's efforts, she said, explaining that she
traded information and leads with them. "If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to
follow up with." But she stressed, "There were no documents given, nothing like that."
Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right
directions. She added, though, "they were being very protective and not speaking to the press as much as they should have. I think
they were being careful because their situation was that they had to be very, very careful because they could not pick sides. It's
a political issue, and they didn't want to get involved politically because they couldn't."
Shulyar vehemently denied working with reporters or with Chalupa on anything related to Trump or Manafort, explaining "we were
stormed by many reporters to comment on this subject, but our clear and adamant position was not to give any comment [and] not to
interfere into the campaign affairs."
Both Shulyar and Chalupa said the purpose of their initial meeting was to organize a June reception at the embassy to promote
Ukraine. According to the embassy's website, the event highlighted female Ukrainian leaders, featuring speeches by Ukrainian parliamentarian
Hanna Hopko, who discussed "Ukraine's fight against the Russian aggression in Donbas," and longtime Hillary Clinton confidante Melanne
Verveer, who worked for Clinton in the State Department and was a vocal surrogate during the presidential campaign.
Shulyar said her work with Chalupa "didn't involve the campaign," and she specifically stressed that "We have never worked to
research and disseminate damaging information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort."
But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help
Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. "Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people
who did, then I should contact Chalupa," recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. "They were coordinating
an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa," he said, adding "Oksana was keeping it all quiet,"
but "the embassy worked very closely with" Chalupa.
In fact, sources familiar with the effort say that Shulyar specifically called Telizhenko into a meeting with Chalupa to provide
an update on an American media outlet's ongoing investigation into Manafort.
Telizhenko recalled that Chalupa told him and Shulyar that, "If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump's involvement
with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September."
Chalupa confirmed that, a week after Manafort's hiring was announced, she discussed the possibility of a congressional investigation
with a foreign policy legislative assistant in the office of Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian
Caucus. But, Chalupa said, "It didn't go anywhere."
Asked about the effort, the Kaptur legislative assistant called it a "touchy subject" in an internal email to colleagues that
was accidentally forwarded to Politico.
Kaptur's office later emailed an official statement explaining that the lawmaker is backing a bill to create an independent commission
to investigate "possible outside interference in our elections." The office added "at this time, the evidence related to this matter
points to Russia, but Congresswoman Kaptur is concerned with any evidence of foreign entities interfering in our elections."
•••
Almost as quickly as Chalupa's efforts attracted the attention of the Ukrainian Embassy and Democrats, she also found herself
the subject of some unwanted attention from overseas.
Within a few weeks of her initial meeting at the embassy with Shulyar and Chaly, Chalupa on April 20 received the first of what
became a series of messages from the administrators of her private Yahoo email account, warning her that "state-sponsored actors"
were trying to hack into her emails.
She kept up her crusade, appearing on a panel a week after the initial hacking message to discuss her research on Manafort with
a group of Ukrainian investigative journalists gathered at the Library of Congress for a program sponsored by a U.S. congressional
agency called the Open World Leadership Center.
Center spokeswoman Maura Shelden stressed that her group is nonpartisan and ensures "that our delegations hear from both sides
of the aisle, receiving bipartisan information." She said the Ukrainian journalists in subsequent days met with Republican officials
in North Carolina and elsewhere. And she said that, before the Library of Congress event, "Open World's program manager for Ukraine
did contact Chalupa to advise her that Open World is a nonpartisan agency of the Congress."
Chalupa, though, indicated in an email that was later hacked and released by WikiLeaks that the Open World Leadership Center
"put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort."
In the email, which was sent in early May to then-DNC communications director Luis Miranda, Chalupa noted that she had extended
an invitation to the Library of Congress forum to veteran Washington investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Two days before the
event, he had published a story for Yahoo News revealing the unraveling of a $26 million deal between Manafort and a Russian oligarch
related to a telecommunications venture in Ukraine. And Chalupa wrote in the email she'd been "working with for the past few weeks"
with Isikoff "and connected him to the Ukrainians" at the event.
Isikoff, who accompanied Chalupa to a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy immediately after the Library of Congress event, declined
to comment.
Chalupa further indicated in her hacked May email to the DNC that she had additional sensitive information about Manafort that
she intended to share "offline" with Miranda and DNC research director Lauren Dillon, including "a big Trump component you and Lauren
need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on you should be aware of." Explaining that she didn't
feel comfortable sharing the intel over email, Chalupa attached a screenshot of a warning from Yahoo administrators about "state-sponsored"
hacking on her account, explaining, "Since I started digging into Manafort these messages have been a daily occurrence on my yahoo
account despite changing my password often."
Dillon and Miranda declined to comment.
A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party's political department, not a researcher.
She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its
dossiers on the subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books on Trump and his ties
to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms.
Nonetheless, Chalupa's hacked email reportedly escalated concerns among top party officials, hardening their conclusion that Russia
likely was behind the cyber intrusions with which the party was only then beginning to grapple.
Chalupa left the DNC after the Democratic convention in late July to focus fulltime on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia
. She said she provided off-the-record information and guidance to "a lot of journalists" working on stories related to Manafort
and Trump's Russia connections, despite what she described as escalating harassment.
About a month-and-a-half after Chalupa first started receiving hacking alerts, someone broke into her car outside the Northwest
Washington home where she lives with her husband and three young daughters, she said. They "rampaged it, basically, but didn't take
anything valuable -- left money, sunglasses, $1,200 worth of golf clubs," she said, explaining she didn't file a police report after
that incident because she didn't connect it to her research and the hacking.
But by the time a similar vehicle break-in occurred involving two family cars, she was convinced that it was a Russia-linked intimidation
campaign. The police report on the latter break-in noted that "both vehicles were unlocked by an unknown person and the interior
was ransacked, with papers and the garage openers scattered throughout the cars. Nothing was taken from the vehicles."
Then, early in the morning on another day, a woman "wearing white flowers in her hair" tried to break into her family's home at
1:30 a.m., Chalupa said. Shulyar told Chalupa that the mysterious incident bore some of the hallmarks of intimidation campaigns used
against foreigners in Russia, according to Chalupa.
"This is something that they do to U.S. diplomats, they do it to Ukrainians. Like, this is how they operate. They break into people's
homes. They harass people. They're theatrical about it," Chalupa said. "They must have seen when I was writing to the DNC staff,
outlining who Manafort was, pulling articles, saying why it was significant, and painting the bigger picture."
In a Yahoo News story naming Chalupa as one of 16 "ordinary people" who "shaped the 2016 election," Isikoff wrote that after Chalupa
left the DNC, FBI agents investigating the hacking questioned her and examined her laptop and smartphone.
Chalupa this month told Politico that, as her research and role in the election started becoming more public, she began receiving
death threats, along with continued alerts of state-sponsored hacking. But she said, "None of this has scared me off."
•••
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging
Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign -- and certainly for Manafort -- can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency -- and publicized by a parliamentarian -- appeared to show $12.7
million in cash payments that were earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president, Yanukovych.
The New York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers' existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were
"a focus" of an investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the FBI was pursuing an
overlapping inquiry.
Clinton's campaign seized on the story to advance Democrats' argument that Trump's campaign was closely linked to Russia. The
ledger represented "more troubling connections between Donald Trump's team and pro-Kremlin elements in Ukraine," Robby Mook, Clinton's
campaign manager, said in a statement. He demanded that Trump "disclose campaign chair Paul Manafort's and all other campaign employees'
and advisers' ties to Russian or pro-Kremlin entities, including whether any of Trump's employees or advisers are currently representing
and or being paid by them."
A former Ukrainian investigative journalist and current parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko, who was elected in 2014 as part
of Poroshenko's party, held a news conference to highlight the ledgers, and to urge Ukrainian and American law enforcement to aggressively
investigate Manafort.
"I believe and understand the basis of these payments are totally against the law -- we have the proof from these books," Leshchenko
said during the news conference, which attracted international media coverage. "If Mr. Manafort denies any allegations, I think he
has to be interrogated into this case and prove his position that he was not involved in any misconduct on the territory of Ukraine,"
Leshchenko added.
Manafort
denied receiving any off-books cash from Yanukovych's Party of Regions, and said that he had never been contacted about the ledger
by Ukrainian or American investigators, later telling POLITICO "I was just caught in the crossfire."
According to a
series of memos reportedly compiled for Trump's opponents by a former British intelligence agent, Yanukovych, in a secret meeting
with Putin on the day after the Times published its report, admitted that he had authorized "substantial kickback payments
to Manafort." But according to the report, which was
published Tuesday
by BuzzFeed but remains unverified. Yanukovych assured Putin "that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide
clear evidence of this" -- an alleged statement that seemed to implicitly question the authenticity of the ledger.
The scrutiny around the ledgers -- combined with that from
other stories about his
Ukraine
work -- proved too much, and he
stepped down from the
Trump campaign less than a week after the Times story.
At the time, Leshchenko suggested that his motivation was partly to undermine Trump. "For me, it was important to show not only
the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world," Leshchenko
told the Financial Times about two weeks after his news conference. The newspaper noted that Trump's candidacy had spurred "Kiev's
wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election,"
and the story quoted Leshchenko asserting that the majority of Ukraine's politicians are "on Hillary Clinton's side."
But by this month, Leshchenko was seeking to recast his motivation, telling Politico, "I didn't care who won the U.S. elections.
This was a decision for the American voters to decide." His goal in highlighting the ledgers, he said was "to raise these issues
on a political level and emphasize the importance of the investigation."
In a series of answers provided to Politico, a spokesman for Poroshenko distanced his administration from both Leshchenko's efforts
and those of the agency that reLeshchenko Leshchenko leased the ledgers, The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. It was created
in 2014 as a condition for Ukraine to receive aid from the U.S. and the European Union, and it signed an evidence-sharing agreement
with the FBI in late June -- less than a month and a half before it released the ledgers.
The bureau is "fully independent," the Poroshenko spokesman said, adding that when it came to the presidential administration
there was "no targeted action against Manafort." He added "as to Serhiy Leshchenko, he positions himself as a representative of internal
opposition in the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko's faction, despite [the fact that] he belongs to the faction," the spokesman said, adding,
"it was about him personally who pushed [the anti-corruption bureau] to proceed with investigation on Manafort."
But an operative who has worked extensively in Ukraine, including as an adviser to Poroshenko, said it was highly unlikely that
either Leshchenko or the anti-corruption bureau would have pushed the issue without at least tacit approval from Poroshenko or his
closest allies.
"It was something that Poroshenko was probably aware of and could have stopped if he wanted to," said the operative.
And, almost immediately after Trump's stunning victory over Clinton, questions began mounting about the investigations into the
ledgers -- and the ledgers themselves.
An official with the anti-corruption bureau told a Ukrainian newspaper, "Mr. Manafort does not have a role in this case."
And, while the anti-corruption bureau told Politico late last month that a "general investigation [is] still ongoing" of the ledger,
it said Manafort is not a target of the investigation. "As he is not the Ukrainian citizen, [the anti-corruption bureau] by the law
couldn't investigate him personally," the bureau said in a statement.
Some Poroshenko critics have gone further, suggesting that the bureau is backing away from investigating because the ledgers might
have been doctored or even forged.
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a Ukrainian former diplomat who served as the country's head of security under Poroshenko but is now affiliated
with a leading opponent of Poroshenko, said it was fishy that "only one part of the black ledger appeared." He asked, "Where is the
handwriting analysis?" and said it was "crazy" to announce an investigation based on the ledgers. He met last month in Washington
with Trump allies, and said, "of course they all recognize that our [anti-corruption bureau] intervened in the presidential campaign."
And in an interview this week, Manafort, who re-emerged as an informal advisor to Trump after Election Day, suggested that the
ledgers were inauthentic and called their publication "a politically motivated false attack on me. My role as a paid consultant was
public. There was nothing off the books, but the way that this was presented tried to make it look shady."
He added that he felt particularly wronged by efforts to cast his work in Ukraine as pro-Russian, arguing "all my efforts were
focused on helping Ukraine move into Europe and the West." He specifically cited his work on denuclearizing the country and on the
European Union trade and political pact that Yanukovych spurned before fleeing to Russia. "In no case was I ever involved in anything
that would be contrary to U.S. interests," Manafort said.
Yet Russia seemed to come to the defense of Manafort and Trump last month, when a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry charged
that the Ukrainian government used the ledgers as a political weapon.
"Ukraine seriously complicated the work of Trump's election campaign headquarters by planting information according to which Paul
Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, allegedly accepted money from Ukrainian oligarchs," Maria Zakharova said at a news briefing,
according to a transcript of her remarks posted on the Foreign Ministry's website. "All of you have heard this remarkable story,"
she told assembled reporters.
•••
Beyond any efforts to sabotage Trump, Ukrainian officials didn't exactly extend a hand of friendship to the GOP nominee during
the campaign.
The ambassador, Chaly, penned an op-ed for The Hill, in which he chastised Trump for a confusing series of statements in which
the GOP candidate at one point expressed a willingness to consider recognizing Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian territory of
Crimea as legitimate. The op-ed made some in the embassy uneasy, sources said.
"That was like too close for comfort, even for them," said Chalupa. "That was something that was as risky as they were going to
be."
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk warned on Facebook that Trump had "challenged the very values of the free world."
Ukraine's minister of internal affairs, Arsen Avakov, piled on, trashing Trump on Twitter in July as a "clown" and asserting that
Trump is "an even bigger danger to the US than terrorism."
Avakov, in a Facebook post, lashed out at Trump for his confusing Crimea comments, calling the assessment the "diagnosis of a
dangerous misfit," according to a translated screenshot featured in one media report, though he later deleted the post. He called
Trump "dangerous for Ukraine and the US" and noted that Manafort worked with Yanukovych when the former Ukrainian leader "fled to
Russia through Crimea. Where would Manafort lead Trump?"
The Trump-Ukraine relationship grew even more fraught in September with reports that the GOP nominee had snubbed Poroshenko on
the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where the Ukrainian president tried to meet both major party candidates,
but scored only a meeting with Clinton.
Telizhenko, the former embassy staffer, said that, during the primaries, Chaly, the country's ambassador in Washington, had actually
instructed the embassy not to reach out to Trump's campaign, even as it was engaging with those of Clinton and Trump's leading GOP
rival, Ted Cruz.
"We had an order not to talk to the Trump team, because he was critical of Ukraine and the government and his critical position
on Crimea and the conflict," said Telizhenko. "I was yelled at when I proposed to talk to Trump," he said, adding, "The ambassador
said not to get involved -- Hillary is going to win."
This account was confirmed by Nalyvaichenko, the former diplomat and security chief now affiliated with a Poroshenko opponent,
who said, "The Ukrainian authorities closed all doors and windows -- this is from the Ukrainian side." He called the strategy "bad
and short-sighted."
Andriy Artemenko, a Ukrainian parliamentarian associated with a conservative opposition party, did meet with Trump's team during
the campaign and said he personally offered to set up similar meetings for Chaly but was rebuffed.
"It was clear that they were supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy," Artemenko said. "They did everything from organizing meetings
with the Clinton team, to publicly supporting her, to criticizing Trump. I think that they simply didn't meet because they thought
that Hillary would win."
Shulyar rejected the characterizations that the embassy had a ban on interacting with Trump, instead explaining that it "had different
diplomats assigned for dealing with different teams tailoring the content and messaging. So it was not an instruction to abstain
from the engagement but rather an internal discipline for diplomats not to get involved into a field she or he was not assigned to,
but where another colleague was involved."
And she pointed out that Chaly traveled to the GOP convention in Cleveland in late July and met with members of Trump's foreign
policy team "to highlight the importance of Ukraine and the support of it by the U.S."
Despite the outreach, Trump's campaign in Cleveland gutted a proposed amendment to the Republican Party platform that called for
the U.S. to provide "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian incursion, backers of the measure charged.
The outreach ramped up after Trump's victory. Shulyar pointed out that Poroshenko was among the first foreign leaders to call
to congratulate Trump. And she said that, since Election Day, Chaly has met with close Trump allies, including Sens. Jeff Sessions,
Trump's nominee for attorney general, and Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while the ambassador
accompanied Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Ukraine's vice prime minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration, to a round of Washington
meetings with Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), an early Trump backer, and Jim DeMint, president of The Heritage Foundation, which played
a prominent role in Trump's transition.
•••
Many Ukrainian officials and operatives and their American allies see Trump's inauguration this month as an existential threat
to the country, made worse, they admit, by the dissemination of the secret ledger, the antagonistic social media posts and the perception
that the embassy meddled against -- or at least shut out -- Trump.
"It's really bad. The [Poroshenko] administration right now is trying to re-coordinate communications," said Telizhenko, adding,
"The Trump organization doesn't want to talk to our administration at all."
During Nalyvaichenko's trip to Washington last month, he detected lingering ill will toward Ukraine from some, and lack of
interest from others, he recalled. "Ukraine is not on the top of the list, not even the middle," he said.
Poroshenko's allies are scrambling to figure out how to build a relationship with Trump, who is known for harboring and prosecuting
grudges for years.
A delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians allied with Poroshenko last month traveled to Washington partly to try to make inroads
with the Trump transition team, but they were unable to secure a meeting, according to a Washington foreign policy operative familiar
with the trip. And operatives in Washington and Kiev say that after the election, Poroshenko met in Kiev with top executives from
the Washington lobbying firm BGR -- including Ed Rogers and Lester Munson -- about how to navigate the Trump regime.
Weeks later, BGR reported to the Department of Justice that the government of Ukraine would pay the firm $50,000 a month to "provide
strategic public relations and government affairs counsel," including "outreach to U.S. government officials, non-government organizations,
members of the media and other individuals."
Firm spokesman Jeffrey Birnbaum suggested that "pro-Putin oligarchs" were already trying to sow doubts about BGR's work with Poroshenko.
While the firm maintains close relationships with GOP congressional leaders, several of its principals were dismissive or sharply
critical of Trump during the GOP primary, which could limit their effectiveness lobbying the new administration.
The Poroshenko regime's standing with Trump is considered so dire that the president's allies after the election actually reached
out to make amends with -- and even seek assistance from -- Manafort, according to two operatives familiar with Ukraine's efforts
to make inroads with Trump.
Meanwhile, Poroshenko's rivals are seeking to capitalize on his dicey relationship with Trump's team. Some are pressuring him
to replace Chaly, a close ally of Poroshenko's who is being blamed by critics in Kiev and Washington for implementing -- if not engineering
-- the country's anti-Trump efforts, according to Ukrainian and U.S. politicians and operatives interviewed for this story. They
say that several potential Poroshenko opponents have been through Washington since the election seeking audiences of their own with
Trump allies, though most have failed to do do so.
"None of the Ukrainians have any access to Trump -- they are all desperate to get it, and are willing to pay big for it," said
one American consultant whose company recently met in Washington with Yuriy Boyko, a former vice prime minister under Yanukovych.
Boyko, who like Yanukovych has a pro-Russian worldview, is considering a presidential campaign of his own, and his representatives
offered "to pay a shit-ton of money" to get access to Trump and his inaugural events, according to the consultant.
The consultant turned down the work, explaining, "It sounded shady, and we don't want to get in the middle of that kind of stuff."
Lindemann told the site kp.ru that personally saw letters of bodies of justice of the
self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk national republics (DNR and LNR) according to which 90% of
shells arrived to Donbass from the territory of Ukraine.
"The reports serve as the purest proof that Poroshenko did not want peace for Donbass," the
Deputy concluded.
He told that the Ukrainian army strongly damaged the bridge in the Village Lugansk. Now
through its destroyed spans are thrown wooden stairs, which have to pass civilians, including
the elderly, said Lindemann. According to the Deputy, the authorities can't repair the bridge,
as in this case the Ukrainian army will destroy it again. The politician called Kiev's position
on this issue terrible: the European countries were going to allocate money for repair of the
bridge, but the Ukrainian authorities didn't allow to make it.
Lindemann emphasized that the Tribunal for Poroshenko and his colleagues guilty of a
situation in Donbass, has to be fair. In world history, there were no cases when the current
President fell under the international court of justice with such accusations, so it can only
be possible after Poroshenko will resign the powers of the head of state in May, the Deputy
said.
The German politician called Poroshenko a military junta leader who stole resources from the
armed conflict for personal enrichment. Lindemann expressed the hope that with the coming to
power in Ukraine a new people, the confrontation in the Donbass will cease.
Vasyl Golovanov : ...We live with this President for 5 years. Whether you expected
such result and what, in your opinion, to expect from Vladimir Aleksandrovich.
Viktor Medvedchuk : Vasily, this result was expected. At least he was predictable,
because Poroshenko should not have become and did not become President. And the reason for this
is his policy, which our party has repeatedly spoken about. And not only our party, but
actually opposition forces which in the majority United in questions of criticism of mister
Poroshenko. And they talked about peace in the Donbass, and the cessation of hostilities,
talked about the tariff genocide, national radicalism, the impoverishment of millions of
citizens, criminal lawlessness, social injustice and many other circumstances that pointed to
what characterizes this regime Poroshenko, which for some reason they called "Euro-reformist",
which actually ruined the country in the economy, social sphere, in the crisis of the political
sphere.
And all this had to end, naturally, with Poroshenko's defeat. And this defeat took
place.
... ... ...
In 1991, when Kravchuk became President, he scored 61.6%. It was a record that was never
broken until actually here on April 21, 2019, when Zelensky won. And it is a great
responsibility, to a great deal. Indeed, our country will live with a new President, with a new
power, I hope, I am far from the idea that this power will remain. And what is happening today
- a new team is being formed - comes with the fact that Mr. Zelensky is preparing to take
office. I think she is facing very relevant challenges. The first was the resignation of the
Cabinet of Ministers. Because with incompetent, untrained professionally, populist government
of Mr. Groisman, actually is can be called the government of Mr. Yatsenyuk, the country is
unable to live any longer.
And if Zelensky, who received such massive support, does not change the team, which, of
course, what is expected of him, he will not be able to realize his election promises.
And therefore - this is the main task that must be performed. It's strategic. And that is
what stands before him now and will be for 5 years. It is necessary to justify the trust that
he received. To meet these expectations, and they are very high. Which means the requirements
will be too high. He must be aware of that.
Vasily Golovanov: We will talk about Vladimir Zelensky later. I would also like to
mention Pyotr Alekseevich. In your words, Poroshenko's complete failure is the people's
response to his Russophobic policy. In your opinion, what will Zelensky's policy be?
Viktor Medvedchuk: it Is difficult to talk about what Zelensky's policy will be, but
I do not think he will repeat the mistakes that Mr Poroshenko made. That is, Mr. Poroshenko,
especially in the last months of the election campaign, the last months of activity as
President, really elevated to the rank of the state policy of anti-Russian hysteria and caveman
level Russophobia. This is a fact. He built the whole campaign on that. And here is even his
slogan: "Army. Faith. Language" -- these words and these meanings for the country, for the
Ukrainian people, they are very important. But what he did with them his manipulation of people
psychology and his perversion of populism exceptional - they led to a backlash.
You will notice how Mr. Zelensky won, where he won the most votes. He scored them in the
East - 88%, in the South - 86%. Do you know how much he scored in the Luhansk region? 90%. Do
you know that Luhansk region has always been the most Russian-speaking region after Crimea in
all the years of independence? Tell me, why did it vote?
Vasily Golovanov : It concerns cities, in villages there are Ukrainian speakers too,
even in the Luhansk region.
Viktor Medvedchuk : The Question is different - their attitude. Of course, I am far
from believing that the votes he received are votes only for him, votes against Poroshenko in
the first place.
Vasily Golovanov : The Question of Peter Alekseevich and language is one of the
slogans of his election campaign. We remember: about two weeks before the election he was a
guest of "Freedom of speech" on ICTV, where he said to the question about the language:
"Actually, I am Russian-speaking".
Viktor Medvedchuk : Of course, we know that.
Vasily Golovanov : And how did it happen that the person who hangs out on all boards
- "Army. Faith. Language, " puts the emphasis on it, and it's one of the priorities of his
campaign, at some point... It's as if he confessed to a different faith...
Viktor Medvedchuk : How did it happen that he admitted this during the election
campaign just before the second round? Why would he do that? Perhaps he was beginning to
realize the strategic mistake he had made when he spoke of language.
Because are there any Ukrainians today who are against the fact that the status of Ukrainian
as the only state language is strengthened, developed and provides those opportunities in which
the Ukrainian language should be, first of all, competitive, attractive and have other
qualities that could allow it? No! But at the same time, we cannot ignore or discriminate
against the Russian language and the language of other national minorities.
Moreover, he would not have succeeded, because the Constitution in article 10 has the status
and part 3 of article 10 says that the territory of Ukraine guarantees the free development,
use and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities.
Why did he come, as you say, on Monday, before the second round, and told that he was
Russian-speaking? And who did not know that Mr. Poroshenko was Russian-speaking? Do you think
it is that, in different situations spoke in the Ukrainian language? I never spoke with him in
Ukrainian, only in Russian. Well, maybe it's not an indicator, but it means not just focus, not
just the attractiveness of a person, including in the use of language. This is a direct
indication that a person has it inside. Why are you ignoring this?
Yes, you must develop the Ukrainian language. You are the President of Ukraine, but you
should not allow disrespect, mockery and discrimination of other languages, including Russian.
And so this reaction is also a response to what he was doing. That's direct result of his
policies.
Mr. Zelensky, get right and do it! Then, if the Cabinet of Ministers does not listen to you
and sets its resolutions, and even more increases the cost of gas, the cost of utilities, block
its activities! Any decision of the Cabinet can be stopped, blocked and appealed to the
constitutional court for reasons of non-compliance with the Constitution! It's the President's
right! So do not talk about the fact that it is impossible!
And when we talk about reducing tariffs, you will study the structure of these tariffs. My
advice. Although, I do not advocate giving advice and this is not advice, and my vision. And
you ask about the pricing structure of utility tariffs, including the cost of gas. You'll see
that what's in there is props. And it's in the derivatives. About what, about what you said:
Rotterdam+... When this involves the cost of coal, and in parallel or, more precisely, directly
coal is electricity and is laid in tariffs. Dusseldorf + - the cost of gas. And it is laid in
the tariffs for gas, which means - for hot water and heat. And much more, where the derivative
is gas. That's all she wrote. No need to tell stories and send somewhere. It is necessary to
send to itself and as promised, to do so that it would be possible to improve life of our
people.
Vasily Golovanov: Then I also want to talk about gas and coal... If we make this
detour now, or pretend that we are not buying Russian gas, although we are buying Russian gas,
it is simply more expensive in Europe. Then why do we buy fuel? Why is our government so.
Viktor Medvedchuk: Because we buy Russian gas directly. In fact, look, I listened in
one of Your programs, in the "Ukrainian format" somewhere right after the second round, it
seems that you had a discussion, very interesting. Professionals told about it, but they do not
fully understand this scheme. I'm just saying it because I know it. But it said about Velky
kapushany. Look here - Russia, - Ukraine, but the Ukrainian border with Slovakia...That is, in
Europe, velki kapushany, where there is a so-called accounting station. What is done? What's
happening? Gas comes from the territory of Russia, comes to Ukraine - it is a gas
transportation system. It dissolves in this system and goes to different needs. We don't have a
line Russia - Europe on which there is the gas transit, which is operators, recipients and
consumers of Europeans.
No! He's spent here, but it automatically comes to this border and Wielkie Capuano should
count on the Ukrainian side, where they say the gas is out! There is 100 million cubic meters.
And the other counter, here, suggests that the gas came to Europe. So what did? You imagine the
Scam of this scheme. They closed this square. Moreover, this is not the worst thing... That's
when I listened to what was said in the "Ukrainian format", I thought, well, now... The person
who spoke, he, in principle, the professional. I thought he was gonna tell me what it was
about. And he says: "They there gas this drive. Maybe he doesn't even exist." No, not that.
They closed the circle. And this gas in one volume chases on this pipe. Why this is done? In
order to show on the counter that he went to Europe.
For example, his buyer, on paper, is a French operator, gas operator. It is the papers I
wrote - I got 100 million, because this counter is reflected and all - no complaints. And this
gas when came, it already here 100 million, and we already used it here, but bought allegedly
there. And then, when they say: here is the gas on the reverse. What reverse? What is the
reverse? If the gas goes in one direction, how can it go in the opposite direction? Think about
it! Well, gas goes to Europe, we put 89 billion there last year, the year before, left 94
billion there, it goes in one... How can you go, then stop, and go back? Or what? That is,
those who talk about it, just do not know, and those who "vtyuhivayut" us, trying to bend in
the understanding of all, to deceive. This is pure insanity.
It's not just a scheme. They also provide the price Dusseldorf+,1500 km. And these $42,
shoulder the logistics they put into the scheme. That is, in pricing - it's net earnings. Then
they are transferred into the rates and our people are paying. At attention. And so utility
costs are rising, because the cost of gas is growing.
Well I'm still not talking about fraud handled by the NAK "Naftogaz" and Ukrgazdobycha.
Because gas is produced, its cost there 2 700 - 2 900 UAH, up to a hundred dollars. And NAK
"Neftegaz" buys from ukrgasvydobuvannya it under 6 thousand. What is this 100 % profitability?
And where is it? In a poor, impoverished, economically underdeveloped country? 100%
profitability?
I can say: no, this is on the development! For development wells on production growth, as we
have said Groisman pathetic. It is as if he speaks out and says: "For 5 years we need to
increase production so that we do not buy anything." This, approximately, as you can say - it
is necessary to increase the retail space in the Vinnitsa market, here I understand. Here is
indeed for 5 years can be their increase in 2 times. But it is impossible to increase gas
production!
And where did you grow up in production? It produced 15.7 billion. In General, the country
produced 21 billion in 2014, and we have now produced 20.7 billion with private companies by
the end of 2018. So where is this increase in production? And where do you invest? What new
wells, new production? Groysman, who is talking about this, at least interested in this?
Vasily Golovanov: what does the message of the Russian Federation on the ban on the
entry of Russian oil and oil products into our country show us?
Viktor Medvedchuk: You put the question absolutely correctly. What does that mean? I,
Vasily, will expand your question, because the essence of the question is wider. We say that
Russia has imposed sanctions against Ukraine and banned the import of coal, petroleum products
and oil.
Well, about oil - this is a relative understanding, because oil from Russia has not been
supplied since 2007. And for this purpose there were the reasons in which mister Yanukovych and
many others is guilty. We will not talk about this now, but oil products and coal are another
issue. Now, this is a response. After all, what is the economic problem between Russia and
Ukraine? It consists in the fact that Ukraine at some stage joined the sanctions of the
European Union, and Russia introduced counter-sanctions against Ukraine.
Even earlier, we entered the free trade zone with the EU, thereby cutting off the path of
interaction and cooperation within the CIS zone and trade relations with Russia. All of this
has led to the complex that has existed in recent years. When we lose 7 billion export
potential of our products and services in the markets of the Russian Federation.
Now that we are there is limited, what caused such reaction of Russia. They took and banned
what is vital. We are an energy-dependent state. I can say that we depend on two States - on
Russia and Belarus, almost equally.
TRUMP: Well, I think it's incredible when you hear it. These are great reporters, all three,
and when you have them on your trail, that's a problem. These are people that should be getting
Pulitzers, not the ones that got the Pulitzers that got everything wrong.
If you listen to them, they got everything wrong. Go back and read some of their early and
mid articles. They didn't have a clue what was going on and they win Pulitzer Prizes. These are
the ones that should be winning.
It sounds like big stuff. It sounds very interesting with Ukraine. I just spoke to the new
president a little while ago, two days ago, and congratulated him on an incredible race.
Incredible run. A big surprise victory. That's 75 percent of the vote.
But that sounds like big, big stuff. I'm not surprised.
HANNITY: Mr. President, Ukraine is offering this evidence to the United States. Would you
like the United States -- with all this talk about collusion, they are saying they included on
behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016. Does America need to see that information in
spite of all of the attacks against you on collusion?
TRUMP: Well, I think we do. And, frankly, we have a great new attorney general who has done
an unbelievable job in a very short period of time. And he is very smart and tough and I would
certainly defer to him. I would imagine he would want to see this.
People have been saying this whole -- the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about
it actually for a long time. You know that, and I would certainly defer to the attorney
general.
And we'll see what he says about it. He calls them straight. That's one thing I can tell
you.
"... If Zelenskii sees himself as the spark or leader of a wave of color revolutions in the former USSR, he will find the going with Russia tough, regardless of who the Russian president is ..."
"... Another black swan is that Ukraine now has a Jewish president. This is not evidence of the absence of anti-Semitism, which is robust among Ukraine's substantial number of ultranationalists and neofascists. Anti-semitism has been overshadowed by such radicals' laser-like focus of their xenophobia on ethnic Russians. ..."
"... The fact of a Jewish president -- in addition to the present PM being Jewish -- poses the risk of an uptick in anti-Semitism and in the appeal of the ultranationalist/neofascist message if Zelenskii fails to improve the economy, cut corruption, and/or appears to be 'caving in' to Russian or Western demands to the detriment of Ukraine's interests. ..."
"... The Jewish president will be a prime scapegoat in the case of such failure. These two dynamics – the inexperienced Zelenskii's possible failure and the potential political repercussions of his Jewish roots -- could tip the scales in favor of the ultranationalist wing of the Maidan-in-opposition and shape its calculus as to whether or not to undertake a coup, repeating what worked once in February 2014. ..."
... Zelenskii himself is likely to fight corruption, to be sure, but he is unlikely to challenge the ultranationalists,
neofascists, and their militarized combat organizations. ... Zelenskii is unlikely to offer concessions
that the DNR, LNR or Moscow will find acceptable for resolving the Donbass civil war.
Zelenskii's Victory and the Presidential Elections
Zelenskii's victory signified some decline in the acceptability overall in Ukraine of the
Galician/Western line backed by Poroshenko countrywide' fueled largely by a full rejection in
the east and south. Zelenskii made it a central point of his campaign to bring the ostracized
south and east back in to Ukraine and end the discrimination against the Russian language
fostered by Poroshenko legislation. Thus, Zelenskii won more than 80 percent of the vote in
each of the 11 more Russian-speaking regions in eastern and southern Ukraine and nearly 90
percent in several of them. Poroshenko took only nationalistic Lviv. In the rest of western
Ukraine won, in many of these regions only by a slim majority, but he won nevertheless. He even
took some 60 percent in Poroshenko's native Volhyn region (
https://elections.dekoder.org/ukraine/en?fbclid=IwAR36OdD3lrXL3EKKy9Zfdhk8k36Azgr6nNWLeYH3sYiYX9Ci51O86GVDhow
). To the extent Zelenskii received great support in the east, his election represents a desire
for an end of the slow-burning civil war in Donbass, of the east-west polarization inside the
country, and of alienation of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians as well as for a
normalization of Kiev's relations with Russia. Poroshenko's narrow but nevertheless defeat in
almost all the western regions reflects the Galicians disenchantment with corruption far more
than any significant rejection of Galician Ukrainian nationalism, ultrnationalism and
neofascism in the west.
... ... ...
The Nature of Maidan Ukraine's Hybrid Regime
However, the problem in Ukraine has often been less with its elections being unfree or
unfair ( https://gordonhahn.com/2015/06/21/one-day-in-the-life-of-ukrainian-democracy/
). Most often the problem has been with the rule of law, massive corruption, the theft of the
state by various powerful oligarchs, the lack of a cohesive national identity, and a deeply
polarized society. It is these aspects of Ukraine's authoritarian side, its 'stateness problem'
and political polarization and instability which are rarely understood in the West [see Gordon
M. Hahn, Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold War' (Jefferson:
McFarland, 2018)].
The absence of the rule of law in Maidan Ukraine was in full display on
the eve of the election as the siloviki chose sides in the vote. The SBU supported
Poroshenko by trumping up the noted fake news of hacked emails never shown but allegedly
showing that Zelenskii was Putin's Manchurian candidate ala 'Trump's collusion with the
Kremln.' Doing the bidding of Yiliya Tymoshenko's campaign, the MVD, headed by ultranationalist
Arsenii Avakov, uncovered Poroshenko vote buying schemes.
Similarly, the present and former
Ukrainian general prosecutors' charges of interference in corruption investigations by US Vice
President Joseph Biden and the present US ambassador to Ukraine underscored the point.
Also,
the release of former Maidan war hero Nadia Savchenko also demonstrated this quite clearly.
Either her arrest a little over a year ago for allegedly planning a massive terrorist attack
that would have left many Maidan Rada deputies and civilians dead was based on wholly trumped
up charges or some among the authorities are protecting an ultranationalist terrorist.
Ironically, three days after the presidential vote, a Kievan was arrested on the basis of
charges reminiscent of Russian law as many Maidan regime laws remind one of. Thus, the arrestee
was charged with spreading on the Internet calls for 'separatism' and the overthrow of the
Maidan regime that was established by an illegal and violent seizure of power (
https://vesti-ukr.com/kiev/334060-zhitelju-kievskoj-oblasti-hrozit-10-let-tjurmy-za-posty-v-sotssetjakh
).
A shocking level of official corruption has been characteristic of the Maidan regime's
oligarchical side and was demonstrated even more forcefully during the presidential campaign. Poroshenko's failure to divest himself or 'trustify'
his businesses established a fundamentally corrupt oligarch-presidency...
... ... ...
Historically
speaking, some in the west -- Stepan Bandera's OUN and UPA fascists -- were allied with the
Nazis in World War II; while the grandparents of many in the east fought for the Red Army
against Hitler's forces and after the war repressed the OUN and UPA Banderites. This translates
into a deep societal polarization with the west displaying considerable support for and
tolerance of Galician-Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and neofascism in domestic politics a
pro-Western foreign policy stance and the east supporting a more leftist, quasi-Soviet domestic
order and pro-Russian foreign orientation. This divided has been repeatedly reflected in
presidential and parliamentary elections throughout the history of post-Soviet Ukraine; hence
the political upheavals often surrounding national elections, in particular in the 2004 'Orange
revolution,' precursor to the 2013-14 Maidan revolt. This polarization has helped drive some of
the lack of rule of law, corruption, and stealing of the state as oligarchs scramble to protect
and expand their holdings on the background of deep political polarization between western
Ukraine's Galicia and southeastern Ukraine and regime shifts from western Ukrainian-dominated
governments to southeastern Ukrainian-dominated governments. All this explains and/or is
explained by the Maidan regime's birth event – its original sin -- the 20 February 2014
snipers' terrorist false flag massacre.
Weeks later, Zelenskii commented: "People whom came to power on blood are profiting on
blood" (www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/02/26/7207718/). It appears he understands the essence of
the Maidan regime's original sin. This poses a grave threat to some of the most powerful men in
the regime including the likely organizer of the snipers' plot, Rada Chairman Andriy Parubiy,
and perhaps Poroshenko himself, who appears to have played a role in helping smuggle the
snipers out of Maidan Square, though he appears to have opposed the shooting as a video from
the Maidan headquarters demonstrates.
This issue has the potential to bring the whole
Western-backed house of cards tumbling down.
Maidan v. the People
The magnitude and centrality
of the terrorist snipers' attack coverup for both the Maidan regime and the West's 'new cold
war' narrative portend a bitter and brutal battle to prevent an objective investigation. Thus,
the election of the politically unknown Zelenskii and the prospects of his inauguration and
rule as president have sparked a cold civil war in Kiev. The Maidan regime's forces about to be
relegated to the opposition, particularly after the victory of Zelenskii's new political party
(Servant of the People in September's Rada elections, are poised and are already moving to do
almost everything and perhaps everything to prevent his assuming the powers in Ukraine's
semi-presidential system. Poroshenko and his allies and temporary allies in the Rada have
undertaken several first steps against Zelenskii and his presidency. The most important may be
the a draft law that would institute changes in the balance of power in the political system in
favor of the prime minister and Rada against the president's office. Many of the proposed
changes would empower the prime minister to a level nearly equal to that of the president.
Thus, Article 35 of the new law would require the president to nominate a candidate for the
post of prime minister indicated by a coalition of factions in the Rada. In other words, the
Rada would nominate prime ministerial candidates, and the president would simply submit the
same name much like the king or queen of England plays a purely formal role in the formation of
the UK cabinet
[https://samopomich.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/project.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2QSRvRtMsWcWY-eR4ys0O6x0n_Doy21398U0VenM6J9jw21Hhy1E8sias
(from here on cited as 'Draft Law'), p. 16].
Similarly, the president would be deprived by
Article 36 in the new law of the power to independently submit to the Rada candidates for
nomination to the posts of defense minister and foreign minister, the candidate nomination of
which would have to be agreed upon before submission to the Rada again by a coalition of
deputies' factions ( Draft law, pp. 16-17) . These clauses in the new law appear to be a direct
violation of the Ukrainian Constitution's Article 106, which gives the President the
unrestricted power to make such nominations.
The Rada is also boosted by the draft law's
Article 85.1, which stipulates that in the event of the president's removal from office under
an impeachment process the Rada's chair will execute the office of the presidency (Draft law,
p. 42). This violates the Ukrainian Constitution's Article 112, which gives the role of acting
president in such a case to the PM. At the same time, the PM would receive a series of new
powers in the draft law. Article 39.3 of the draft law stipulates that the president "shall
hold mandatory consultations with the Prime Minister regarding the formation of the personnel
of the National Security and Defense Council" (SNBO), and Article 39.4 allows the Prime
Minister to "initiate a decision before the President on formation of the personnel" of the
SNBO and make changes to it (Draft law, p. 18).
Acting or temporary holders of the offices of
Defense Minister, Foreign Minister, SBU chairman, and National Bank head are to be nominated by
the PM under certain circumstances (Articles 30.4, 30.5, 40.6, and 42.5, respectively, Draft
law, pp. 16-17, 19, and 20, respectively). Also, under the draft law the PM would also receive
the new right to be consulted by the president in cases where two-thirds of a regional
parliament has voted 'no confidence' in the region's administration head, which allows the
president to dismiss him (Article 49. 3, Draft law, p. 24).
Although the President would retain
the power to submit nominations to the posts of Prosecutor General and SBU chair, there is no
mention of his power to appoint and dismiss regional prosecutors and SBU chiefs. The new law
also appears to deprive the Ukrainian President of his present power to appoint the membership
of the National Commission for Implementation of Regulation of Energy and Housing Services
(NKREKU), the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), and other regulators. Also,
the president would be barred from creating any state administrative bodies such as a
presidential apparatus or chancellery with powers anything more than advisory.
Thus under the
new law the office of the president is deprived of its most important power -- appointment of
the PM -- which now belongs to the majority in the Rada.
Thus, this new law on the presidency
if adopted by the Rada and signed by Poroshenko as he leaves office would effectively transform
Ukraine's semi-presidential system into a parliamentary republic with a powerful PM, whose
authority rivals that of the President.
In and of itself this is not problematic and could even
be regarded as a step in the direction of greater democracy in the sense of strong republican
rule by a legislature of elected representatives of the people, it becomes anti-democratic and
a violation of the rule of law by dint of the facts that several of the law's statutes violate
the constitution. More importantly perhaps, the law violates the spirit of election by
abrogating the recently expressed will of the people who elected a candidate to a particular
office of the president of Ukraine as it existed on the day of the election, with all the
powers the constitution vests in that office.
The imminent 'Maidan-in-opposition' has
undertaken a series of other highly questionable measures to prepare to block or hamper his
presidency. When presidential candidate Hrytsenko criticized the draft law on the presidency
days after its posting on the site of the Galicia-based nationalist party 'Self-Help', led by
the mayor of Lviv (Lvov) Andriy Sadoviy, the Lviv branch of the SBU opened an investigation
against his wife's opinion polling company (www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2019/04/24/7213427/ and
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2019/04/24/7213432/
).
Although the delay is not prohibitive yet it risks preventing Zelenskii from calling new
Rada elections as soon as he assumes office as he has reportedly planned to do. Mid-term
elections cannot be called less than six months before the end of a Rada's convocation. The
present Rada's term ends in early November. The delay of the inauguration may also provide time
for investigative processes against Zelenskii to be completed and used to block his assumption
of office. Thus, three days after the election, the corrupt anti-corruption body, NABU, opened
an investigation int Zelenskii production company (
https://strana.ua/news/198188-nabu-nachalo-rassledovanie-po-kompanii-zelenskoho-iz-za-vozmozhnoj-rastraty-sredstv-hoskino-sytnik.html
).
The new draconian language law adopted by the Rada four days after the voting excludes from
civil service those not fluent in Ukrainian. Zelenskii is not fluent in Ukrainian, and
Poroshenko has vowed to sigh the law; one he himself helped draft and then submitted to the
Rada before the election. Tentative Conclusions and Some Black Swans The Ukraine is on the edge
of a constitutional crisis.
The country remains badly divided between the newly elected and at
present popular president and his support base in the east and south, on the one hand, and Maidan's outgoing president, government and Rada with its support base largely in the west. As
at the beginning of the Maidan protests in fall 2013, there are many Ukrainians who want
positive democratic change. Unfortunately, they are countered by a powerful
oligachic-ultranationalist coalition that has been stealing the state, dividing Ukrainians
along regional, ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines in order to stay in power, and is about
to be relegated to the position of the Maidan-in-opposition.
For now, Zelenskii is the new
Yanukovych minus the corruption and pro-Russian inclinations. His positive image with the
voters can be destroyed with new framing that can come with the ravaging of time in office as
the elan of the victory in the presidential election fades and by effective
Maidan-in-opposition propaganda. With Rada elections set for September, the first five-six
months of Zelenskii's presidency -- should Poroshenko and the Rada radicals allow it to
commence -- will be bogged down in a bitter power struggle that can easily spin out of control.
There is good reason to believe that the Rada leadership, the siloviki , and the
ultranationalists and neofascists in Ukraine's frequently uncivil society will be willing to
repeat a use of violence of February 2014 in order to preserve their power and avoid the risk
of Zelenskii investigations into their corruption and the Maidan's original sin of that
February 2014 snipers' terrorist attack. Zelenskii may very well forego a serious investigation
of the Maidan terrorist attack and a crackdown on the illegal armed formations and activity of
ultranationalists and neofascists like the National Corps and C14. A bridge too far for any
Ukrainian leader, given the weak state and powerful extremist element on the streets.
There are black swans on the horizon. One is Vladimir Putin. He 'welcomed' Zelenskii by
issuing a decree easing requirements for immigration to Russia and the receipt of Russian
passports and pension payments for residents in civil war-torn region of the separatist DNR and
LNR. In this way, he seemed to remind Zelenskii of Russia's now limited, albeit, direct
military presence in the war zone. He further signaled his intent to run a hard bargain by
refusing to congratulate Zelenskii on his presidential election victory unlike in 2014 when
Putin congratulated Poroshenko.
If Zelenskii sees himself as the spark or leader of a wave of color revolutions in the
former USSR, he will find the going with Russia tough, regardless of who the Russian president
is. Russians fear both revolution and foreign interference far more than they do Putin. More
importantly for Ukraine, such a stance will make a resolution of the Donbass conflict impossible.
Another black swan is that Ukraine now has a Jewish president. This is not evidence of the
absence of anti-Semitism, which is robust among Ukraine's substantial number of
ultranationalists and neofascists. Anti-semitism has been overshadowed by such radicals'
laser-like focus of their xenophobia on ethnic Russians.
The fact of a Jewish president -- in
addition to the present PM being Jewish -- poses the risk of an uptick in anti-Semitism and in
the appeal of the ultranationalist/neofascist message if Zelenskii fails to improve the
economy, cut corruption, and/or appears to be 'caving in' to Russian or Western demands to the
detriment of Ukraine's interests.
The Jewish president will be a prime scapegoat in the case of
such failure. These two dynamics – the inexperienced Zelenskii's possible failure and the
potential political repercussions of his Jewish roots -- could tip the scales in favor of the
ultranationalist wing of the Maidan-in-opposition and shape its calculus as to whether or not
to undertake a coup, repeating what worked once in February 2014.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is a Senior Researcher at the
Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group, San Jose, California,
www.cetisresearch.org ; an expert
analyst at Corr Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com ; and an analyst at Geostrategic
Forecasting Corporation (Chicago), www.geostrategicforecasting.com .
Dr. Hahn is the author of the four books, most recently Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia,
the West, and the 'New Cold War . Previously, he has authored three well-received books:
The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond
(McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and
Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet
Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous
think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian
language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
This distant relative on Nikita Krushchev is a despicable and clueless neocon. She does not even understand that under
Poroshenko the standard of living of population dropped more then twice and changes for heating role more then 5 times.
Notable quotes:
"... Zelensky is far from the first charismatic non-politician to win political power in recent years. The most obvious example is the real-estate developer and reality-TV showman Donald Trump. ..."
"... Most Ukrainians now support radical changes to economic, social, and foreign policy. ..."
Ukraine Sends in the Clown Apr 30, 2019
Nina L. Khrushcheva Most Ukrainian voters
arguably know that the comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, whose only claim to fame up to now was playing a teacher-turned-president in
a popular TV series, will not be the real-life president of their dreams. So why did nearly three-quarters of them back him?
KYIV – In the 2000s, The West Wing was everybody's favorite television show about an aspirational US administration – one
that fought terrorism without waging war on an entire region or religion, refused to trample on the rule of law, and generally made
decisions that were in the country's best interest. Many wished the show's calm and collected fictional president, played by Martin
Sheen, could replace America's cowboy president, George W. Bush, and his war-mongering sidekick, Dick Cheney.
In a sense, that is exactly what is happening now in Ukraine. The comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, whose only claim to fame up to
now was playing a teacher-turned-president in the popular TV series Servant of the People , won the presidency in a landslide
earlier this month. But, far from the fantasy of an idealized president, this is yet another example of a distorted reality – all
too familiar to Ukrainians – in which characters, not leaders, define politics.
Zelensky is far from the first charismatic non-politician to win political power in recent years. The most obvious example is
the real-estate developer and reality-TV showman Donald Trump. But in Austria, Hungary, Italy, Russia, and elsewhere, characters
have also used populist rhetoric to appeal to ordinary people who feel ignored by the elites. Another comedian, Beppe Grillo, co-founded
Italy's Five Star Movement, which is now the senior government party, though he stepped aside in January 2018, weeks before the election
that brought his creation to power.
There are nuances to this trend. After Trump won the 2016 presidential election in the United States, I
recalled Brave New World , in which Aldous Huxley conjured a future in which humanity had been destroyed by ignorance
and lust for mindless entertainment. Trump, feasting on burgers as he binge-watches Fox News stories about himself, embodies this
disposition.
Whereas a combination of too much amusement and too little knowledge contributed to Americans' choice of Trump, Ukrainians were
reacting to politicians' betrayal of the ideals of the 2013-14 Maidan Square protests, which sought to get Ukraine out from underneath
Russia's thumb. Chief among the turncoats was President Petro Poroshenko, a Maidan hero who ended up as a manifestation of the old
oligarchic system. Most Ukrainians now support radical
changes to economic, social, and foreign policy.
Thus, with nothing but an appealing TV persona, Zelensky was able to convince voters that his inexperience would be a better bet
than another term of Poroshenko's corrupt leadership. Despite having no political team or discernable policy platform, he won 73%
of the vote – a share normally attained by authoritarians
who stifle their opponents and stuff ballot boxes.
... ... ...
Another Ukrainian friend, a middle-aged scientist, observed that Zelensky's most direct antecedent may be Andriy Danylko – Ukraine's
best-known entertainer, a musical comedian who performs in drag under the stage name Verka Serduchka. In 2007, Danylko tried, unsuccessfully,
to form his own political party.
According to this friend, Ukrainians' embrace of Zelensky was driven by the same revolutionary urge that fueled the protests in
2004 and 2013-14. While the pro-Western Tymoshenko would have delivered the change that Ukrainians want, he explained, this year
voters wanted even more to reject the existing system entirely. The fact that Trump is presiding over a booming US economy only strengthened
their willingness to gamble on a TV character.
But even Zelensky may not be the rebellious choice he seems to be. Some have questioned his relationships with oligarchs – in
particular Igor Kolomoisky, the owner of the TV channel that broadcasts his show. Many suggest that Kolomoisky effectively bought
the election so that he himself could rule Ukraine from behind the scenes....
... ... ...
Ukraine is a symptom, not a specimen. In a world that increasingly resembles Huxley's dystopia...
"... Deputy Chief Anton Hrushetskiy reported findings of 2004 respondents to the question "Which of the following should the president do in the first 100 days?" ..."
"... The list is meaningfully desperate and vengeful against state officials: a touch under 40% wish a slash in utility rates; 35.5% demand a removal of immunity for lawmakers, judges and the president; 32.4% wish for an opening of investigations and a speeding up of current ones into corruption-related crimes and abuses; 23.3% hope for commencing talks with Russia; 18.4% demand a reduction of wages of top officials. All this stands to reason: Zelenskiy offers something others have not: a tabula rasa upon which voters can impose their vision. In contrast, Poroshenko, candy billionaire with an acid aftertaste, offered the usual cluttering: Army, language, faith. ..."
"... Poroshenko offered an ideal target: divisive, army hugging entho-nationalist, with an anti-Russian fixation ..."
"... In the words of head spokesperson at Zelinskiy's election headquarters, Dmitry Razumkov, "The return of the occupied territories of the Donbass and Crimea must proceed exclusively on Ukraine's terms. Russia, as always, is trying to turn everything on its head and do everything backwards – by holding elections first." ..."
"... The stage in Ukraine has been going to seed for some years, manuring away in decay and poverty, bleeding in the Donbass region and plundered by self-enriching elites. ..."
"... For one, parliamentary elections are due in October, leaving the virgin premier with six months of potential obstruction. Poroshenko, for his part, promises to be a vulture in the galley, awaiting any slipups: "I am leaving office, but I want to firmly underline that I am not leaving politics." ..."
Hope is often a devalued currency, but its vigorous circulation can be gathered in the
measurements of public opinion by the Kyiv-based International Institute of Sociology (KIIS)
conducted this month. Deputy Chief Anton Hrushetskiy reported
findings of 2004 respondents to the question "Which of the following should the president
do in the first 100 days?"
The list is meaningfully desperate and vengeful against state officials: a touch under 40%
wish a slash in utility rates; 35.5% demand a removal of immunity for lawmakers, judges and the
president; 32.4% wish for an opening of investigations and a speeding up of current ones into
corruption-related crimes and abuses; 23.3% hope for commencing talks with Russia; 18.4% demand
a reduction of wages of top officials. All this stands to reason: Zelenskiy offers something
others have not: a tabula rasa upon which voters can impose their vision. In contrast,
Poroshenko, candy billionaire with an acid aftertaste, offered the usual cluttering: Army,
language, faith.
The broom for cleaning is being readied. Remarks had been made, some floated from the
quarters of Poroshenko, that the new administration would include elements of the old regime.
Former Finance Minister and advisor to Zelenskiy, Oleksandr Danyliuk, was
adamant on Ukraine's ICTV this would not be the case: "Regarding the comment that Volodymyr
Zelenskiy's new team will include old staff of the Presidential Administration, the Cabinet of
Ministers I'd like to say this is absolutely not true, this is one of the fake news and
bogeyman stories that your [Petro Poroshenko's] headquarters is spreading."
Political regulars and strategists have brought out their calculators and have been left
wanting. Moscow, along with other readers of political entrails, did not see this victory in
the offing. Poroshenko offered an ideal target: divisive, army hugging entho-nationalist, with
an anti-Russian fixation. He could therefore be, over time, worn down, his country packaged as
resoundingly anti-Semitic, fascist and hateful of the Soviet Union's exploits against Nazi
Germany.
Preference would have been for Yuriy Boyko, backed by the pro-Russian Viktor Medvedchuk.
The results did give their party 16% of the vote, making them second behind Zelenskiy's Servant
of the People, which received 26%. Not quite happy days, but perhaps less anxious ones.
From what can be gathered from the new president, some measure of rapprochement towards
their fraternal, giant neighbour might be in the offing, even if accompanied by what he terms
"a very powerful information war" to end the eastern conflict. Baby steps include lifting
restrictions on the use of Russian in the country, which would also entail an end to blocking
cultural exchanges and restrictions on accessing Russian social media networks. But to perceive
a total change on that front would be to wonder in the realms of fantasy. In the
words of head spokesperson at Zelinskiy's election headquarters, Dmitry Razumkov, "The
return of the occupied territories of the Donbass and Crimea must proceed exclusively on
Ukraine's terms. Russia, as always, is trying to turn everything on its head and do everything
backwards – by holding elections first."
The stage in Ukraine has been going to seed for some years, manuring away in decay and
poverty, bleeding in the Donbass region and plundered by self-enriching elites.
It took Zelenskiy to come to the fore by stepping off the screen and, quite literally, onto a live
stage. Whether he is capable of directing his own show, mastering his own brief, as it were,
will be a wonder.
For one, parliamentary elections are due in October, leaving the virgin
premier with six months of potential obstruction. Poroshenko, for his part, promises to be a
vulture in the galley, awaiting any slipups: "I am leaving office, but I want to firmly
underline that I am not leaving politics."
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at
RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com More articles by: Binoy Kampmark
Comedian Volodymyr Zelensky won the Ukrainian presidential elections Sunday with over 73
percent of the vote, in a massive repudiation of the incumbent president, Petro Poroshenko, and
the imperialist-orchestrated 2014 coup that brought him to power.
The "chocolate oligarch" Poroshenko became president in the wake of the operation in
February 2014 that toppled the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovich. Behind the coup
stood the major imperialist powers, above all the US and Germany. Basing themselves on sections
of the Ukrainian oligarchy and upper middle class, they mobilized fascist forces to install a
puppet regime that would be immediately subservient to their economic interests and war
preparations against Russia.
The bourgeois media hailed this fascist-led coup as a "democratic revolution." They were
joined by the middle-class left, including organizations such as the now-defunct International
Socialist Organization, which systematically worked to downplay the role played by the extreme
right and the US State Department in the creation of this "revolution."
The results of the 2014 coup for the working class have been nothing less than
catastrophic. In the past five years, the Poroshenko regime has stood at the forefront of the
imperialist military buildup against Russia. Ukrainian military spending has risen to a
staggering 6 percent of GDP.
The systematic ratcheting up of tensions with Russia by the Kiev regime, most recently with
its reckless provocation in the Azov Sea, have dramatically heightened the danger of a
full-scale war in Europe, which could quickly escalate into another world war. The ongoing
civil war in the Eastern Ukraine has cost the lives of over 13,000 people.
At the same time, the Ukrainian oligarchy has undertaken the most far-reaching attacks on
the already low living standards of the Ukrainian working class since the restoration of
capitalism. Almost one million Ukrainians are now living on the brink of starvation; tens of
thousands are left to freeze in the winter .
For the implementation of these policies, the Poroshenko regime mobilized fascist forces
such as the notorious Azov battalion. The glorification of the Nazi collaborators of the UPA
and the OUN-B, which massacred thousands of Jews, Poles and Ukrainians during World War II, has
become official state policy. References to communism and symbols of the Soviet Red Army, which
defeated the Nazis in the war, have been criminalized. Russian artists and works of art have
been banned from entering the country.
It is these conditions that propelled the vast majority of the Ukrainian population to
either abstain from the elections -- the voter turnout was just 62 percent -- or vote for
Zelensky. Poroshenko was unable to garner any significant support outside a small province in
West Ukraine and the district in Kiev where the country's super rich reside.
Yet whatever his appeals to antiwar sentiments and the enormous anger about social austerity
during the campaign, Zelensky will defend the interests of the Ukrainian oligarchy against the
working class, and work in alliance with imperialism.
Throughout the entire election campaign, Zelensky deliberately concealed his real political
and economic agenda. He instead relied almost exclusively on demagogic appeals to the
widespread hatred of Poroshenko. During the campaign, Zelensky made promises to enter direct
negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a peaceful settlement of the war in East
Ukraine. Yet in an interview published days before the election, he called Putin an "enemy" and
stated that it was "perfectly fine and great" that people considered the Nazi collaborator
Bandera as a "hero."
On April 12, Zelensky met with French President Emmanuel Macron. His team has hired a PR
firm in Washington to arrange meetings with officials of the Trump administration and
influential think tank figures. Zelensky also maintains close connections to the oligarch Ihor
Kolkomoisky, and now seeks to work together with Mikheil Saakashvili, the former president of
Georgia, who had been installed through a US-backed "color revolution."...
That completely wrong. You can't prevent the "march of history" even if you understand that it is directed against you.
The collapse of the USSR put in motion forces for the revolution of the results of WWII. And EuroMaydan like previously Baltic
states "Maidans" were the direct result of this dissolution and changed balance of power in Europe with EU now being the
dominant force and the USA dominant geopolitical force.
Still it is true that Ukraine EuroMaydan was the major Putin's defeat and the major victory of the US neocons in general and
Obama as the President in particular. It might well be that this was inevitable as the
trajectory of post-soviet republic is reliable move toward anti-Russian stance as a side effect
of obtaining the independence, but still this was a defeat. It was actually Yanukovich who encouraged and helped to organized and
finance far right forces and the Party in Ukraine. such a pro-Russian President as fame news media in the USA and GB like to
describe him
Poroshenko was the USA SOB. The USA allowed Zelensky to run for office, and allowed him to win. Zelensky is most probably
another USA SOB, although only time will tell. Comedians are usually are people with very high IQ who see the absurdity of
the current life in Ukraine and Poroshenko regime more clearly then others. The question is whether he will be allowed to do
something about it by the USA and EU, who control Ukraine both politically and financially. Biden story of dismissal of the
General Prosecutor of Ukraine (who tried to procedure the firm Biden son got money from ) with ease tells us something about the
nature of the current governance of Ukraine: is is not even a vassal state -- it is a colony.
Nuland success in pushing Ukrainian nationalists to arm uprising against Yanukovich (pissing EU which signed a treaty with
Yanukovich about holding elections, which he would certanly lose, a day before) also can be explained that at this point the USA
controlled vital centers of Ukrainian political power including intelligence agencies, several oligarchs (Poroshenko is one;
Timoshenko is another) and, especially, media. In Ukraine Western NGO have the status of diplomatic missions (with
corresponding immunity), so in no way such a country can be independent in any meaningful sense of this word.
But craziness, aggressiveness and recklessness of the US neocons, who now practice old imperial "might makes right" mode
of operation, gives the world some hope. They most probably will burn the USA geological power it acquired after the
dissolution of the USSR sooner then many expect. Like look at Bolton and Pompeo recent actions.
Notable quotes:
"... "For better or for worse, Putin has put an end to oligarch rule in Russia. Members of Putin's inner circle may be immensely rich, but they know to whom they owe their wealth. By imprisoning Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Putin sent a clear message to the all-powerful oligarchs that controlled Russia during former president Boris Yeltsin's time: stay out of politics." ..."
The main feeling about the entire topic of the Ukraine is one of total disgust, a
gradual and painful realization of the fact that our so-called "brothers" are brothers only
in the sense of the biblical Cain and the acceptance that there is nobody to talk to in
Kiev.
Russia likes to fashion itself as a "great power". A real great power should have been
able to insert itself in Ukrainian politics, regardless of any brotherly feelings – you
know, like US did.
As a Russian, I feel disgust at our leaders who squandered all of Russia's historic
influence on the Ukraine and gave up – poor neo-Soviet dinosaurs got completely
outmaneuvered.
@Kiza
Read
Try to understand
Read it again
Try to understand
Read it again
Try to understand
"For better or for worse, Putin has put an end to oligarch rule in Russia. Members of
Putin's inner circle may be immensely rich, but they know to whom they owe their wealth. By
imprisoning Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Putin sent a clear message to the all-powerful oligarchs
that controlled Russia during former president Boris Yeltsin's time: stay out of
politics."
Vladimir Golstein, professor of Slavic studies at Brown University. He was born in Moscow
and emigrated to the United States in 1979.
There are several crimes for which Poroshenko can be investigated and the USA can do nothing
about: one is Odessa massacre which supposedly was financed by Poroshenko. And Kolomysky was also
involved so it remain to be seen if this issues will be raised. Also the power of far right
forces in Ukraine is such that just raising this question might be equal to treason in the eyes
of Ukrainian nationalists. Because such powerful figures as Avakov and Parubiy were also
involved.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukrainians don’t give a shit about the Poro regime, and are perfectly willing to see it incarcerated. Nor do NatsBatalions really crave to be seen as puppets of DC, Kolo, or Israel, or Brussels. Your take is really simplistic here. ..."
The West is concerned with protecting Poro. Based on WSJ editorials, obsequious legations to
manlet Macron. None of that means jack shit.
DC will have to exercise real power to prevent a cleaning of the house. Word are words.
Rumors are rumors. Z. will act within his mandate and limits placed by rabid opposition. He
will act in keeping with rational need to not fight a US-backed congress, to get shot in the
streets for things too radical. Majority of Ukrainians will be happy to see Poro in prison. DC
can keep this from happening not with words, but with bullets. Strana can claim what it wants,
its claims are patent garbage.
Ukrainians don’t give a shit about the Poro regime, and are perfectly willing to
see it incarcerated. Nor do NatsBatalions really crave to be seen as puppets of DC, Kolo, or
Israel, or Brussels. Your take is really simplistic here.
... ... ...
Z. does have a party. The elections for the Ukranian Parliament is in September. His party,
as a matter of fact, is leading in opinion polls. https://ria.ru/20190416/1552741067.html And it is
doing so together with the party of Boiko.
Logically then, given enough time/space Z. should be in a position to pursue necessary
policies end of the year.
‘The truth is nobody knows what will happen next…There are just too many
parameters to consider, and the real balance of power following this election has not
manifested itself yet’, as The Saker forebodingly warns. The pattern of history
suggests the continent is heading for another world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
The course of events in Europe and globally predict things will only get worse. Like The
Saker, ‘I also very much hope that I am wrong.’
"... Finally, there is Vladimir Groisman, the current prime minister who has kept a very low profile, ..."
"... He might make a much more effective Ukrainian Gauleiter for the Empire than either Poroshenko or Zelenskii. ..."
"... And let's not forget Avakov and Parubii, who are both soaked in innocent blood, and who will try to hold on to their considerable power by using the various Nazi death-squads under their control. ..."
"... there is still the formidable (and relatively popular) Iulia Timoshenko whose political ambitions need to be kept in check. Thus, Poroshenko with his immense wealth and his connections can still be a useful tool for the Empire's control of the Ukraine. ..."
"... The western calculus might also be wrong: for one thing, Zelenskii cannot deliver anything meaningful to the Ukrainian people, most definitely not prosperity or honesty. Pretty soon the Ukrainian people will wake up to realize that when they elected the "new face" of Zelenskii, they ended up with the "not new" face of Kolomoiskii and everything that infamous name entails. ..."
"... Poroshenko's power base is very rapidly eroding because nobody wants to go down with him. I tend to believe that Poroshenko has outlived his usefulness for the AngloZionists because he became an overnight political corpse. But this is the Ukraine, so never say never. ..."
"... Russians have been extremely cautious, and nobody seems to harbor any illusions about Zelenskii. In fact, just a day after his election Zelenskii is already making all sorts of anti-Russian statements. ..."
"... Slap further economic sanctions on the Ukraine (Russia has just banned the export of energy sources to the Ukraine – finally and at last!). ..."
"... The truth is that nobody knows what will happen next, not even Kolomoiskii or Zelenskii himself. There are just too many parameters to consider, and the real balance of power following this election has not manifested itself yet. As for the true aspirations and hopes of the people of the Ukraine, they were utterly ignored: Poroshenko will be replaced by Kolomoiskii, wearing the mask of Zelenskii. Hardly a reason to rejoice ..."
"... But will Zelenskii turn out to be any better? I very much doubt it, even though I also very much hope that I am wrong. ..."
As everybody predicted, Poroshenko completely lost the election. As I wrote in my previous column, this is both amazing (considering
Poro’s immense and extensive resources and the fact that his opponent was, literally, a clown (ok, a comic if you prefer). His defeat
was also so predictable as to be almost inevitable: not only is the man genuinely hated all over the Ukraine (except for the Nazi
crackpots of the Lvov region), but he made fatal blunders which made him even more detestable than usual.
Now one could sympathize with Poroshenko: not only did this “Putin the boogeyman” appear to work fantastically well with the main
sponsors of the Ukronazi coup and with the legacy Ziomedia, but nobody dared to tell Poroshenko that most Ukrainians were not buying
that nonsense at all. The suggestion that all the other candidates are Putin agents is no less ridiculous. The thin veneer of deniability
Poroshenko had devised (the poster was not put up by the official Poroshenko campaign but by “volunteers”) failed, everybody immediately
saw through it all, and this resulted in Poro’s first big campaign faceplant.
Again, this was not officially Poroshenko’s campaign which made this video, but everybody saw through this one too. The quasi-open
threat to murder Zelenskii was received with horror in the Ukraine, and this PR-disaster was Poro’s second faceplant.
Then the poor man “lost it.” I won’t list all the stupid and ridiculous things the man said and did, but I will say that his performance
at the much-anticipated debate in the stadium was a disaster too.
The writing had been on the wall for a while now, and this is why the two candidates were summoned to speak to their masters (face
to face in Germany and France, by phone with Mr. MAGA) and they were told a few things:
Poroshenko was told in no uncertain terms that he could not trigger a war, organize a last-minute false flag, murder Zelenskii
or engage in any other “creative campaign methods.”
The western calculus is simple: try to keep Poroshenko alive (figuratively and politically) and to see how much of the Rada he
can keep. Furthermore, since Zelenskii is extremely weak (he has no personal power base of any kind), Kolomoiskii will have him do
exactly as he is told and Kolomoiskii can easily be told to behave by the Empire.
Finally, there is Vladimir Groisman, the current prime minister who has kept a very low profile, who does NOT have blood
on his hands (at least when compared to thugs like Turchinov or Avakov) and who has not made any move which would blacklist him with
the Kremlin. Groisman is also a Jew (Israel and the Ukraine are now the two countries on the planet in which both the President and
the Prime-Minister are Jews; ironic considering the historical lovefest between Jews and Ukrainian nationalists ). He might make
a much more effective Ukrainian Gauleiter for the Empire than either Poroshenko or Zelenskii. For the time being, Goisman
has already ditched Poroshenko's party and is creating his own.
And let's not forget Avakov and Parubii, who are both soaked in innocent blood, and who will try to hold on to their considerable
power by using the various Nazi death-squads under their control. Finally, there is still the formidable (and relatively
popular) Iulia Timoshenko whose political ambitions need to be kept in check. Thus, Poroshenko with his immense wealth and his connections
can still be a useful tool for the Empire's control of the Ukraine.
The western calculus might also be wrong: for one thing, Zelenskii cannot deliver anything meaningful to the Ukrainian
people, most definitely not prosperity or honesty. Pretty soon the Ukrainian people will wake up to realize that when they elected
the "new face" of Zelenskii, they ended up with the "not new" face of Kolomoiskii and everything that infamous name entails.
Zelenskii might not have another option than to jail Poroshenko, which he semi-promised to do during the stadium debate. Except
that now Zelenskii is saying that he will consult with Poroshenko and might even use him in some official capacity. Yes, campaign
promises in the Ukraine are never kept for more than the time it takes to make them. Finally, Poroshenko's power base is very
rapidly eroding because nobody wants to go down with him. I tend to believe that Poroshenko has outlived his usefulness for the AngloZionists
because he became an overnight political corpse. But this is the Ukraine, so never say never.
Finally, the Empire is also pushing for a reform of the Ukrainian political system to give less powers to the President and more
to the Rada. Again, this makes sense considering that Zelenskii is an unknown actor and considering the fact that Rada members are
basically on the US payroll (across all parties and factions).
What about Russia in all this?
Well, the Russians have been extremely cautious, and nobody seems to harbor any illusions about Zelenskii. In fact, just a
day after his election Zelenskii is already making all sorts of anti-Russian statements. Truly, besides the logical implication
of Poroshenko's poster (that a defeat for him would mean a victory for Putin), nobody in Russia is celebrating. The main feeling
about the entire topic of the Ukraine is one of total disgust, a gradual and painful realization of the fact that our so-called "brothers"
are brothers only in the sense of the biblical Cain and the acceptance that there is nobody to talk to in Kiev. Thus Russia will
have to embark on a policy of unilateral actions towards the Ukraine. These could include:
Decide whether to recognize the outcome of the election or not. I think that it is more likely that Russia will recognize
the fact that most Ukrainians did vote for Zelenskii, but that recognition will imply nothing more than that: the recognition
of a fact.
Accelerate the pace of distribution of Russian passports to citizens of the DNR and LNR republics.
Slap further economic sanctions on the Ukraine (Russia has just banned the export of energy sources to the Ukraine – finally
and at last!).
Declare that since millions of Ukrainians did not vote (inside the Ukraine, in the DNR/LNR and in Russia, and since the Minsk
Agreements are dead (they are de facto if not de jure yet) Russia does not recognize this election and, instead,
recognizes the two people's republics. I don't think that the Kremlin will do that short of an Ukronazi attack on Novorussia (in
which case the Russians will do what they did following Saakashvili's attack on South-Ossetia).
So far, Russian spokespeople have just said that they "respected the vote of the Ukrainian people" and that they will judge Zelenskii
"on his actions, not his words". This approach sure seems balanced and reasonable to me.
Conclusion:
The truth is that nobody knows what will happen next, not even Kolomoiskii or Zelenskii himself. There are just too many parameters
to consider, and the real balance of power following this election has not manifested itself yet. As for the true aspirations and
hopes of the people of the Ukraine, they were utterly ignored: Poroshenko will be replaced by Kolomoiskii, wearing the mask of Zelenskii.
Hardly a reason to rejoice
In spite of the large number of electoral candidates, the people of the Ukraine were not given a meaningful choice. So they did
the only thing they could do: they voted to kick Poroshenko out. And that sure must have felt great.
But will Zelenskii turn out to be any better? I very much doubt it, even though I also very much hope that I am wrong.
A clown beat a high profile member of the established political class, due most likely to the
voters being disgusted by said political class? Uhmm, where have we seen this before?
"... Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the wealthy. ..."
"... America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla. ..."
"... Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die. Never. ..."
Idealistic Realist , Apr 27, 2019 1:24:45 PM |
link
Best analysis by a candidate for POTUS ever:
American foreign policy is not a failure. To comfort themselves, observers often say that
our leaders -- presidents, advisors, generals -- don't know what they're doing. They do
know. Their agenda just isn't what we like to imagine it is.
To quote Michael Parenti: "US policy is not filled with contradictions and
inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly and steadily in the service of those who own
most of the world and who want to own all of it."
The vision of our leaders as bunglers, while more accurate than the image of them as
valiant public servants, is less accurate and more rose-tinted than the closest
approximation of the truth, which is that they are servants of their class interest. That
is why we go to war.
Those who buy the elite class's foreign policy BS, about the Emmanuel Goldsteins they
conjure up every three years, are fools. Obviously Hussein and Milošević were
bad; but "government bad" does not mean we must invade. Wars occur for economic, not
humanitarian, reasons.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, is a kleptocrat, murderer,
and alleged cannibal. This is him and his wife with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, was said to have boiled political
prisoners to death, massacred hundreds of prisoners, and made torture an institution.
This is him with John Kerry.
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has been involved in the assassination of
political opponents, perpetrated obvious election fraud, and had his term extended until
2034. This is him with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in
our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for
the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the
wealthy.
America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never
was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic
cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet,
Stroessner, and Videla.
Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing
war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the
wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die.
Never.
Zelensky doers not matter much. Other people will define Ukraine both internal and foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... The ordinary Ukrainian people are so sick and tired of the militaristic nationalism as well as endemic corruption in Kiev that they voted for someone, anyone, who appears slightly more reasonable. ..."
"... Zelensky has called for direct talks with Russia to help bring about a political settlement. Potentially, this apparently more engaged attitude in Kiev could be key to restoring peace in the region and furthermore resume normal relations with Russia. Moscow has given a cautious welcome to these developments. His landslide victory is certainly a stunning popular repudiation of the anti-Russian mentality of his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko. ..."
"... This suggests that the new Ukrainian president is a "Poroshenko-Lite". The only change is a softening of the anti-Russian rhetoric that has so dominated the Kiev regime since the 2014 CIA-backed coup which ushered in Poroshenko's presidency ..."
"... Moscow is therefore correct to express caution in the political significance of the new Ukrainian president. The Kremlin said it will await substantive action and policy changes, rather than basing its judgment on the vapid words of a TV star-turned-politician ..."
"... Perhaps the clearest conclusion to be drawn is that Ukrainian citizens expressed not so much support for Zelensky – how could they when his manifesto was so utterly vacuous? – but rather his landslide victory was a massive repudiation of the incumbent president and the anti-Russia mentality in Kiev that was such a hallmark of Poroshenko's presidency. ..."
"... For the past five years, the Kiev-dominated Ukrainian state has been nothing but a puppet regime for Washington, NATO and to a lesser extent the European Union. It has served as a spearhead against Russia with vile provocations and slander. It is in fact an abomination of international law and democratic principles. ..."
"... The problem lies in Kiev being a puppet regime for Washington which functions to push an anti-Russia geopolitical agenda. Zelensky is not a solution; his turn at the presidency is merely an intermission break from the ongoing calamity that is Ukraine. ..."
"... The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. ..."
The ordinary Ukrainian people are so sick and tired of the militaristic nationalism as
well as endemic corruption in Kiev that they voted for someone, anyone, who appears slightly
more reasonable.
The stunning victory of TV funny man Vladimir Zelensky in Ukraine's presidential elections
has tempted notions of a new opportunity to resolve the conflict in eastern Donbas region. The
ongoing war has crippled the entire country, caused over 13,000 deaths and resulted in nearly
one million people displaced from their homes.
Zelensky has called for direct talks with Russia to help bring about a political settlement.
Potentially, this apparently more engaged attitude in Kiev could be key to restoring peace in
the region and furthermore resume normal relations with Russia. Moscow has given a cautious
welcome to these developments. His landslide victory is certainly a stunning popular
repudiation of the anti-Russian mentality of his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko.
But there are so many contradictions and paradoxes in Ukraine's recent presidential election
and its outcome that expectations should be reserved.
For a start, the 41-year-old Zelensky who is a popular TV comedian is a complete political
novice. His entire election campaign was vacant in any policy detail. Yes, he did say he wanted
to hold direct talks with Moscow to end the nearly five-year war in eastern Ukraine between
state forces and pro-Russian separatists. But then only days before his election, Zelensky
disparaged Russia as an "aggressor" and described Russian President Vladimir Putin as an
"enemy".
The move this week by Russia to grant citizenship to ethnic Russian people from Ukraine's
breakaway Donbas region was roundly condemned by Washington and the European Union as
undermining Ukraine's sovereignty. Moscow said it was merely fulfilling internationally
recognized legal rights of people with Russian heritage. In any case, Zelensky also joined in
the ill-considered condemnations against Russia over its passport move.
This suggests that the new Ukrainian president is a "Poroshenko-Lite". The only change is a
softening of the anti-Russian rhetoric that has so dominated the Kiev regime since the 2014
CIA-backed coup which ushered in Poroshenko's presidency.
Zelensky has talked previously about implementing the Minsk peace accords signed in 2015,
yet he has also contradicted himself by saying he will not grant the Donbas political autonomy
or accede to an amnesty for combatants – meaning the war against the ethnic Russian
population by the Russophobic Kiev regime will continue. He also – shamefully –
made public comments apparently valorizing the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and the
latter's fascist followers.
Moscow is therefore correct to express caution in the political significance of the new
Ukrainian president. The Kremlin said it will await substantive action and policy changes,
rather than basing its judgment on the vapid words of a TV star-turned-politician. There is an
analogy here with US President Donald Trump and how his ascent to the White House changed
nothing in Washington's hostile policy towards Russia.
Perhaps the clearest conclusion to be drawn is that Ukrainian citizens expressed not so
much support for Zelensky – how could they when his manifesto was so utterly vacuous?
– but rather his landslide victory was a massive repudiation of the incumbent president
and the anti-Russia mentality in Kiev that was such a hallmark of Poroshenko's
presidency.
In other words, the ordinary Ukrainian people are so sick and tired of the militaristic
nationalism as well as endemic corruption in Kiev that they voted for someone, anyone, who
appears slightly more reasonable. Even if that candidate is a comedian with no political
vision.
For the past five years, the Kiev-dominated Ukrainian state has been nothing but a puppet
regime for Washington, NATO and to a lesser extent the European Union. It has served as a
spearhead against Russia with vile provocations and slander. It is in fact an abomination of
international law and democratic principles.
There is no sign that things will change fundamentally under this new president in spite of
his seemingly more reasonable rhetoric. The hopes of Ukrainians for economic improvement,
elimination of corruption by oligarchs and normalization of relations with their compatriots in
Donbas and with Russia will likely be dashed. Voting for comedian Vladimir Zelensky as some
kind of savior for their numerous woes could turn out to be a very cruel joke.
The problem lies in Kiev being a puppet regime for Washington which functions to push an
anti-Russia geopolitical agenda. Zelensky is not a solution; his turn at the presidency is
merely an intermission break from the ongoing calamity that is Ukraine.The views of
individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
In January, 2016, the Obama White House summoned Ukrainian authorities to Washington to discuss
several ongoing matters
under the guise of coordinating "anti-corruption efforts," reports
The
Hill
's John Solomon.
The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos,
brought some of Ukraine's top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with
members of former President Obama's National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and
Department of Justice (DOJ).
The agenda suggested the purpose was training and coordination. But Ukrainian participants
said it didn't take long -- during the meetings and afterward -- to realize
the Americans'
objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched
Vice
President Joe Biden's family
and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to
then-candidate Trump
. -
The
Hill
The
Obama officials
- likely knowing that lobbyist Paul Manafort was about to
join President Trump's campaign soon (he joined that March),
were interested in reviving a
closed investigation into payments to US figures from Ukraine's pro-Russia Party of Regions
- which both Paul Manafort and Tony Podesta did unregistered work for, according to former
Ukrainian Embassy political officer Andrii Telizhenko.
The 2014 investigation focused heavily on Manafort
, whose firm was tied to
Trump through his longtime partner and Trump adviser, Roger Stone.
Agents interviewed Manafort in 2014 about
whether he received undeclared payments
from the party of ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
, an ally of Russia's
Vladimir
Putin
, and whether he engaged in improper foreign lobbying.
The FBI shut down the case without charging Manafort
Telizhenko and other attendees
of the January, 2016 meeting recall DOJ
employees asking Ukrainian investigators from their National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) if they
could
locate new evidence about the Party of Regions' payments to Americans
.
"It was definitely the case that led to the charges against Manafort and the leak to U.S. media
during the 2016 election," said Telizhenko - which makes the January 2016 gathering in DC one of
the earliest documented efforts to compile a case against Trump and those in his orbit.
Nazar Kholodnytskyy,
Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor
, told me he
attended some but not all of the January 2016 Washington meetings and couldn't remember the
specific cases, if any, that were discussed.
But he said
he soon saw evidence in Ukraine of
political
meddling in the U.S. election
.
Kholodnytskyy said the key evidence against Manafort
-- a ledger showing payments from the Party of Regions
-- was known to Ukrainian
authorities since 2014
but was suddenly released in May 2016 by the U.S.-friendly NABU
,
after Manafort was named Trump's campaign chairman.
"Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it to the public and the
U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious," said Kholodnytskyy - who specifically instructed NABU not
to share the "black ledger" with the media.
"I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they
had broken my order and published themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding
Paul Manafort," he added. "For me it was the first call that something was going wrong and that
there is some external influence in this case. And there is some other interests in this case not
in the interest of the investigation and a fair trial."
Manafort joined Trump's campaign on March 29, 2016 and became campaign manager on May 19, 2016.
The ledger's existence leaked on May 29, 2016, while Manafort would be fired from the Trump
campaign that August.
NABU leaked the existence of the ledgers on May 29, 2016. Later that summer, it told U.S.
media the ledgers showed payments to Manafort, a revelation that forced him to resign from the
campaign in August 2016.
A Ukrainian court in December concluded
NABU's release of the ledger was an illegal attempt
to influence the U.S. election. And
a member of Ukraine's parliament has released a
recording of a NABU official saying the agency released the ledger
to help Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Kostiantyn Kulyk - deputy head of the Ukraine prosecutor general's international affairs office,
said that
Ukraine also had evidence of other Western figures receiving money from
Yanukovych's party
- such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig - but the
Americans weren't interested.
"They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else," said
Kulyk.
Another case raised at the January 2016 meeting
involved the Bidens
-
specifically Burisma Holdings; a Ukrainian energy company which was under investigation at the time
for improper foreign transfers of money.
Burisma allegedly paid then-Vice President Joe
Biden's son Hunter more than $3 million in 2014-15 as both a board member and a consultant,
according
to
bank
records
.
According to Telizhenko,
U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that
Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over
. The Ukrainians did not
agree. But then
Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to
fire
Ukraine's chief prosecutor
in March 2016
, as I previously reported. The Burisma
case was transferred to NABU, then shut down.
The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Thursday confirmed the Obama administration requested
the meetings in January 2016, but embassy representatives attended only some of the sessions.
Last Wednesday on
Fox and Friends,
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said "
I ask you
to keep your eye on Ukraine
," referring to collusion to
help Hillary Clinton in
the 2016 election
.
What's more,
DOJ documents support Telizhenko's claim that the DOJ reopened its Manafort
case as the 2016 election ramped up -
including communications between Associate Attorney
General Bruce Ohr, his wife, Nellie, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele, as Solomon writes.
Nellie Ohr and Steele worked in 2016 for the research firm, Fusion GPS, that was hired by
Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to find Russia dirt on Trump.
Steele wrote the famous dossier for Fusion that the FBI used to gain a warrant to spy on the
Trump campaign. Nellie Ohr admitted to Congress that she routed Russia dirt on Trump from Fusion
to the DOJ
through
her husband
during the election.
DOJ emails show Nellie Ohr on May 30, 2016, directly alerted her husband and two DOJ
prosecutors specializing in international crimes to the discovery of the "black ledger"
documents that led to Manafort's prosecution.
"Reported Trove of documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions' Black Cashbox," Nellie Ohr
wrote
to her husband and federal prosecutors
Lisa Holtyn and Joseph Wheatley, attaching
a
news article
on the announcement of NABU's release of the documents.
Politico reported previously that the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington assisted the Hillary
Clinton campaign through a DNC contractor, while the Ukrainian Embassy acknowledges that it got
requests from a DNC staffer
to find dirt on Manafort
(though it denies providing
any improper assistance."
As Solomon concludes: "what is already confirmed by Ukrainians
looks a lot more like
assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed in
the
Mueller report
."
"... Nazar Kholodnytskyy, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told me he attended some but not all of the January 2016 Washington meetings and couldn't remember the specific cases, if any, that were discussed. ..."
"... But he said he soon saw evidence in Ukraine of political meddling in the U.S. election . Kholodnytskyy said the key evidence against Manafort -- a ledger showing payments from the Party of Regions -- was known to Ukrainian authorities since 2014 but was suddenly released in May 2016 by the U.S.-friendly NABU, after Manafort was named Trump's campaign chairman: "Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious." ..."
"... "I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding Paul Manafort." ..."
"... Kulyk said Ukrainian authorities had evidence that other Western figures , such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, also received money from Yanukovych's party. But the Americans weren't interested: "They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else." ..."
"... According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine's chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut down. ..."
"... The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Thursday confirmed the Obama administration requested the meetings in January 2016, but embassy representatives attended only some of the sessions. ..."
"... But Telizhenko's claim that the DOJ reopened its Manafort probe as the 2016 election ramped up is supported by the DOJ's own documents, including communications involving Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, his wife, Nellie, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele. ..."
"... DOJ emails show Nellie Ohr on May 30, 2016, directly alerted her husband and two DOJ prosecutors specializing in international crimes to the discovery of the "black ledger" documents that led to Manafort's prosecution. ..."
"... The efforts eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked Deripaska if he could help prove Manafort was helping Trump collude with Russia. Deripaska laughed off the notion as preposterous. ..."
"... Now we have more concrete evidence that the larger Ukrainian government also was being pressed by the Obama administration to help build the Russia collusion narrative. And that onion is only beginning to be peeled. ..."
"... But what is already confirmed by Ukrainians looks a lot more like assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed in the Mueller report . ..."
As Donald Trump began his meteoric rise to the presidency,
the Obama White House summoned Ukrainian authorities to Washington to coordinate ongoing anti-corruption efforts inside Russia's
most critical neighbor.
The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine's top corruption
prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama's National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department
and Department of Justice (DOJ).
That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative
and one of the first to involve the Obama administration's intervention.
Spokespeople for the NSC, DOJ and FBI declined to comment. A representative for former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice
did not return emails seeking comment.
Nazar Kholodnytskyy, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told me he attended some but not all of the January 2016
Washington meetings and couldn't remember the specific cases, if any, that were discussed.
But he said he soon saw evidence in Ukraine of
political meddling in the U.S. election . Kholodnytskyy said the key evidence against Manafort -- a ledger showing payments from
the Party of Regions -- was known to Ukrainian authorities since 2014 but was suddenly released in May 2016 by the U.S.-friendly
NABU, after Manafort was named Trump's campaign chairman: "Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it
to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious."
Kholodnytskyy said he explicitly instructed NABU investigators who were working with American authorities not to share
the ledger with the media. "Look, Manafort's case is one of the cases that hurt me a lot," he said.
"I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published
themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding Paul Manafort."
"For me it was the first call that something was going wrong and that there is some external influence in this case. And there
is some other interests in this case not in the interest of the investigation and a fair trial," he added.
Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Ukraine prosecutor general's international affairs office, said that, shortly after Ukrainian
authorities returned from the Washington meeting, there was a clear message about helping the Americans with the Party of the Regions
case.
"Yes, there was a lot of talking about needing help and then the ledger just appeared in public," he recalled.
Kulyk said Ukrainian authorities had evidence
that other Western figures , such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, also received money from Yanukovych's party.
But the Americans weren't interested: "They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else."
Manafort joined Trump's campaign on March 29, 2016, and then was promoted to campaign chairman on May 19, 2016.
NABU leaked the existence of the ledgers on May 29, 2016. Later that summer, it told U.S. media the ledgers showed payments to
Manafort, a revelation that forced him to resign from the campaign in August 2016.
A Ukrainian court in December concluded NABU's release of the ledger was an illegal attempt to influence the U.S. election. And
a member of Ukraine's parliament has released a recording of a NABU official saying the agency released the ledger to help Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign.
The other case raised at the January 2016 meeting, Telizhenko said, involved
Burisma Holdings , a
Ukrainian energy company under investigation in Ukraine for improper foreign transfers of money. At the time, Burisma allegedly was
paying then-Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter as both a board
member and a consultant. More than $3 million flowed from Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden in 2014-15,
bank records show .
According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the
FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to
fire Ukraine's chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut
down.
The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Thursday confirmed the Obama administration requested the meetings in January 2016,
but embassy representatives attended only some of the sessions.
"Unfortunately, the Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, D.C., was not invited to join the DOJ and other law enforcement-sector meetings,"
it said. It said it had no record that the Party of Regions or Burisma cases came up in the meetings it did attend.
Ukraine is riddled with corruption, Russian meddling and intense political conflicts, so one must carefully consider any Ukrainian
accounts.
But Telizhenko's claim that the DOJ reopened its Manafort probe as the 2016 election ramped up is supported by the DOJ's own
documents, including communications involving Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, his wife, Nellie, and ex-British spy Christopher
Steele.
Nellie Ohr and Steele worked in 2016 for the research firm, Fusion GPS, that was hired by Clinton's campaign and the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) to find Russia dirt on Trump. Steele wrote the famous dossier for Fusion that the FBI used to gain a warrant
to spy on the Trump campaign. Nellie Ohr admitted to Congress that she routed Russia dirt on Trump from Fusion to the DOJ
through her husband during the election.
DOJ emails show Nellie Ohr on May 30, 2016, directly alerted her husband and two DOJ prosecutors specializing in international
crimes to the discovery of the "black ledger" documents that led to Manafort's prosecution.
"Reported Trove of documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions' Black Cashbox," Nellie Ohr
wrote to her husband and federal prosecutors
Lisa Holtyn and Joseph Wheatley, attaching
a news article
on the announcement of NABU's release of the documents.
Bruce Ohr and Steele worked on their own effort to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, who had a soured
business relationship with him. Deripaska was "almost ready to talk" to U.S. government officials regarding the money that "Manafort
stole," Bruce Ohr wrote in notes from his conversations with Steele.
The efforts eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the
FBI asked Deripaska if he could help prove Manafort was helping Trump collude with Russia. Deripaska laughed off the notion as
preposterous.
Previously, Politico reported
that the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington assisted Clinton's campaign through a DNC contractor. The Ukrainian Embassy acknowledges
it got requests for assistance from the DNC staffer to find dirt on Manafort but denies it provided any improper assistance.
Now we have more concrete evidence that the larger Ukrainian government also was being pressed by the Obama administration
to help build the Russia collusion narrative. And that onion is only beginning to be peeled.
But what is already confirmed by Ukrainians looks a lot more like assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed
in the Mueller report .
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence
failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous
cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow
him on Twitter @jsolomonReports
"... According to its filings to the US Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), BGR is a registered agent for none other than President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, whose ascension to Ukrainian presidency was brought about by the Maidan revolution of 2014, a coup cheered on most fervently by John McCain himself. ..."
"... It remains to be seen whether this relationship will change in June, when TV personality Volodymyr Zelensky takes office, having triumphed in a landslide runoff election this past weekend. Judging by Zelensky's official Facebook account of his February meeting with Volker – "a friend of Ukraine" with whom he "reached full understanding on all questions" – that seems unlikely, however. ..."
"... Turns out another McCain confidant, David Kramer , also works at Volker's institute, listed as "senior director for Human Rights and Democracy." Kramer was identified as the individual who during the 2016 campaign spread the "Steele Dossier" (accusing Trump of ties with Russia) to the press and a number of other people in Washington, including the "midwife of Maidan" herself, Victoria Nuland. ..."
US special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker is drawing a salary from John McCain's think tank,
which is funded by George Soros and a DC lobbying firm working for Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko, among others.
Volker was appointed Special Representative for Ukraine negotiations in July 2017, by
then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and has been "mediating" the Ukrainian crisis on behalf
of the US ever since in much the same way his colleague Elliott Abrams has
been doing with Venezuela.
The twist is that Volker is doing this " on
a voluntary basis without compensation" and "not taxing the taxpayers," drawing a salary
from his day job as executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership in
Arizona. Named after the late and hawkish US senator John McCain, the think tank is dedicated
to "advancing leadership in the United States and around the world." The two positions are very
much aligned, Volker has said, allowing him to get his "hands dirty and actually solve our
problems."
In practice, that means things like taking part in the "Occupied Crimea: 5 years of
resistance" conference in Odessa – the same city where US-backed nationalists burned
alive their political opponents in May 2014 – and parroting Bellingcat talking points on
the Kerch Strait incident, themselves cribbed from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).
This is not surprising, however, since the list of donors of the McCain Institute includes
something called the "BGR Foundation." It shares the same Washington, DC address – and
name – with Barbour Griffith Rogers, a high-profile lobbying firm that lists Volker as "Senior
International Advisor" and former international managing director.
According to its filings to the US
Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), BGR is a registered
agent for none other than President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, whose ascension to Ukrainian
presidency was brought about by the Maidan revolution of 2014, a coup cheered on most fervently
by John McCain himself.
The "National Reforms Council of Ukraine," which officially retained BGR's services, is led
by none other than Dmytro Shymkiv, "Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine,"
as per the filing BGR sent to the
DOJ in January 2017.
It remains to be seen whether this relationship will change in June, when TV personality
Volodymyr Zelensky takes office, having triumphed in a landslide
runoff election this past weekend. Judging by Zelensky's official Facebook
account of his February meeting with Volker – "a friend of Ukraine" with whom he
"reached full understanding on all questions" – that seems unlikely, however.
Whose envoy?
Volker was very close to the late Senator McCain, who was himself intimately involved with
the 2014 "revolution" in Kiev, visiting the demonstrators and personally sharing the stage with
Socialist-Nationalist Party leader Oleg Tyahnibok, for example. McCain was even offered an
advisory job with Poroshenko, back in 2015, but declined because that was not allowed under
US law.
Turns out another McCain confidant, David Kramer , also works at
Volker's institute, listed as "senior director for Human Rights and Democracy." Kramer was
identified as
the individual who during the 2016 campaign spread the "Steele Dossier" (accusing Trump of ties
with Russia) to the press and a number of other people in Washington, including the "midwife of
Maidan" herself, Victoria Nuland.
Among the McCain Institute's other donors are George Soros and his Open Society Foundations,
as well as Saudi Arabia – though Volker had to disavow them last year, calling it a
one-time donation and saying he won't
accept any more Saudi cash after the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal
Khashoggi.
All of this adds up to the question no one seems to have asked yet: Whose interests in
Ukraine is Kurt Volker actually representing – those of the Trump administration, or
those of his donors and the ghost of John McCain?
No he is not. But he is the US puppet. Yet another neoliberal that will fleece Ukraine for the benefit of international
financial oligarchy.
The article is a usual incompetent neocon/neolib garbage and does not demonstrate any knowledge of the
Ukrainian political situation. But one paragraph does make sense. Zelensky was like Trump: he was
elected because the other candidate was despicable corrupt warmonger
The level of connections of Zelensky to oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Soros is still unclear.
Kolomoyskyi was rumored as one of the initiator and sponsors of Odessa massacre and the financier of pro-Nazi
Azov battalion (he is now hiding from persecution for his financial crimes in Israel) .
The
only question about Zelensky is whose puppet he is. Anyway Poor Ukraine is up top another round of stripping its wealth
by oligarchs and foreign financial sharks, while the standard of living will deteriorate and stay
of the same dismal level as now (essentially Central African poverty level).
Any attempt of Zelensky to escape the puppet status will be cut in short. In no way he can depose key officials from Nuland
junta which came in power in 2014, or challenge the power of the US embassy over Ukraine. With Biden in the past routinely
firing Ukrainian Chief Prosecutor, when he start digging on his son dealings in Ukraine.
Poroshenko lost not because Zelenskiy was better. Although hard to measure, it is perceived
by some in Ukraine's parliament that a vote for Zelenskiy was simply an anti-Poroshenko vote,
rather than a truly pro-Zelenskiy one.
Ukraine with the help of lunatics in the Washington, DC is moving to the right direction
in order to become Malorussia soon. It will not take long. Chervonarussia a.k.a. Ruthenia in
Hapsburg newspeak will take longer time. However, people in that region still identify
themselves as Russinians (Русины). With coming
dissolution of once Anglo-German-Dutch City-on-the-Hill into amorphous salad of different
cultures and total loss internal cohesion we may see comparative bloodless transition to new
era.
the gfc tells us otherwise. a financial collapse is a probable scenario; leading to a
prolonged depression. May not be the catastrophic vision our friend has in mind, but would be
pretty bad. Even in today's great economy forty million are living in poverty. Another
financial collapse could see that number double
"What lessons can Western policymakers learn from Poroshenko's crushing defeat?"
A pointless question as the US/EU establishment don't seem to be able to accept the
reality of what is happening, and won't accept any lessons as that might get in the way of
the Neoliberal globalist expansionist agenda and undermine its supporting narratives.
Zelensky won't be a quantum improvement, but at least he isn't a raving Ultra-nationalist
looney. He's not much more that the Ukro version of Frances Micron, a political light-weight
foisted onto the public by the mostly-hidden hand of corrupt Oilgarchs. Ukraines rot from
within will continue...
As most Russians, I don't have high hopes for Zelensky. Almost certainly, his campaign was
bankrolled by oligarch Kolomoisky. So he will represent the interests of large money, not of
Ukranian people. And he will have to deal with these crazy nationalists, which are over 25%
of population. And the debts with IMF strings attached. He stood on his knees at the debate
with Poroshenko - I think he will have to be forced to do that more often than that during
his presidency.
Donbass will remain the festering wound in Ukraines side that weakens and eventually
destroys the accursed Banderite state. Russia needs to keep up the pressure and ensure that
the DPR/LPR can defend themselves against the Kiev regime and make sure the nationalist
whack-jobs understand that any attempt to seizethe territory of Free Ukraine will result in a
world of pain descending on their heads. Time is on Russia's side as the US loses focus, the
EU loses interest, and the harsh realities of geo-politics and economics takes its toll on
the bumbling tin-pot kleptocracy that Ukr has become.
Parashenko is criminal. The same as Saakashvili. Both shelled peaceful living homes from
artillery and with rockets. They both deserve to be hanged. But the West calls them
"democrats".
Western policy is infinitely malleable and adaptable to whatever agenda they want to
pursue. They will defend the Banderite madhouse in Ukropistan as a "democracy" (even as it
makes war on its own people) yet insist that Venezuela is a dictatorship, despite the free
and fair elections that return the Chavistas to power, time and time again. They will rail
against Russia for being "corrupt" (even though they jail senior figures who still try to
extract Yeltsin-era "tributes") yet strain their collectives necks as they look away from
watching Ukr regime insiders conduct outright theft of IMF loan cash.
Sometimes, too little pride in one's nation can be a problem, providing no sense of
cohesion, purpose or unity. And sometimes, too much pride can also be equally
problematic.
Is it liberal to complain about not being hard enough on Russia?
Interesting that Hillary Clinton said Trump was a "Russian puppet" (probably after
Obama sent the FBI after the GOP campaign) and NBC's Holt (Nov 9 2016) said the US
election was a Russian coup. Since when (except maybe if Joe McCarthy were a
democrat).
A parallel maybe. In Ukraine since 2004 the popularly elected president was deposed
twice by extreme right wing ultra nationalists. In 2014 the popular Yanukovych was
deposed in the Maidan revolution with help from the US replaced with no election by Petro
Poroshenko.
Sunday we hear that a comedian Zelenskiy soundly beat Poroshenko in a popular
vote.
To this Poroshenko: "Poroshenko said on social media he thought Zelenskiy's win would
spark celebrations in the Kremlin."
"They believe that with a new inexperienced Ukrainian president, Ukraine could be
quickly returned to Russia's orbit of influence," he wrote.
Clinton and Holt could be writing for Poroshenko, a far right wing ultra
nationalist!
I worry a lot about Obama's spying on the Trump campaign and the supposed liberals in
this country sounding like far right, ultra nationalist, looking for a new, expensive
cold war!
Israel and the Ukraine are now the two countries on the planet in which both the
President [Zelenskii] and the Prime-Minister [Groisman] are Jews
just a day after his election Zelenskii is already making all sorts of anti-Russian
statements.
since Zelenskii has no personal power base of any kind, Kolomoiskii will have him do
exactly as he is told and Kolomoiskii can easily be told to behave by the Empire.
Here is a new ruler of Ukraine, the Israeli/Ukrainian/Swiss citizen Kolomoisky
:
The ethnically Jewish Kolomojsky has been the main financier of Azov Battalion
:
The Azov Battalion was initially formed out of the neo-Nazi gang Patriot of Ukraine.
Azov Battalion -- which is accused of human-rights abuses, including torture, by Human
Rights Watch and the United Nations -- was incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard.
The New York Times called the battalion "openly neo-Nazi," while USA Today, The Daily
Beast, The Telegraph, and Haaretz documented group members' proclivity for swastikas,
salutes, and other Nazi symbols
Five years after the " EuroMaidan " protests in Kiev and elsewhere
toppled the government of now-exiled former president Viktor Yanukovych, the people of Ukraine
are set to elect a new leader. Over 34 million Ukrainian citizens will be eligible to cast
their vote on 31 March ,
although several million will be prevented from participating due to the ongoing conflict
situation in the country's eastern Donbass region. Should none of the candidates receive an
absolute majority, a second round of voting will be held on 21 April.
Ukraine consistently ranks among the poorest countries in Europe – last year it
overtook Moldova to occupy the top spot in the list. The largest post-Soviet state after Russia
in terms of population, it finds itself torn between the European Union promising economic
integration and a limited degree of freedom of movement, and deepening the country's
relationship with Moscow, the largest consumer of Ukrainian exports to which Ukraine is tied by
centuries of shared history, tradition, and repeated conflict.
EuroMaidan exacerbated the country's ongoing economic decline and
mounting social pressures in 2013–14, ultimately triggering the war in the Donbass
region and the Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula. These tensions have facilitated the
rise of a vicious
Ukrainian nationalism that the government led by current president Petro Poroshenko is not
afraid to manipulate for its own purposes. Attacks on left-wing activists and ethnic minorities
are becoming increasingly common, while armed far-right paramilitaries like the so-called "Azov
Battalion" are
normalized and integrated into mainstream political life.
That said, not everyone in Ukraine is happy about these developments. Although none of the
candidates in the upcoming elections offer a particularly radical or progressive vision for the
country, voters will at least be able to decide whether to endorse Poroshenko's current course
or throw their support behind another figure. Loren Balhorn of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung
spoke with Kiev-based sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko to get a better understanding of the
candidates, the state of the county, and what is at stake for the people of Ukraine in
2019.
Loren Balhorn (LB): Ukraine is scheduled to hold presidential elections at the end of the
month, preceding elections to the national
parliament , or "Verkhovna Rada," later this year. Is there anything special about the
timing? What exactly is the president's role in the Ukrainian political system, and what
implications will the vote have for parliamentary elections in October?
Volodymyr Ishchenko (VI): The timing is simple: it's been five years since 2014 and the
Maidan Uprising, when snap elections were called that saw Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of
Regions lose a lot of strength. The first round of the presidential elections is at the end of
the month, and it is very likely that there will be a second round because no candidate will
receive over 50 per cent (at least according to polls).
The president is very important in Ukrainian politics. The country is formally a
parliamentary-presidential system, neither fully parliamentary nor fully presidential, but this
is a very uneasy balance of power. The prime minister is an important position elected by the
parliamentary majority, but the president also has influence over important government
ministers. As is true of many post-Soviet states, however, beyond this formal institutional
division of powers the informal divisions are much more decisive. Who is loyal to whom and who
is dependent on whom plays a much bigger role in "real" Ukrainian politics than formal powers
and privileges.
Petro
Poroshenko , the current president, is the most important person in Ukrainian politics. His
powers are formally limited but he has other ways to exercise influence and his own party, the
"Petro Poroshenko Bloc" that forms the government together with the "People's Front," the party
of former Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Another important figure in that party is the
current Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov , who is also a very wealthy
man.
LB: Avakov also cultivates ties to the Azov Battalion, no?
VI: This is widely suspected, but the precise nature of those ties has never been proven. I
am skeptical of the idea that the Azov Battalion is merely a puppet of Avakov,
I suspect it is something like a mutually beneficial cooperation.
If Poroshenko loses we will see a lot of defections by MPs from his bloc. Ukrainian politics
operates as what political scientists call a "neopatrimonial regime," meaning it is
characterized by rival, informal power blocs. If the Poroshenko Bloc loses, it will reshuffle
loyalties in the parliament from one patriarch to another.
LB: What do you mean by "neopatrimonial regime"?
VI: By that I mean Ukrainian politics is characterized by competition between various power
blocs, you could also call them pyramids or even clans. Poroshenko builds his pyramid while
Arakov builds his own pyramid, etc. The current Prime Minister, Volodymyr Groysman, was
originally perceived as a loyalist of Poroshenko, but now even he seems to be cultivating his
own pyramid and will probably triangulate between various political blocs.
LB: How did Groysman come to replace Yatsenyuk?
VI: As friction between Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk grew, Poroshenko financed a public campaign
against him, attacking him and calling for his resignation. But Yatsenyuk had a lot of support
from the West, especially the U.S. Vice-President at the time, Joe Biden. Eventually an
agreement was reached that he would step down and be replaced by Groysman.
This represented a conflict between different patrimonial structures within the governing
elite, but also reflected a wider conflict between Ukrainian oligarchs and the West more
generally. Many leftists in Ukraine see the country as a colony of the United States, but it's
much more complicated than that. Ukraine is definitely dependent on Western economic and
financial aid, political support against Russia, etc., but it's not a colony – it's not
ruled from the American Embassy. Local oligarchs like Poroshenko and Arakov have their own
interests that they defend staunchly against the West. At its core, this is a conflict between
transnational capital and the local bourgeoisie.
One key issue in these debates, and the crucial issue for the West and the IMF, was
corruption and the establishment of "anti-corruption" institutions to ensure transparent rules
of the game in Ukraine. But what they call "corruption" is basically the most important
advantage that the Ukrainian bourgeoisie has against transnational capital: namely, their
property is secure from the state while that of their competitors is not. This is also what
scares away potential international investors. Because of this fear, foreign direct investment
(FDI) is actually declining despite the Ukrainian government's steps toward Western
integration.
LB: So fear of corruption is harming investment?
VI: Yes, although the war is of course another factor.
In the beginning, in 2014 and 2015, we had a lot of people in the government without
Ukrainian citizenship who received their positions because they were neoliberal,
Western-oriented professionals, like the Lithuanian citizen Aivaras Abromavičius who was a
minister under Yatsenyuk. Gradually, those neoliberal reformers were pushed out and replaced by
people loyal to the ruling oligarchs. Yatsenyuk being replaced by Groysman was just one
particularly important example of this process.
LB: It sounds like a pretty grim scenario. But even if electoral politics is just
competition between oligarchic factions, certainly there must be some other issues being
debated at least on the surface? What are the dominant themes the candidates are using to
attract support?
VI: Poroshenko has been most successful in setting the agenda with an aggressively
nationalist campaign – his main slogan is "Army, Faith, Language." He side-lined the
socially populist issues that Yulia Tymoshenko tried to raise by
portraying the election as a choice between him or Putin and depicting his opponents as puppets
of Moscow.
LB: And is it working?
VI: Yes, to some extent. His support has been rising in the polls since the recognition of
the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
LB: Was that split between the Ukrainian Church and Moscow supported by the government?
VI: Yes, it was actively organized by Poroshenko as a strategy to win the election.
Formally, the Ukrainian Orthodox church enjoyed broad autonomy but was dependent on the Moscow
Patriarchate and was recognized by other Orthodox churches. A separate church founded in the
early 1990s, the Kiev Patriarchate, was unrecognized by any other international church but
still fairly popular in the country. In reality most people didn't care which church they
attended. The split was purely political, there were no theological differences.
Poroshenko started to push the theme in 2017 and 2018 that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was
something like an "agent of Moscow" in Ukraine. The details are quite complicated, and to be
honest many people in Ukraine didn't really understand these structures until last year either,
but for people who care about national issues, who care about Ukraine asserting itself against
Russia, this was an important step. Nevertheless, it looks like the majority of local parishes
will actually stay with the Moscow Patriarchate.
LB: You have alluded to the conflict with Russia several times now as setting the terms of
the debate, and making it easier for politicians to distract from social questions by focusing
on nationalism. Is there any kind of visible, vaguely progressive social opposition in the
country?
VI: Most politicians and the three leading candidates for the president are not
significantly different on the question of the conflict in the Donbass region. Poroshenko,
Tymoshenko, and Volodymyr Zelensky are all within the patriotic consensus, although Poroshenko
is more militant. Candidates who actually have a different opinion and are not as popular
sprang from the former Party of Regions, later branded the "Opposition Bloc." They failed to
negotiate a common candidate for the so-called "Southeast," the region where the
Russian-speaking minority mostly lives. Despite raising important issues like peace in Donbass,
re-claiming national sovereignty from the West, and re-industrialization, these candidates
– Yuriy Boyko and Oleksandr Vilkul – are representatives of major oligarchic
financial-industrial groups. There is no significant "grassroots" movement behind the issues.
There are of course labour struggles, and there have been some strikes, but they are weak.
There are some feminist mobilizations but they are miniscule compared to the radical
nationalists. Not just the anti-capitalist "Left," but also progressive liberalism is very
weak.
The Left is in a bad
situation. The
Communist Party has been banned. They are appealing the ban but their public visibility has
declined to practically zero. Their leader, Petro Symonenko, tried to register as a
presidential candidate but was not accepted by the government, and no other relevant left-wing
parties exist on the national level.
LB: Government corruption, oligarchic control of the economy, a decimated Left – a lot
of this sounds familiar. Couldn't we, at least to some extent, compare conditions in Ukraine to
the situation in all of the former Eastern Bloc countries?
VI: I don't think so. EU membership makes a big difference, it imposes certain rules that
are absent in Ukraine. The presence of strong oligarchs, for example, is pretty specific. The
other Eastern Bloc countries don't have a strong local bourgeoisie, but are largely dominated
by Western capital. There are no Polish oligarchs, Czech oligarchs, Hungarian oligarchs –
we only hear about Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. What makes Ukraine different is that the
oligarchic system is pluralistic. We have multiple, competing oligarchs, whereas in Russia and
Belarus one neopatrimonial pyramid managed to emerge as dominant in the last 15 years.
The promise of EU membership restructured Eastern European politics beginning in the 1990s,
whereas this was never a prospect in Ukraine, Russia, or Belarus. But we still didn't see the
rise of any figure like Vladimir Putin or an Alexander Lukashenko in Ukraine. I think this has
to do with the country's divided identity: almost every election has been framed as a question
of "East vs. West," with one candidate supported by the western half and the other by the
eastern half. In this sense it's comparable with Donald Trump: any time a Ukrainian president
comes to power he is opposed by half the population from day one. This makes it very difficult
to consolidate nationwide power.
LB: Are there not also economic aspects to the East/West division?
VI: Yes, the East has more heavy, Soviet-era industry, exporting primarily to the markets of
the former USSR and uncompetitive on Western markets. For example, the people supporting
Yanukovych and opposing EuroMaidan were at least partially concerned about keeping their jobs
in a Ukrainian economy dominated by the EU.
LB: So it's not only a nationalist issue, but also one of bread-and-butter economic
issues?
VI: Yes, absolutely.
LB: Speaking of "East vs. West," has anything changed since Ukraine's accession to the
visa-free regime for Schengen states in 2017?
VI: That was one of very few positive developments under Poroshenko, and he's touting it a
lot during the campaign. Freedom of movement is of course something good and something we
support, but it was particularly good for younger, highly educated Ukrainians in the major
cities.
It has also facilitated increased labour migration, which has really risen since 2014. I
don't have any precise statistics but we're talking about millions of people. Many Ukrainians
go to work in Poland, which actively recruits them because they are seen as culturally and
linguistically "closer" to Poles (unlike refugees from the Middle East). You could say that
cheap Ukrainian labour is subsidizing the Polish economic boom. The Czech Republic is also
popular, and Germany will probably be next.
As workers from the eastern EU states like Bulgaria and Poland move west to work they're
replaced by cheaper labour from Ukraine, but no one moves to Ukraine. There is a lot of
discussion in the Ukrainian media about how it simply does not make sense to work in the
country when you can make two or three times more across the border.
LB: But does this not mean that the Ukrainian labour market is gradually getting tighter?
Wouldn't it at least theoretically put organized labour in a more advantageous position to
fight for higher wages?
VI: Yes, theoretically! But Ukrainian trade unions are very weak, and they have failed to
take advantage of the situation.
LB: You recently gave an interview to Jacobin
Magazine in which you compared the situation of the Ukrainian Left with that of
Latin America in the 1970s. I found that very striking, given that the Left was quite large in
Latin America at the time and microscopic in Ukraine today. Could you flesh out that comparison
a bit? Where exactly do you see similarities?
VI: Ukraine is a deindustrializing, peripheral economy. Most Soviet-era industry fell apart
after 1991, and what remains is not competitive on the Western European market. Ukraine has
thus become a supplier of raw materials with low added value like iron. In this sense it is a
very peripheral capitalism characterized by extreme inequality and powerful oligarchs, like
Latin America. There is also the major role played by far-right paramilitaries – this
doesn't happen anywhere else in Europe, except for briefly in former Yugoslavia. We also have a
strongly pro-American and highly dependent government, very similar to Latin America.
I think it's logical to look for comparisons and lessons from similar historical social
formations. If the Ukrainian Left is looking to fight a corrupt, authoritarian, anti-Communist
regime, and given how weak the Left and even liberalism is, we have to work together to fight
for basic democratic rights and against the nationalist hysteria to lay the base for a movement
that could perhaps become more significant in the future. Here I see parallels to the Latin
American Left's struggle against dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s.
LB: Do you think it's possible in a geopolitical situation where tensions between the EU and
Russia are so prominent to formulate a broad, democratic programme that stands above this
fray?
VI: It's obviously very difficult, but what other options do we have? Become puppets in the
geopolitical game? There was a split on the Left in 2014 when many chose EuroMaidan and the
"West" while others chose Anti-Maidan and the "Russian" side. Both sides ended up tailing more
powerful right-wing forces and failed to formulate their own independent positions.
LB: But would anything else have been possible?
VI: Well, obviously we can't seriously entertain the building of a strong left-wing party
under such difficult conditions. What is possible, however, is to maintain some kind of milieu
for left-wing ideas. The groups and networks that exist have to consolidate a possible embryo
for a strong Left in the future. It's important to be realistic and understand what's
possible or completely impossible. We might not be able to formulate some kind of "Third Camp"
in Ukrainian politics right now, but that is our objective situation, and we should try to
figure out what we can realistically do. We should work on strengthening our groups, our
unions, our intellectual initiatives, to hopefully be able to do something bigger in the
future.
Corbyn, Podemos, and Mélenchon are inspiring figures, but we need to understand what
is specific about the political regime in our country and respond in a specific way. We need to
try to expand the range of the possible for left politics at the moment. Even if it isn't so
inspiring and very weak, we still have to try. The kind of system that exists in Ukraine can't
last forever. There are many contradictions, divisions, and cleavages exacerbated by the ruling
groups, and all of these will lead to a situation at some point where weaker groups might
become politically relevant and important again.
LB: Before we wrap up I wanted to ask you about the third major candidate, Volodymyr Zelensky . If I
understand correctly, he stars in a TV show about a politician and has now become the
politician he plays on TV. Is that correct – and is he popular? Does he have a chance at
winning or is this a stunt?
VI: Actually, he's currently the most popular politician in the country. According to polls
he has significantly more support than both Poroshenko and Tymoshenko, and could very possibly
become the president.
There are basically three groups of people voting for him: firstly, fans of his TV show, a
very popular comedy about Ukrainian politics. Another large group are just so disappointed and
tired of these oligarchs that they will vote for any fresh face.
LB: So he's similar to Donald Trump in some ways?
VI: In some ways, but what's different from Trump is the third group of his supporters,
namely people who are voting for him because he is perceived as less nationalist than the other
candidates. Zelensky himself is Russian-speaking, he's from the central Ukrainian city of
Kryvyi Rih, and has attracted lots of support from Russian-speaking citizens.
That makes Zelensky different from Trump – he's actually trying to campaign on
unifying themes, not divisive ones. He opposes Poroshenko's attempts to push the Ukrainian
language on Russian speakers, for example.
Another thing that makes him different from Trump or Beppe Grillo is that he has no populist
movement behind him, or any movement at all for that matter. All he has is his TV show, around
which he is now trying to build a political party from scratch. This is different from other
populist figures – there was no mass mobilization preceding him. Trump, for example, is
obviously somehow a result of the Tea Party movement, while Grillo represents the Five Stars
Movement (in Italy).
Another difference is his connection to Igor Kolomoisky, one of Ukraine's richest oligarchs
now in opposition to Poroshenko who founded the country's largest bank, Privat Bank, and still
owns a controlling share of the national airline. Zelensky's show is broadcast on one of
Kolomoisky's eight TV stations, and one of his lawyers is a key architect of Zelensky's party,
Sluha Narodu , which translates to "Servant of the People" (also the name of his show).
Right now it's not possible to say how independent Zelensky is. I wouldn't call him a puppet,
but there are definitely connections to the ruling class.
All of this means that Zelensky will be very weak if he wins, and not only because he's
inexperienced. For the first half year he won't have much support in parliament. He has no
loyal political party behind him. He will surely get some opportunists to defect from other
parties, but hardly a majority. I don't know what he could do in that situation. After the
parliamentary elections he might face a more favourable constellation, but it will also depend
on how he does in the first months.
It's impossible to say how he would perform as president. He has zero political experience.
I fear that he may understand politics even less than Donald Trump. He is a blank page on which
anything can be written.
LB: So he reflects the vacuum in civil society more generally?
VI: Exactly. He is a glaring symptom of what's going on in Ukrainian society. People hate
the oligarchs, they hate the faces they've seen for decades. Revolutions come and go, elections
come and go, but life just gets worse and worse. People don't want another five years of
Tymoshenko or Poroshenko and are happy to vote for any recognizable fresh face who isn't
implicated in serious corruption. People are voting less out of hope than out of anger. Better
to vote for an incompetent comedian than the same old corrupt experts.
At the same time, civil society is so weak that it couldn't put up any competing figure.
Only a TV star was able to do that, nobody from the pro-Western, liberal NGOs came even close.
None of those figures poll even one per cent. This says a lot about Ukrainian "civil society":
it's totally incapable of producing competent, popular leaders.
If he is elected, it will be strong proof that the people are sick of the old style of
politics, that they aren't being manipulated by Poroshenko's nationalism and want something
better. Nevertheless, I am very sceptical that Zelensky will be able to change anything. Real
change in Ukraine will be a much longer process, and will require the building of a different
kind of political opposition that we haven't seen in this country for a very long time.
•
This article first published on the Rosalux.de
website.
President without his own party is lame duck President; a puppet. If it is true that Zelenski is really man of Soros and was
elected on Soros money that's a very bad omen. That's probably the worst possible scenario.
At the same time in Ukraine allegiance to a party is weak and some deputies might switch sides forming kind of "Zelenski
block" similar to "Block of Petr Poroshenko" so he can create some sudo-party. Also
he cancel the reelection of the Parliament. But he will need to deal with Yulia Timoshenko who is the leader of Batkivshchina
party and that will not be easy.
Might well be variation of the theme of Saakashvili. Dmitry Babish said that Zelenski is a neoliberal who is surrounded by
Soros people and several foreign born ministers that Poroshenko fired. His connection to the notorious oligarch Kolomoyski is
another very bad sign.
Notable quotes:
"... hope for Ukraine but I did not know that in Zelensky team there are Soros people according to the specialist in Moscow. ..."
"... I see Ukraine pulled a Trump. Good luck with that. What could possibly go wrong? ..."
hope for Ukraine but I did not know that in Zelensky team there are Soros people according to the specialist in
Moscow. Anyhow this analysis was very interesting
AJ what's your report card on Poroshenko, the chocolate king? I recall Poroshenko ordered
his troops to attack and bomb east Ukraine, Ukraine's own territory. I doubt the Russian
speaking Ukrainians have a tattoo on their forehead identified them as such. a comic won't do
any worse than a US selected oligarch.
USA elected Trump as president, a man with no political experience. In the UK we elect
politicians and end up with jokers. Good luck Ukraine I really hope it works for you.
"... Poroshenko's government greatly encouraged glorification of those troops and leaders as fighters for Ukrainian freedom who it insisted sided with Germany only in order to fight against the Russian-controlled Soviet Union. ..."
"... Meanwhile, in the western city of Lviv, nationalists became emboldened enough to celebrate with city authorities' permission the anniversary of the 14th Galician division of the Waffen SS. The anniversary events featured men parading in Nazi SS uniforms on the street. ..."
"... On this subject, Zelensky has said only that he personally does not favor the veneration of people like Bandera, whom he described as "a hero to some Ukrainians." It was a markedly reserved formulation compared to the unreserved endorsement of figures like Bandera by officials under Poroshenko. ..."
"... In some far-right circles, Zelensky's work in a television stationed owned by the Jewish billionaire Igor Kolomoisky was proof of his belonging to a "Jewish cabal." But it made Zelensky popular with other nationalists who appreciated Kolomoisky's reputation as a fiery patriot. ..."
"... Not denying his Jewish ancestry, Zelensky declined to explore it at length in the interview, Levy wrote. On this subject, he replied with typical self-deprecating humor, telling Levy: "The fact that I am Jewish barely makes 20 in my long list of faults." ..."
"... This popularity has allowed Zelensky to both win on an unusually vague platform and distinguish himself from his professional politician rivals, with their proclivity to hyperbole and nationalist slogans. ..."
"... For example, when a reporter asked him how he would deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Zelensky reverted to his comic roots, saying "I would speak to him at eye level." It was a reference to him and Putin being at least three inches shorter than Poroshenko, a 6-footer. ..."
"... "We will need to wait and see what kind of president Zelensky turns out to be," said Dolinsky, who was an outspoken critic of some policies of the Poroshenko administration. "What is clear is that Poroshenko's attempt to appeal to nationalism has failed. Ukrainians said they wanted change. And I am feeling optimistic." ..."
Ukrainian comedian and presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky reacts after the announcement of the first exit poll results in
the second round of Ukraine's presidential election at his campaign headquarters in Kiev on April 21, 2019. (Photo by Sergei GAPON
/ AFP) JTA -- Following the victory of Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine's presidential elections, the country will become the only one
in the world besides Israel whose president and prime minister are both Jewish.
When Zelensky is sworn in as president, his prime minister -- at least for a while and possibly until the parliamentary elections
scheduled to take place sometime later this year -- will be Volodymyr Groysman, a Jewish politician who was the mayor of the city
of Vinnytsia.
To some of incumbent Petro Poroshenko's critics, the landslide success of the vague campaign by the politically inexperienced
Zelensky, a comedian, was not surprising in light of widespread resentment over the persistence of corruption under Poroshenko, who
was elected in 2014 on a platform that vowed remedial action on exactly that front.
More unusual to some, however, was how Zelensky's appears to have won the elections so decisively in spite of how his Jewish ancestry
– his mother, Rima, is Jewish and he has jokingly referred to this during the campaign -- is well known in Ukraine.
After all, Russia and other critics claim Ukrainian society has a serious anti-Semitism problem and legacy.
"Imagine, a pure-blooded Jew with the appearance of a Sholom Aleichem protagonist wins by a landslide in a country where
the glorification of Nazi criminals is enacted into law," wrote Avigdor Eskin, a Russian-Israeli columnist, in an analysis published
earlier this month by the Regnum news agency.
Eskin in column on Zelensky downplayed allegations of widespread anti-Semitism in Ukraine, attributing much of the attention to
the problem in media and beyond to propaganda by Russia, which is involved in an armed conflict over territory with Ukraine. But
Eskin's statement about Ukrainian laws glorifying Nazi criminals is not inaccurate, and Russia is not alone in criticizing Ukraine
over this and other issues connected to anti-Semitism.
Last year, Israel's government singled out Ukraine as a regional trouble spot in the Israeli government's annual report on anti-Semitism.
"A striking exception in the trend of decrease in anti-Semitic incidents in Eastern Europe was Ukraine, where the number of recorded
anti-Semitic attacks was doubled from last year and surpassed the tally for all the incidents reported throughout the entire region
combined," the report said. The authors of the report counted more than 130 reported anti-Semitic incidents in Ukraine in 2017, they
said.
Also last year, more than 50 US Congress members condemned Ukrainian legislation that they said "glorifies Nazi collaborators"
and therefore goes even further than Poland's controversial laws limiting what can be said about local complicity during the Holocaust.
A letter signed by the US lawmakers stated, "It's particularly troubling that much of the Nazi glorification in Ukraine is government-supported."
It noted ceremonies, gestures and legislation venerating leaders of the UPA and OUN militias, who fought alongside Nazi Germany during
World War II and whose troops participated in atrocities against Jews and other victims.
Poroshenko's government greatly encouraged glorification of those troops and leaders as fighters for Ukrainian freedom who
it insisted sided with Germany only in order to fight against the Russian-controlled Soviet Union.
Several cities across Ukraine named streets for the Nazi-collaborator Stepan Bandera, who prior to Poroshenko's time in office
was openly glorified only in the country's west.
Meanwhile, in the western city of Lviv, nationalists became emboldened enough to celebrate with city authorities' permission
the anniversary of the 14th Galician division of the Waffen SS. The anniversary events featured men parading in Nazi SS uniforms
on the street.
Such sights would have been unthinkable under Viktor Yanukovych, the corrupt president who was deposed in a 2013 revolution that
ended with Poroshenko's election. Careful to alienate neither ethnic Russians in Ukraine nor its powerful neighbor to the east, Yanukovych
was less tolerant of this nationalist phenomenon.
On this subject, Zelensky has said only that he personally does not favor the veneration of people like Bandera, whom he described
as "a hero to some Ukrainians." It was a markedly reserved formulation compared to the unreserved endorsement of figures like Bandera
by officials under Poroshenko.
The presidential campaign itself has featured some anti-Semitism. In some far-right circles, Zelensky's work in a television
stationed owned by the Jewish billionaire Igor Kolomoisky was proof of his belonging to a "Jewish cabal." But it made Zelensky popular
with other nationalists who appreciated Kolomoisky's reputation as a fiery patriot.
Alexander Paliy, an influential political analyst supporting Poroshenko, last month stirred controversy when he wrote on Facebook
that, despite his "respect" for Jews and some Russians, "The president of Ukraine should be Ukrainian and Christian, like the absolute
majority of Ukrainians."
Such rhetoric is shocking to many of Ukraine's 300,000-odd Jews, whose ancestors suffered murderous anti-Semitism in Ukraine for
centuries before, during and decades after the Holocaust.
The French-Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy also referenced Ukrainian Jew's bloody history in an interview with Zelensky,
the 41-year-old son of scientists who lived near major Soviet army bases in Ukraine, that he published earlier this month in the
Le Point weekly.
"His Judaism. It's extraordinary that the possible future president of the country of the Shoah by Bullets and Babi Yar is a self-affirmed
Jew from a family of survivors from Kryvy Rih near Dnipro – the land of pogrom if ever there was one," Levy wrote. "This postmodern
kid, is he new proof that the virus of anti-Semitism has been contained" after the revolution, Levy added.
Not denying his Jewish ancestry, Zelensky declined to explore it at length in the interview, Levy wrote. On this subject,
he replied with typical self-deprecating humor, telling Levy: "The fact that I am Jewish barely makes 20 in my long list of faults."
Zelensky, whose mother, Rima, is Jewish, has ingratiated himself with the Ukrainian public with such jokes as the star of "Servant
of the People" – a primetime television show where he portrays a teacher thrust by an unlikely chain of events to become Ukraine's
president. He announced his candidacy in January, becoming an instant favorite.
This popularity has allowed Zelensky to both win on an unusually vague platform and distinguish himself from his professional
politician rivals, with their proclivity to hyperbole and nationalist slogans.
For example, when a reporter asked him how he would deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Zelensky reverted to his comic
roots, saying "I would speak to him at eye level." It was a reference to him and Putin being at least three inches shorter than Poroshenko,
a 6-footer.
Zelensky opaqueness means a high level of uncertainty, Dolinsky, the Jewish community leader, said.
"We will need to wait and see what kind of president Zelensky turns out to be," said Dolinsky, who was an outspoken critic
of some policies of the Poroshenko administration. "What is clear is that Poroshenko's attempt to appeal to nationalism has failed.
Ukrainians said they wanted change. And I am feeling optimistic."
It is clear that like in Trump vs Hillary situation many voted not for Zelensky but against
Poroshenko. Coul be that the same screwed political consultants who ensured Trump victory work in
Ukraine.
Zelensky is that same candidate as Obama, Trump and Macron: he has zero political history. So
you can project into him the expectation of electorate and that trick works. During the campaign,
concerns were raised over his links to the oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi (he proposed a tax amnesty
and a 5% flat tax for big
business ).
From Wikipedia: In an interview in December 2018, Zelensky stated that as President he would
try to end the ongoing
War in Donbass by
negotiating with Russia .
[49]
As he considered the leaders of the Donetsk People's Republic and the
Luhansk
People's Republic (DPR and LPR) to be Russia's "puppets", it would "make no sense to speak
with them". [49]
He did not rule out holding a referendum on the issue. [50][49]
In an interview published three days before the 2019 presidential election (on 21 April) Zelensky
stated that he was against granting the Donbass region "special status". [51]
In the interview he also said that if he were elected President he would not sign a law on
amnesty for the militants of the DPR and LPR. [51]
Edited Google translation.
Using phase form cult novel The Golden Calf by Ilya Ilf and
Evgeny Petrov "Children of lieutenant Schmidt" Poroshenko can be called a son of undersecretary
Nuland. He has no space for maneuver, space for negotiation as confrontation with Russia is the
geopolitical goal of neocon establishment which stands behind Victoria Nuland. That's probably
why he lost.
Poroshenko's triad -- "faith, army, language" -- was not born from scratch. Poroshenko
emphasized Ukrainization of all aspects of the country's life. In culture, history, even the
economics. Especially in the economics. All these decisions, orders and sanctions were aimed at
cutting economic ties with Russia under very simple ideological basis -- "Ukrainization uber
alles"
Of course, this was a gesture of despair of the man who came to power via "Washington Obcom"
at a time when Ukraine already lost a part of its territory -- the Crimea and was on the verge
of even greater loss -- Donbass, and maybe the entire South-East.
Poroshenko in this situation enforced blatant confrontation with Russia (instead of
negotiations and search of compromises) as the tool to unite the nation against common enemy.
Having accepted the obvious situation in which he can do nothing to return the lost territories
(and it would be unprofitable for him politically), he pushed the confrontation as if there is
no tomorrow, please his US sponsors. Which resulted is sliding of the standard of living as
lost markets at the East were not compensated by new market at the West. He unleashed personal
war with Russia hoping that it will help to survive him politically and instead it
backfired.
In other words Poroshenko assumed that he can unite Ukranina peole of the base of the his
fight with Russia. A common enemy always unites rulers and people.
However, during the presidential elections, which were held just five years after the
triumph of nationalist ideology on EuroMaydan, it turned out that this the majority of the
population does not share this ideology with Pyotr Alekseevich. And that the sliding standard
of living, rampant inflation and personal corruption of EuroMaydan junta has a greater
weight.
The majority, apparently, doesn't want exclusivity of the Ukrainian nation... They want
European standard of living.
While the world mourns the victims of today's terrorist atrocities in Sri Lanka, Ukraine has
conducted its first election since 2014 -- the year in which the fragmented post-Soviet
republic changed forever. This year, the debates were not a contest between those seeking to
reverse the tide of 2014 versus those committed to an even more radically pro-western approach,
but instead the question uniformly revolved around how a country that before 2014 was
ethnically and religious fragmented, poor, corrupt and seemingly ungovernable has become even
worse by all objective measurements.
Because of the popular discontent in the country due to the worsening of already abysmal
economic conditions, it was always going to be difficult for outgoing President Petro
Poroshenko to play the jingoistic anti-Russian/anti-Donbass card when most Ukrainian citizens
are becoming more worried about the price of gas and the price of food than they are worried
about playing a game of political football started by Barack Obama.
As such, the entire political class that took charge after 2014 (ironically many such people
were connected to the old regime they claimed to hate) are roundly reviled throughout Ukraine.
Against this background, comedian Volodymyr Zelensky decided to run for president and early
indications are that he has won the election in a landslide.
Zelensky's campaign was one based on a broadly anti-corruption platform that was as
pro-western and as anti-Russian as that of his closest rivals. The difference was that for the
first time in its history, Ukraine had a political figure with a human face rather than that of
a cold, calculating oligarch aspiring to be an autocrat. Outside of Ukraine and Russia,
Zelensky's candidacy has received the most attention in Israel.
Israeli
media have become excited by the fact that Ukraine will now have a Jewish head of state and
one whose chief backers are particularly close to Tel Aviv. While Israel has often condemned
the rise in genuine antisemitism throughout much of Ukraine, Tel Aviv has nevertheless
increased its economic relations with Kiev since 2014. As such, it can be assured that under
Zelensky, relations between Tel Aviv and Kiev will continue to grow.
This incidentally comes at a time when Russia and Israel are becoming increasingly close
allies as was recently detailed in a Eurasia Future piece by Andrew
Korybko . Whilst Moscow and Kiev cannot agree on seemingly anything at this point in
history, they can agree on one thing: Israel is considered a friendly nation and a valued
partner.
Just because Vladimir Putin is a friend of Israel and something of a philosemitie, it does
not automatically mean that he will develop a warm relationship with a Ukrainian leader who
happens to be Jewish and who happens to be friendly with prominent Israeli businessmen.
However, because the Kremlin has long sought to reach some sort of conclusion to the stand off
with Ukraine (against the wishes of many Russian patriots and the two main opposition parties),
a fresh face in Kiev who has ties to Israelis may well be a small step towards bridging the gap
between his own government and Moscow.
None of this will likely play out before the cameras because in much of Ukraine it is
considered near treasonous to talk of anything resembling a detente with Moscow. Likewise, at a
time when Vladimir Putin's popularity is dipping due to an unpopular proposed pension reform
and internal economic/infrastructural issues, it would be viewed by at least some Russian
patriots as a sell out to effectively compromise with a Kiev regime that has attempted to
commit ethnic cleansing against the people of Donbass.
That being said, behind the scenes things will likely be very different, just as they were
after 2015 when Russia and Turkey rapidly mended ties out of the view of the public, before
later becoming openly close partners as they are today.
As a political novice in a country whose "experienced politicians" are self-evidently
nothing to learn by, Zelensky may well seek advice from Israeli experts, many of whom are
becoming increasingly close to Putin's Russia. This could represent the beginning of a slowly
turning tide for both Moscow and Kiev.
"... The document "determines a list of those goods that it will be possible to export to Ukraine only on the basis of separate decisions from June 1." "This category includes fuel and energy products, including coal as well as the oil and petroleum products," he said. ..."
Russia is banning exports of crude oil, petroleum products and coal to Ukraine.
"A few days ago the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers took the latest unfriendly step with
respect to our country and expanded the list of Russian goods which cannot be imported to
Ukrainian territory. In these conditions we are forced to protect our interests and take
response measures," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said at a meeting of the Russian
cabinet.
Medvedev said he had signed a resolution "banning the export of Russian crude oil and
petroleum products to Ukraine."
The document "determines a list of those goods that it will be possible to export to Ukraine
only on the basis of separate decisions from June 1." "This category includes fuel and energy
products, including coal as well as the oil and petroleum products," he said.
Not sure if extensive Lavrov interview earlier in April was reported on saker
..extract
"Question: Have you seen any grounds for optimism in the results of the first round of the
presidential election in Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: To be honest, I haven't seen any grounds for either optimism or pessimism.
What's the point of guesswork? This is a process that should take place and will be
completed. I do not doubt this or that the West will recognise this election.
OSCE observers released their preliminary report on the results of the first round of the
presidential election, which abounds in examples of flagrant violations: corruption, bribery,
pressure on voters and many other things. However, all this is described in a neutral tone. I
think if they wrote about us, they would present these facts emotionally. Now they are doing
it in an understated way and conclude that this did not affect the legitimacy of the
election. Neither was it affected by the flagrant violation of OSCE rules when our observers
were kicked out and over three million Ukrainians working and living in Russia were deprived
of the right to vote. These are facts of life in Ukraine.
I think that the results of the election and the way it was organised came as no surprise
to those who have been following domestic developments in Ukraine and its external ties. They
are already calling each other puppets It's probably interesting to watch from the side but I
don't think that Ukrainian citizens are happy about this kind of democracy.
Question: Are the prospects of Russia-Ukraine cooperation still vague?
Sergey Lavrov: We are open to dialogue if the aim is not chatting and looking for excuses
to do nothing but rather the practical implementation of the Minsk agreements. I have no
doubt that Petr Poroshenko does not want to do this and won't do this. When Viktor Medvedchuk
just suggested seriously discussing what autonomous rights may be granted to Donbass, he was
called a traitor. Poroshenko said this will never happen although he himself signed a
document on the special status of Donbass, which is described with sufficient detail in the
Minsk agreements.
These provisions on what rights Donbass should have were formulated by German Chancellor
Angela Merkel personally, among others, but her ward has got out of hand. This is a fact. On
the one hand, he doesn't listen to Germany or France because he has American "patrons". On
the other hand, they find it embarrassing to pressure him in public because by doing so they
will admit that what they call their "mediation" has failed.
However, there is no other document except for the Minsk agreements. They can certainly be
supplemented. For instance, it is possible to provide OSCE observers with UN armed guards, as
we suggest in response to the apprehensions of Ukrainians about their safety. But the core of
these agreements must remain unchanged. The main point is that all issues are settled
directly between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk .."
The Toltec sages used to say: "To really know something means that it must also entail the
knowledge of what course of action to take. And once you know what to do, you actually do
it". So they firmly stated that the only worthy knowledge is a functional one. Normally, the
trascendental matters were integrally consulted with the "Eagle" (i.e. the Entity out there
with limitless consciousness, which sounds pretty much like "God") through a link that in the
west is ignorantly dismissed as "intuition". This to remark that the big decisions must not
rely entirely on the rational part, because it is too prone to make mistakes.
We all know who the adversary is: it's not the AZE (AngloZionist Empire) per se, it's who
rule the Empire. And what they are doing in Ukraine is pretty clear:
* The endgame is to carve another Poland from the Russian population, as a means to weaken
the Russian State. The steps are obvious and unfortunately, maybe definitive: zioimposed
religious schism, forceful and exclusive use of "Ukrainian" from 2020 on, denial to belong to
other country different from "Ukraine" (a patchwork assembled through land thefts).
Fortunately Russia recovered Crimea, and the mining/industrial regions are disputed, but the
Khazarians control 2 critical assets: the other coastal oblasts and the chernozem soils.
* Stating that Russia cannot absorb Novorossiya is bullsh¡t. Germany, a smaller economy
with no sovereign government could absorb the RDA. If Russia doesn't decide, the situation
will decide by itself. Russia is already receiving a lot of displaced Russians, plus tons of
Russians in Ukraine who became the source of cheap labor for Russian companies. And what
about the costs of humanitarian assistance and military support to Russians under the Ukraine
dictatorship? Let's say it takes 30 years to revert the decay, so what? Russia has been
around longer and has had successful comebacks under way more destruction.
* The Donbass people already decided twice, by clear majority of the popular vote, to become
part of the Russian Federation. The right thing to do is simply accepting them. Not doing so
sends the signal that no matter what the other southwestern Oblasts do, they will not be
accepted either. Russia should openly support the Russians in the southeast of Ukraine who
want to secede and reintegrate with the Russian Federation.
For example, financing a
reunification party, granting contracts and jobs to the Russian allies there, logistically
supporting a secession movement, even militarily, because the Khazarians will not let go
without bloodshed.
"... Thus, there is an objective reason to prefer Zelensky over Poroshenko, which is that Poroshenko is a major thief while Zelensky isn't one yet, but it must be understood that this difference will begin to equalize the moment after Zelensky's inauguration. In fact, the elites in Kiev are currently all aquiver over their ingenious plan to sell off all of Ukraine's land to foreign investors (no doubt pocketing a hefty "fee"). ..."
"... The platforms of all the 30+ candidates were identical, but this makes no difference in a country that has surrendered its sovereignty. In terms of foreign relations and strategic considerations, the Ukraine is run from the US embassy in Kiev. ..."
"... n terms of its internal functioning, the main prerogative of everyone in power, the president included, is thievery. Their idea is to get their cut and flee the country before the whole thing blows up. ..."
"... Another option would be for Poroshenko to cheat his way past the second round (in an even more heavy-handed manner, since this time he is behind by over 30%), in which case Zelensky could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would invalidate the entire election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather, rinse, repeat. Are you excited yet? ..."
"... None of this matters, because we don't know which of the two is the US State Department's pick. Depending on which one it is, and regardless of the results of any elections or lawsuits, a giant foot will come out of the sky and stomp on the head of the other one. ..."
The Saker: What is your take on the first round of Presidential elections in the
Ukraine?
Dmitry Orlov: The first round of the elections was an outright fraud. The object of the
exercise was to somehow allow president Poroshenko to make it into the second round. This was
done by falsifying as many votes as was necessary. In a significant number of precincts the
turnout was exactly 100% instead of the usual 60% or so and counted votes from people who had
moved, died or emigrated. All of these fake votes went to Poroshenko, allowing him to slither
through to the second round.
Now the fight is between Poroshenko and a comedian named Vladimir Zelensky. The only
difference between Poroshenko and Zelensky, or any of the other 30+ people who appeared on the
ballot, is that Poroshenko has already stolen his billions while his contestants have not had a
chance to do so yet, the only reason to run for president, or any elected office, in the
Ukraine, being to put oneself in a position to do some major thieving.
Thus, there is an objective reason to prefer Zelensky over Poroshenko, which is that
Poroshenko is a major thief while Zelensky isn't one yet, but it must be understood that this
difference will begin to equalize the moment after Zelensky's inauguration. In fact, the elites
in Kiev are currently all aquiver over their ingenious plan to sell off all of Ukraine's land
to foreign investors (no doubt pocketing a hefty "fee").
The platforms of all the 30+ candidates were identical, but this makes no difference in a
country that has surrendered its sovereignty. In terms of foreign relations and strategic
considerations, the Ukraine is run from the US embassy in Kiev. I
n terms of its internal
functioning, the main prerogative of everyone in power, the president included, is thievery.
Their idea is to get their cut and flee the country before the whole thing blows up.
It remains to be seen whether the second round of elections will also be an outright fraud
and what happens as a result. There are many alternatives, but none of them resemble any sort
of exercise in democracy. To be sure, what is meant by "democracy" in this case is simply the
ability to execute orders issued from Washington; inability to do so would make Ukraine an
"authoritarian regime" or a "dictatorship" and subject to "regime change." But short of that,
nothing matters.
The machinations of Ukraine's "democrats" are about as interesting to me as the sex lives of
sewer rats, but for the sake of completeness, let me flowchart it out for you. Poroshenko got
into second round by outright fraud, because the loss of this election would, within the
Ukrainian political food chain, instantly convert him from predator to prey. However, he was
none too subtle about it, there is ample proof of his cheating, and the contender he squeezed
out -- Yulia Timoshenko -- could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would
invalidate the entire election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather,
rinse, repeat.
Another option would be for Poroshenko to cheat his way past the second round (in an even
more heavy-handed manner, since this time he is behind by over 30%), in which case Zelensky
could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would invalidate the entire
election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather, rinse, repeat. Are you
excited yet?
None of this matters, because we don't know which of the two is the US State Department's
pick. Depending on which one it is, and regardless of the results of any elections or lawsuits,
a giant foot will come out of the sky and stomp on the head of the other one.
Of course, it
will all be made to look highly democratic for the sake of appearances. The leadership of the
EU will oblige with some golf claps while choking back vomit and the world will move on.
KIEV, April 17. /TASS/. The Ukrainian State Investigation Bureau launched a criminal case on
"the intentional surrender" of Crimea against Verkhovna Rada Speaker Andrei Paruby, Secretary
of the Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense Alexander Turchinov, former Prime
Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk and others, the Ukrainian law union Aver Lex told TASS on
Wednesday.
READ ALSO
Court finds Yanukovich not guilty of 'losing Crimea' -- attorney
"The State Investigation Bureau opened a criminal case on the intentional surrender of
Crimea, violent upheaval, treason and the organization of mass murders on the 'maidan' in
2014 by Ukraine's top officials, in particular by Arseny Yatsenyuk, Alexander Turchinov,
Andrei Paruby, [former head of Ukraine's Security Service] Valentin Nalivaichenko, [Verkhovna
Rada member] Sergei Pashinsky, [Permanent Representative to the UN] Yuri Sergeyev, [Kiev
Mayor] Vitaly Klichko, [head of the Freedom nationalist party] Oleg Tyagnibok, [former Acting
Defense Minister] Igor Tenyukh, [Prosecutor General] Yuri Lutsenko, [Defense Minister] Stepan
Poltorak and others," Aver Lex said.
"... Presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky has responded to remarks by incumbent President Petro Poroshenko about the former's dependence on Ukrainian businessman Ihor Kolomoisky with a statement about ex-First Deputy Secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Oleh Hladkovsky (formerly Oleh Svynarchuk), the suspect identified in corruption in the defense sector by investigative journalists. ..."
"... He said again that I am a puppet of Kolomoisky. I have only one question, I think he will be amazed too: So you are a puppet of Svynarchuk, or is Svynarchuk your puppet? ..."
Presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky has responded to remarks by incumbent President
Petro Poroshenko about the former's dependence on Ukrainian businessman Ihor Kolomoisky with a
statement about ex-First Deputy Secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council
(NSDC) Oleh Hladkovsky (formerly Oleh Svynarchuk), the suspect identified in corruption in the
defense sector by investigative journalists.
"I've just watched the press conference of our guarantor. He said again that I am a puppet
of Kolomoisky. I have only one question, I think he will be amazed too: So you are a puppet of
Svynarchuk, or is Svynarchuk your puppet? Please, pass this question on to the guarantor of the
constitution (president)," Zelensky said at a briefing at his election headquarters on Sunday
evening.
As reported, Poroshenko on Sunday evening after publication of exit polls in the
presidential election said he was fated to run against "Kolomoisky's puppet" in the second
round of presidential elections scheduled for April 21.
"We will not give Kolomoisky any chance," Poroshenko said.
Possibly relevant this morning in the Wall Street Journal George P. Schultz, William J.
Perry, and Sam Nunn have an op-ed highlighting that a nuclear threat is not a thing of the
past.
The good news: they characterize the U. S.'s Russia policy as "dysfunctional" (which it
is) and call for renewed dialogue with Russia.
The bad news: they also call for strengthening NATO.
It seems to me that those two goals are contradictory. Expanding NATO beyond its original
membership is a key component of the dysfunction and a barrier to renewed dialogue with
Russia.
Sakers has a strong pro-Russian bias, and it shows. the process of distancing from Russia was
common for all post-Soviet republics and actually was caused by the mere fact of acquiring
independence. That it took such a self-destructive form in Ukraine is many ways the net result to
Washington geopolitical machinations (supported by Germany, Poland and Sweden).
The key problem is not EuroMaydan nationalist "revolution" per se, but that fact that
Ukrainian nationalists proved to be neoliberal compradors. Ukraine became the debt slave of the
West. Under neoliberal neocolonialism this is a very stable condition that guarantees that the
standard of living of people will not improve. The country will be sacked dry. So Ukraine is an
example of "Latin-Americanization" of post Soviet space -- that policy that Washington actively
implemented since 1991. After huge initial success with puppet Yeltsin regime, they failed to
weaken and dismember Russia further due to ascendance of Putin. But for all other republics it
was pretty successful neocolonial policy. They now have military bases in few of those republics
and most of them are debt slaves of IMF and World bank. In a way EuroMaydan signified the
finishing touches of conversion of this region into dent slaves.
Neoliberal Washington was turned into an oligarchy, an autocracy run by Davos billionaires.
Their "liberty" and democracy was an early example of Orwellian Doublethink. It was to destroy
everybody else's liberty so they could grab whatever they could, enslave the debtors and
create the polarized hostile to each other countries in post-Soviet state that are easily
controlled ("divide and conquer" strategy along with "Full Spectrum Dominance" mantra and
neoliberal "Washington Consensus" method of enslavement). Ukraine is the most glaring example of
this enslavement --the country with Central African level of poverty. It is very similar how
Roman oligarchy behaved -- the Roman oligarchy accused anyone of supporting debtor rights and
opposing its land grabs of "seeking kingship." Such men were murdered, century after century. It
seems that unless there's a Hammurabi-style "divine king" or some elected civic regulatory
authority arise, local neoliberal oligarchies arise and help to exploit their societies by
Washington as much as they can, while trying to prevent the country from defending itself. In few
countries like Hungary far right ascendance slowed down this process, but for how long is unlearn
as global finance is controlled from London and Washington and can crash any individual country
like a bug.
The Romans brutal "mission civilisatrice", can be viewed as to instll local oligarchy and and
kind of "financialized" economy in other countries. For performing this service, the imperial
power takes all the money that its colonies can generate. Washington is not different. That's why
the US meddles in foreign politics of other countries, as we have just seen in Ukraine, Libya and
Syria.
This overgrowth of debt under neoliberalism is highly destabilizing. Financial oligarchy have
broken free of tax liability and are enriching themselves not by helping the overall country
economy grow and raising living standards, but just the opposite: by getting the country into
bigger and bigger debt. This is the essence of Poroshenko regime -- corrupt comprador
oligarchy.
So there is no surprise that everybody hates Poroshenko and even huge "administrative
resource" and personal wealth did not help him to get more then 15% of votes (of which 5-10% are
probably fraudulent). That's typical for any neoliberal president who stand for re-election in a
debt slave country. But it is important to to note that this Washington marionette made the
situation much worse that the situation existed under Yanukovich (which was also corrupt as
hell).
The role of Israel in EuroMaydan is open to review and one comment below addresses that.
Some comments are more informed and are more interesting then the article, for example by
Beckow.
An interesting and funny detail is proliferation of "Children of lieutenant Schmitt" --
Holocaust survivors in Ukraine. People who were born in 1945, the first post-war generation, are
now 75, right ? And life expectantly for this generation is probably 65 for men and 75 for
women.
Notable quotes:
"... Poroshenko's absolutely vital goal was to make it into the 2nd round. Had he failed to make it he would have had to immediately jump into an aircraft and leave the country (because the most likely victor of the Presidential election would have been Iulia Tymoshenko and we can be darn sure that she would immediately jail him and most of his cronies). ..."
"... it is practically impossible to falsify an election and compensate for, say, a 15%-20% difference. But to cheat and change a result by less than 5% is much more doable. ..."
"... As for Zelenskii, he scores just like Poroshenko. ... ... ... ...Zelenskii is just a glorified puppet and everybody in the Ukraine knows that his puppet-master is Igor Kolomoiskii who is waiting out the final outcome of the Presidential election safely hidden in, you guessed it, Israel. ..."
"... Still, in theory, it is almost impossible for Poroshenko to win this one. Not only do all the other candidates hate Poroshenko way more than they would dislike Zelenskii, voters for Tymoshenko or Boiko are far more likely to vote for Zelenskii than for Poroshenko. ..."
"... Most votes went to Zelenski that is indication that Ukrainians now did loose their enthusiasm, and they are becoming more lethargic. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's State Department funneled $5 billion to orchestrate a "revolution" to overthrow the elected President of Ukraine in 2014. (See my June 7, 2016 blog post for details.) Ukraine's President was ousted because he refused to support Ukraine joining the EU and NATO, and violence spread throughout Ukraine as CIA funded factions fought for power. ..."
"... With the exception of the Baltic states, that simply isn't true of any nation from the former Soviet Union. Otherwise, the Russians couldn't have set up the Eurasian Customs Union which covers ~90% of the former USSR. There are even many Georgians working in Russia, in spite of the short war that was started by US dummy and former Georgian then Ukrainian, now stateless, Mikheil Saakashvili. ..."
"... I say the best solution for Ukraine would be to leave the nazis among themselves by giving independence to Galicia. If it's the price to pay to reintegrate Donbass, for the economy, and for peace and stability, it's worth it. ..."
"... He has been in the office for 5 years and 85% of people want someone else. How much clearer could this be? This was a massive vote of no-confidence by Ukrainians. If Porky squeezes or cheats his way into staying as president, he is asking for trouble – it is not sustainable and Washington knows it. ..."
"... Galicia and Donbas also clearly cannot coexist in the same non-federated state, they are on opposite sides. ..."
"... That takes away 3-5% of the Ukrainian economy. If Russia piles on and restricts more trade, or limits remittances, there will inevitably by a recession in Ukraine. The circus is about to re-start, no wonder the clowns are renting stadiums. But at some point the distractions will cease to distract – and then the damn reality will hit even harder ..."
"... Most importantly, the masters are OK with it. Imperial gauleiter of Ukraine Volker has already voiced his support for Porky. Porky would likely be more obedient than anyone else: he can be blackmailed, as he has already earned gallows (or life in prison in countries that don't have death penalty). So, the masters have already chosen their favorite puppet. We'll see on April 21st how much influence they have. ..."
"... I am not saying that Zelensky (and his puppet master Kolomoisky) won't do, but from masters' point of view old clown is apparently preferable to the new one. ..."
"... the first step when things don't go well, is to rotate the clowns. We got Macron, the German doppelganger for Merkel, elites tried Renzi in Italy, so maybe Zelinsky could work. He is a complete tabula rasa, non-entity, that wouldn't know how to find the executive washroom. At a minimum, he would buy some time. Next they can still try Tymoshenko. This will not get resolved through the political process. ..."
"... If the masters allow new clown to win, Gas princess can be made the speaker of the Rada ..."
"... I am not sure what is left to be gained in Ukraine, it is all costs and very few benefits. That's what happens when the layered lying becomes so convoluted that the masters lose track of the objectives. ..."
"... They wanted Crimea (actually Russia out of Crimea bases, NATO in) – that failed. Everything else were distractions, false promises, and payoffs to locals. A normal master would accept the defeat, take his toys home, and wait for the next time. The post-modern Washingtonians instead pretend that the sweet talk was real , try for silly, secondary objectives (how about a few missiles on the Russian border? that would work out great), or refuse to accept the obvious. Making the whole fiasco more costly. ..."
"... As to a few missiles on Russian border, they already have that in Baltic vaudeville states, which are much closer to Moscow and especially Sankt Petersburg then Zhmerinka. ..."
"... Then again, I am looking at it rationally, whereas Washington politburo is getting even less rational that the Soviet one under Brezhnev. ..."
"... In April this year [2018] the U.S. supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and in May 2018 the U.S. Congress approved $250m of military funding, specifically including deliveries of lethal weaponry. ..."
"... President Donald Trump's special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker (a neocon, acolyte of senator John McCain, previously appointed by George Bush as U.S. ambassador to NATO) announced further U.S. arms supplies would follow, boasting of rising anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine. ..."
"... The zionists have been in cahoots with the neo-Nazi throughout the whole State Dept. criminal enterprise in Ukraine. The Kagans clan of holo-biz survivors and other pro-Nazi Jewish activists such as Gershman (NED) and Foxman (ADL) have been the moving force towards banderization of Ukraine ..."
By "Nazis" I primarily
mean their main figurehead – Petro Poroshenko (the rest of the "minor Nazis" did so
poorly that they don't matter anymore). Think of it: in spite of his immense wealth (he
outspent everybody else and even spent more that twice what the next big spender –
Tymoshenko – doled out for each vote), in spite of his immense "administrative resource"
(that is the Russian expression for the ability to use the power of the state for your personal
benefit), in spite of his "victory" with the Tomos , in spite of triggering the Kerch bridge
incident, in spite of breaking all the remaining treaties with Russia, in spite of his control
of the media and in spite of the (now admittedly lukewarm) support of the West, Poroshenko
suffered a crushing defeat. Look at the only two regions Petro Poroshenko (i.e. the Nazis)
actually won (in blue) and see how nicely they overlap with the rough historical contours of
the Galicia region.
But Poroshenko managed to even lose part of that to Iulia Tymoshenko! Bottom line: except for a
minority of rabid hardcore Nazis in Galicia, the rest of the Ukraine hates the Poroshenko
Ukronazi regime. We always knew that, but now we have the proof. ... ... ... Remember how
Poroshenko promised peace in weeks, a full respect for the Russian language and prosperity for
all? Well, all he delivered was chaos, insecurity, poverty, violence, a massive influx of
Ukronazis from Canada and the USA and, above all, a completely hysterical, rabid,
russophobia combined with abject groveling before the AngloZionist Empire. He also brought
an absolutely unbelievable level of corruption, having personally doubled his net worth many
times over. The legacy Ziomedia and the Ukropropaganda can say all they want, and they can try
to ban the Russian media and Internet in the Ukraine. But the truth is that everybody in the
Ukraine knows that the Ukraine went from being the richest Soviet Republic to the poorest
country in Europe. In fact, there are quite a few African countries which are doing much
better than the Ukraine. The truth is, and has been for several years now, that the Ukraine
is a failed state and that there is absolutely no even vaguely plausible scenario in the
foreseeable future in which the Ukraine could begin to recover. Hence this amazing result:
short of the Galician Nazis, everyone else absolutely hates the regime in power. So
Poroshenko's score is a humiliating defeat for all the Ukronazis. But not for Petro Poroshenko
himself!
Poroshenko's absolutely vital
goal was to make it into the 2nd round. Had he failed to make it he would have had to
immediately jump into an aircraft and leave the country (because the most likely victor of the
Presidential election would have been Iulia Tymoshenko and we can be darn sure that she would
immediately jail him and most of his cronies). In order to make it into the 2nd round,
Poroshenko did not have to defeat Zelenskii, but only defeat Tymoshenko and that Poroshenko
also succeeded in doing. Oh sure – it was thanks to a huge, massive fraud all over the
country (especially in the easternmost and westernmost regions) and he beat her only by 2.5%
but that is more than enough.
Besides, it is practically impossible to falsify an election and compensate for, say, a
15%-20% difference. But to cheat and change a result by less than 5% is much more doable.
In fact, if we assume that a 5% fraud is well within the means of an outgoing President and
billionaire, then we can also see that we will never know who really won . See here for an
almost finished (99.68%) count for the top four contenders: While Zelenskii is untouchable and
way ahead of everybody else, Poroshenko, Tymoshenko and Boiko are all within less than 5% of
each other. Interesting, no?
Keep in mind that Boiko is the closest thing to a pro-Russian candidate and that just a few
years ago he was virtually unknown. See for yourself: 2014 results vs 2018 poll Look at the
stats for 2014: Poroshenko had 55% of the vote, Tymoshenko 8% and Boiko just about 0%. Please
also notice that in the 2018 poll Tymoshenko is way ahead of Poroshenko while Boiko is not far
behind.
As for Zelenskii, he scores just like Poroshenko. ... ... ... ...Zelenskii is just a
glorified puppet and everybody in the Ukraine knows that his puppet-master is Igor Kolomoiskii
who is waiting out the final outcome of the Presidential election safely hidden in, you guessed
it, Israel. This is how the Tablet concludes:
The transformation wrought in Ukraine by the Maidan revolution has been an exhilarating
roller coaster that has not bypassed Ukrainian Jewry, which is now in the midst of an
exciting period of cultural revival paralleling that of the wider Ukrainian society, which is
still just beginning to rediscover its own past and imagine an independent future. Whether
this post-Soviet country will choose to elect an openly Jewish president, or a part-Jewish
president, or continue with its current philo-Semitic president, the future of Ukraine's Jews
would appear to be brighter than anyone might reasonably have imagined.
Where Poroshenko was the ultimate apparatchik Zelenskii is the ultimate outsider
and just as the people of the USA did not vote "for" Trump as much as they voted "against"
Hillary, so the people of the Ukraine did not really vote "for" Zelenskii, but "against"
Poroshenko. In fact, Zelenskii does not have anything resembling a political program (only
vague and nice sounding slogans) and he most certainly has no other political record other than
being a standup comedian and actors in several (pretty good) satirical series. Frankly, it
appears that Zelenskii was as stunned by his victory as Trump was by his.
Still, in theory, it is almost impossible for Poroshenko to win this one. Not only do
all the other candidates hate Poroshenko way more than they would dislike Zelenskii, voters for
Tymoshenko or Boiko are far more likely to vote for Zelenskii than for Poroshenko. This
creates an extremely dangerous situation: Poroshenko can only win by a massive fraud . Now
Tymoshenko did declare that the first round was stolen, but she decided not to appeal this
officially. Furthermore, it is now apparent that Tymoshenko was ditched by most of her US
supporters, something which she clearly did not expect and which came as a total shock to her,
hence her stunned reaction to the announced figures. She has always been, and still is, a
remarkably intelligent lady and a very calculating realist: she simply knows that an official
rejection of the outcome from her would make no difference. But you can be sure that behind the
scenes the interests Tymoshenko represents are now talking to the people of Kolomoiskii and
that Poroshenko is fully aware of that. ... ... ...
Poroshenko is now truly cornered: he absolutely must win, or he must run. In order to win,
his options are very limited
... ... ...
The infamous Minister of the Interior, Arsen Avakov, arguably currently the most powerful
and dangerous man in the Ukraine, has made an
most interesting statement about Zelenskii:
"A decent man from another world. From another plane. Ready to deal with problems, but
at the same time recognizing that in many issues he is not fully competent. In my
understanding, this means that he is ready to delegate authority. However, the question
arises: can we – Ukrainian society – offer the quality of the elite, which can
be entrusted with the implementation of such powers? After all, if he delegates authority
to scoundrels – as it happens in some series of "Servants of the people" – it
will be very bad for the country. Using expats is also not an option "( ) "He knows for
sure that from point A it is necessary to come to point B, and I am ready to agree with it.
But the problem is how to go this way. Often, if you go head-on, you will crash into a wall
or break. Therefore, it is necessary to choose the right path – and here should work
competent and honest specialists"
In plain English this simply means: Zelenskii has no personal power base, he will be a
puppet, so he better offer me a good deal (" delegate authority "), or I will turn
against him and, how knows, an unpredictable accident (" you will crash into a wall or
break ") can easily happen. Shocking? Welcome to "Ukrainian thug politics"! Besides, if
the Nazis decide to kill Zelenskii they can easily blame it on Russia. Either that, or on a
"lone, deranged, gunman" which they can find in the thousands amongst the various Nazi
death-squads.
Right now the Nazis are in a total panic, they are declaring that Zelenskii's victory is
"Moscow's triumph", they say that Zelenskii will sell out everything Ukrainian and that he is
a Putin agent. At the very least, they will now dig up as much dirt on Zelenskii as possible
(whether real or manufactured).
Zelenski means green man and has Polish indication. So he is one of the holocaust
survivors. (There are suspiciously too many of them these days.)
Timoshenko was virulently anti Russian but not so much anymore. All industrial plants in
Ukraine were built by Russians making products for Russia, I have doubt that they can make
anything that west needs. So Ukraine now is fully depended on agriculture. That is why
Ukraine is going down.
Most votes went to Zelenski that is indication that Ukrainians now did loose their
enthusiasm, and they are becoming more lethargic.
Galicia is multicultural area consisting mostly Polish, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian,
Russian, and some other nationals. There is no unity there, and never will be
@Ilyana_Rozumova Maybe Galicia should be returned to Poland? From my blog:
May 1, 2017 – Must Ukraine Return Volhynia?
Hillary Clinton's State Department funneled $5 billion to orchestrate a "revolution"
to overthrow the elected President of Ukraine in 2014. (See my June 7, 2016 blog post for
details.) Ukraine's President was ousted because he refused to support Ukraine joining the
EU and NATO, and violence spread throughout Ukraine as CIA funded factions fought for
power.
Crimea was part of Russia for over a century until it was administratively attached to
Ukraine in 1954 by a Soviet premier to promote Soviet solidarity. Russians are the majority
people in Crimea and Russian is the common language, but they were not consulted. In 2014,
after years of Ukrainian political turmoil and an American coup in Kiev, Russia accepted a
request by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia after 94% voted in favor. (See my Aug 8,
2016 blog post for details.) Russians and Crimeans were puzzled by intense American
opposition to this reannexation, and rightly concluded the Americans really wanted "NATO"
military bases in strategic Crimea.
For those concerned about European borders and justice, they should address a truly
outrageous annexation. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and seized half of its land
while Soviet police massacred 22,000 influential Polish POWs and civilians. This area was
invaded by Germany two years later, which formed Ukrainian paramilitary units that murdered
over 100,000 Poles during the war.
Entire Polish villages disappeared as Ukrainians massacred everyone to include women and
children, who were buried in mass graves. After the war, the Polish regions of Volhynia and
Eastern Galicia were formally annexed by Soviet Ukraine after 1.5 million Poles were
forcibly deported. Over the next decade, another 1.5 million Poles were deported by Ukraine
to ethically cleanse these regions (noted in yellow below).
The West did nothing about this brutality because it occurred within the powerful Soviet
Union. However, that union broke up and Ukraine is weak and at odds with Russia. On July
22, 2016, the Parliament of Poland passed a resolution recognizing the massacres of ethnic
Poles in Volhynia and Galicia as genocide. Poland is now part of NATO and American troops
are based there. Thousands of Poles are still alive who were expelled from these regions.
Homes and land were seized from millions of Poles. Ukrainian war criminals remain at
large.
This raises several questions. If Poland demands a return of its territory or
compensation for Poles, will powerful NATO support its demand? Will sanctions be imposed
against Ukraine for this genocide and illegal seizure of Polish territory? Since Crimea was
attached to Ukraine without a democratic vote, and the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia, should sanctions against Russia be removed?
Informed people know these issues will never be addressed because NATO does not exist to
protect member states, but is a proxy arm of America's neocon empire trying to conquer the
world. However, as Poland's military grows stronger and Ukraine struggles, this issue may
arise, and crafty Russia may support a return of Poland's, Slovakia's, and Romania's seized
territories!
With the exception of the Baltic states, that simply isn't true of any nation from
the former Soviet Union. Otherwise, the Russians couldn't have set up the Eurasian Customs
Union which covers ~90% of the former USSR. There are even many Georgians working in
Russia, in spite of the short war that was started by US dummy and former Georgian then
Ukrainian, now stateless, Mikheil Saakashvili.
I say the best solution for Ukraine would be to leave the nazis among themselves by
giving independence to Galicia. If it's the price to pay to reintegrate Donbass, for the
economy, and for peace and stability, it's worth it.
@Carlton Meyer Poles would be crazy to take back Galicia. Just fence the nazi lunatics
in with electrified barbed wire and leave them among themselves.
@One Tribe Well, yes, in a fashion. I'm from the old South (Roosevelt was in his second
term when I was born). Though I was educated at a fine old southern university and though I
have lived a significant part of my adult life in Europe, Asia and Africa, I still revel in
being called a redneck, a hick, a yokel, a cracker.
I embrace all of those terms because they only illustrate the ignorance of those who use
them in a derogatory manner. I also embrace being a part of the goyim. Those who use those
terms to wound only shows their fear, their own sense of inferiority to me, to us,
Christian southerners both white and black.
"Zionist praise for a Nazi" Poroshenko has Jewish ancestry, you dimwit. Go read the article
in Forward called 'Poroshenko's Secret Jewish Roots'. Ukraine has three Jewish men in a row
as prime minister. How interesting, given their rather low population percentage.
Nazi, Nazi, Nazi. Do these guys ever stop? It reminds me of the old Jews in Queens, NY,
every time they got into a disagreement with anyone, they yelled "Nazi". Even the regular
Jews got sick of it. The Ukrainians have a long history of nationalist thinkers, opposed to
Russian domination. Like the Finns, the Ukrainian patriots may have taken German support in
WW2, but that doesn't make the "Nazis". The National Socialists were a unique party to the
Germany of the 1930s, would you call Italian Fascists "Nazis"?
Ask yourself why, in general, one country/nation hates another? It's because of attempts
at invasion and domination. And historically, who is going to invade/dominate you? Those
geographically closest obviously. Sure, there are exceptions to this–the Mongol
Empire, the Arab Caliphate, and most strikingly, the Western invasion of well, everywhere
in the 16th-20th centuries.
But in most of the world most of the time for most of human existence, it's the guy next
door who is going to screw you and whom you in turn will screw.
One commenter suggested a comparison with Latin American attitudes towards the US. This
is partly true, but there are several differences. First, national identity is, on the
whole, relatively weak in New World. What does it really mean to be a Honduran? Secondly,
the main US security mechanism in the Western Hemisphere has been its navy which means
relatively less direct occupation and repression of places like Mexico. Russia, invaded
from East and West, has always sought security zones that inevitably mean occupation and
subjugation. Third, US hegemonism has only really gotten going over the last 125 years, so
it hasn't had as much time to antagonize its neighbors, and we had the good fortune of
ravaging most of the locals near at hand with the small pox, etc that we brought along with
us.
These factors combine to explain why the hatred quotient towards Russia by its neighbors
is higher than that towards the US.
"Zelenski means green man and has Polish indication. So he is one of the holocaust
survivors. (There are suspiciously too many of them these days.)"
– The endless numbers of "survivors" are especially amazing since it's claimed
that 'the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands on.'
Galicia is multicultural area consisting mostly Polish, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian,
Russian, and some other nationals. There is no unity there, and never will be.
Then why do they seem to behave politically in ways that set them apart from all those
around them?
Really? I never thought of Slovaks as owning much of anything–not even Slovakia
historically. Hungarians, Austrians, Czechs all dominated Slovakia. Could you expand on
your notion of the majority of Galicia belonging to Slovakia?
When a sitting president anywhere in the world runs for re-election and gets 15%, the
decent thing is to step aside. It doesn't matter how many other candidates run, there could
be hundreds – what matters is that 85% of people voted against Porky as their
first choice .
He has been in the office for 5 years and 85% of people want someone else. How much
clearer could this be? This was a massive vote of no-confidence by Ukrainians. If Porky
squeezes or cheats his way into staying as president, he is asking for trouble – it
is not sustainable and Washington knows it.
Galicia and Donbas also clearly cannot coexist in the same non-federated state, they
are on opposite sides.
Economy: is it not going to get better. The bad news have been pushed after the
elections, and in 2020 two things will happen:
Kiev will have to start paying back at
least some of the Western loans Income from gas transit will be gone (and possibly the gas
itself).
That takes away 3-5% of the Ukrainian economy. If Russia piles on and restricts more
trade, or limits remittances, there will inevitably by a recession in Ukraine. The circus
is about to re-start, no wonder the clowns are renting stadiums. But at some point the
distractions will cease to distract – and then the damn reality will hit even
harder
@Vojkan The Poles deserve the ziocon-"renovated" & "liberated" Galicia festering
with the active Banderites. Look how the Poles have been treating the monuments to the
fallen Soviet soldiers. Let the Poles enjoy their passionate brotherly love with the ZUSA.
As Saker writes,
Fundamentally, Nazis and Zionists are twin brothers, even if deep down they hate (and
often admire!) each other.
If there is something positive about Maidan regime change, it is the revelation of the
ziocons active role in the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine. The revelation is a death blow
to the holo-biz profiteering schema.
Whether the Jewish State's provisions of Israel-made ammunition to the neo-Nazis or the
ADL & Simon Wiesenthal Center support for the neo-Nazi (see the zionists scandalous
behavior re the Conyers' Amendment), the zionists did indeed come out (again!) as the "twin
brothers" of the worsts among Nazis.
I disagree that Porky is dumb. He successfully fleeced the whole country, including
competing oligarchs, for 5 years. Dumb are the people who still support him. Ukrainians
voting for Porky are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. But some morons never
learn.
Porky might be fond of his drink. He showed up seriously inebriated several times
publicly, but he wouldn't be able to steal hundreds of millions consistently while being
drunk all the time. Saakashvili (admittedly, hardly a reliable source of info) said that
Porky ran the country into the ground being sober. Well, Porky never cared about the
country, all he is interested in is the trough. That's why he wants five more years of
stealing, and he is reluctant to yield his place at the trough to someone else.
Most importantly, the masters are OK with it. Imperial gauleiter of Ukraine Volker
has already voiced his support for Porky. Porky would likely be more obedient than anyone
else: he can be blackmailed, as he has already earned gallows (or life in prison in
countries that don't have death penalty). So, the masters have already chosen their
favorite puppet. We'll see on April 21st how much influence they have.
I am not saying that Zelensky (and his puppet master Kolomoisky) won't do, but from
masters' point of view old clown is apparently preferable to the new one.
@Oscar Peterson Transcarpathia is a long extension of Slovakia. It was taken from
Czechoslovakia after WWII and given to Soviet Ukraine. The people of this region never
thought of themselves as Ukrainian or Galician but as Rusyns or Ruthenians. Transcarpathia
was mainly given to Soviet Union because it is a good gateway for tanks into Eastern Europe
such as the case for Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. This region also has a
large Hungarian population, since Hungary used to rule it in the Austro-Hungarian empire
times.
For some he is preferable, he is more reliable. Anytime a new clown is elevated, there
is some unpredictability. Bosses hate surprises.
On the other hand, the first step when things don't go well, is to rotate the
clowns. We got Macron, the German doppelganger for Merkel, elites tried Renzi in Italy, so
maybe Zelinsky could work. He is a complete tabula rasa, non-entity, that wouldn't know how
to find the executive washroom. At a minimum, he would buy some time. Next they can still
try Tymoshenko. This will not get resolved through the political process.
Next they can still try Tymoshenko. This will not get resolved through the
political process.
Why not? If the masters allow new clown to win, Gas princess can be made the speaker
of the Rada . Then an unfortunate accident can be easily arranged, and she becomes
next successor perfectly legally. The masters do these things pretty often: remember Ulof
Palme or Aldo Moro. Zelensky can be got rid of the same way, if the masters decide that
it's to their benefit.
@AnonFromTN That's a possible scenario. But in that part of the world, scenarios never
play out the way they are planned.
I am not sure what is left to be gained in Ukraine, it is all costs and very few
benefits. That's what happens when the layered lying becomes so convoluted that the masters
lose track of the objectives.
They wanted Crimea (actually Russia out of Crimea bases, NATO in) – that
failed. Everything else were distractions, false promises, and payoffs to locals. A normal
master would accept the defeat, take his toys home, and wait for the next time. The
post-modern Washingtonians instead pretend that the sweet talk was real , try for
silly, secondary objectives (how about a few missiles on the Russian border? that would
work out great), or refuse to accept the obvious. Making the whole fiasco more
costly.
The only reason they didn't abandon failed Ukrainian project I can see is that from
imperial standpoint the more irritants you create for Russia, the better. Current Ukraine
is an irritant. When its further disintegrates and becomes a huge Somalia on Russian
doorstep, it would become an even grater irritant. Of course, Poles would suffer, too,
but when did the masters take aborigines into account?
As to a few missiles on Russian border, they already have that in Baltic vaudeville
states, which are much closer to Moscow and especially Sankt Petersburg then
Zhmerinka.
Then again, I am looking at it rationally, whereas Washington politburo is getting
even less rational that the Soviet one under Brezhnev.
In April this year [2018] the U.S. supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine
and in May 2018 the U.S. Congress approved $250m of military funding, specifically
including deliveries of lethal weaponry.
President Donald Trump's special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker (a neocon, acolyte
of senator John McCain, previously appointed by George Bush as U.S. ambassador to NATO)
announced further U.S. arms supplies would follow, boasting of rising anti-Russian
sentiment in Ukraine.
Kurt Volker, similar to the deceased McCain, is a loyal servant to ziocons and war
profiteers. Actually, Volker is a war profiteer himself.
The US's envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, who is connected to Raytheon, is in favor of
this arms shipment, and it's inevitable that it [arms shipment] will reach Azov
[Battalion]
Azov Battalion functions in a lot of ways like ISIS has in Syria and Iraq Azov camps
with an enormous trove of weapons .. we are talking about hundreds of pounds of C4
explosives, automatic weapons and grenade launchers.
Azov's own website demonstrates that US military trainers have visited Azov in the
field to train and exchange logistical information. They appeared in uniform with Azov
Battalion members who were wearing the wolf's angel patch, which is a Nazi SS symbol, a
runic neo-Nazi symbol on their arm. This is just a scandalous spectacle. Not only that,
contracts have been revealed showing that the Texas-based AirTronic arms company has
produced PSRL-1 grenade launchers that were actually authorized under this watch of the
State Department and delivered directly into the hands of the Azov Battalion. The US has
armed Azov.
Again, what the ADL has been squeaking about -- that there are too many Holo-biz
Deniers? -- The zionists have been in cahoots with the neo-Nazi throughout the whole
State Dept. criminal enterprise in Ukraine. The Kagans clan of holo-biz survivors and other
pro-Nazi Jewish activists such as Gershman (NED) and Foxman (ADL) have been the moving
force towards banderization of Ukraine (Babij Yar, ADL?).
None of them cares about the memory of WWII victims the zionists only care about
profits. As for Kurt Volker, he is with zionists in the search for mega-profit. He is a
regular opportunist devoid of dignity.
Volker served on the staff of Senator John McCain from 1997 to 1998. He was
appointed United States Permanent Representative to NATO in July 2008 by President George
W. Bush.
Volker went into the private sector in 2009, becoming an independent director at The
Wall Street Fund Inc. He was a member of the board of directors at Capital Guardian Funds
Trust Volker was also an independent director at Evercore Wealth Management Macro
Opportunity Fund
Volker served as a senior advisor at McLarty Associates, a global consulting firm. In
2011, he joined BGR Group, a Washington-based lobbying firm and investment bank
He has been a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins
University School of Advanced International Studies since September 2009, and a Senior
Advisor at the Atlantic Council since October 2009. [Atlantic Council has been a safe
harbor for the rabidly Russophobic Elliot Higgins and Dmitri Alperovich of Russia-gate
fame, https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/29/how-russia-gate-rationalizes-censorship/
)
Kurt Volker, a certified war profiteer and money manager using his position as a
government employee for making money on lobbying What can be wrong with his judgements?
Special Education comment for the fluoride-lobotomized vegetables, known internationally as
AMERICANS: Petro Poroshenko, described in this article as the figurehead of rhe "Nazis" is
a Jew. When the US sponsored the coup in the Ukraine, both the democratically elected
President and Prime Minister were replaced by Jews.
The alleged Neo-Nazis, "Right Sector" were unemployed punks led by Israeli mercenaries,
virtually unchallenged by effectively bribed, Ukrainian military commanders.
If Adolf Hitler were alive today and controlled the Ukraine, he would order that --
without exception -- every member of Right Sector be either euthanized or sterilized to
prevent the Right Sector Stupid Gene to infect the Aryan Race.
Anyone or any organization that refers to the Jewish president of the Ukraine and his
followers as "Nazis" are obviously Zionist propaganda agents misleading the mentally
feeble.
@AnonFromTN When we were kids we would climb into neighbours' gardens to steal
cherries. You climb up a tree, break a few branches, take the cherries. No guilt. Every kid
feels ' exceptional , it is something that comes naturally to all 12-year olds.
The weird thing about modern Washingtonians is that they never outgrew that infantile
stage. They still feel 'exceptional', taking other people's stuff is ok. Why wouldn't be ?
If one is exceptional, he is by definition better than others, and the others really have
no rights, except the ones given to them by the exceptional people.
When a thieving raid by the exceptional people is blocked – as in Crimea
– it leaves no good options. Should one admit that they were about to take the
'stuff' (the Sebastopol bases), lost out, and simply retreat? No, it is hard to stay
exceptional when losing. Image and perceptions are everything in Washington.
Should they escalate and try to storm Crimea to get what they want and deserve?
Again, no, because exceptional people can't risk hurt or injury, they are too precious,
they are after all 'exceptional'.
Should they send their decidedly unexceptional underlings to storm Crimea? Well, that
would be ideal, but the underlings are too stupid to even get into the garden, and climbing
a tree is way beyond their ability. One can train them, send them ladders – but
everyone knows that they will never do it.
That leaves the least bad option of sticking around to ' irritate ' Russia. There
is not much gain in it, it gets old very quickly, it is also costly and even dangerous. But
it preserves the image of 'exceptional' people, it can be spun around for different
perceptions, and it makes the local allies less antsy and less likely to run away with
their loot. Other than that it achieves nothing.
That's where we are: a bunch of unserious morons sitting in a car parked outside the
cherry orchard, scared to go in, scared to leave, hoping that nobody notices, and still
craving the sweet cherries without even being able to admit that's what they are there
for.
For its part, the United States insists on running Ukraine, appointing a special envoy
– Kurt Volker – to preserve its feeling of international importance after it was
pointedly left out of the Normandy Format; Meddlers R Us; we don't need no steenking
invitations.
A glance over trade statistics suggests this
was a wise choice for the Exceptional Nation – the year before the Glorious Maidan,
Revolution of Dignity, the USA did around $3 Billion worth of trade with Ukraine, selling it
$1.92 Billion worth of goods and services, and buying $1.03 Billion worth of goods and services
from it, posting an American trade surplus of $888 Million. Last year the USA did around $4
Billion worth of trade with Ukraine, selling it $2.46 Billion in goods and services, and buying
$1.35 Billion worth of goods and services from it, handsomely increasing the American trade
surplus to $1.13 Billion. Considering Ukraine is impoverished and living on handouts, while the
per-capita GDP has fallen by more than 6% despite the country having lost about 3 million
people (Ukraine's population today is almost exactly what it was in 1960), that's quite an
achievement.
"... Poroshenko's electoral appeal is rooted in the notion of 'better the devil you know' and his presidential campaign rests on his ability to convince voters that he is the lesser of all available evils." ..."
"... Let me put my cards on the table here – the current political class in Washington, irrespective of party affiliation and almost without exception, is so debauched and untethered that it enthusiastically supports the election of unabashed criminals where their election serves American foreign-policy goals. Is it too late to be astounded? Yes, it is. Ukraine is lightly chided for its rampant corruption, while Russia is held up to universal scorn because Putin. ..."
Poroshenko's electoral appeal is rooted in the notion of 'better the devil you know' and
his presidential campaign rests on his ability to convince voters that he is the lesser of all
available evils."
Poroshenko might have an uphill battle convincing his own voters of that reality, but he has
plainly gone down a treat in Washington.
Let me put my cards on the table here – the current political class in Washington,
irrespective of party affiliation and almost without exception, is so debauched and untethered
that it enthusiastically supports the election of unabashed criminals where their election
serves American foreign-policy goals. Is it too late to be astounded? Yes, it is. Ukraine is
lightly chided for its rampant corruption, while Russia is held up to universal scorn because
Putin.
Well, Poroshenko would certainly need to explain how he could win in the second round against
a candidate who polled twice the vote as he did in the first round. But Poroshenko owns or
controls a lot of media, and it's all about pushing a narrative. Ukrainians were satisfied,
the story will go, that Poroshenko learned his lesson from being rebuked in the first round;
he is sorry, and humbled, and will turn over a new leaf.
Meanwhile (still the story), many
Ukrainians are waking up to the shock of what they did, and are suffering buyers remorse, bla, bla. He only needs to squeak out a narrow win when it's down to just he and Zelinskiy,
and the west will immediately hoot that democracy has spoken, my, what an exciting ride, and
Zelinskiy will fade back into political obscurity.
Actually Peter Dickinson is just one of several supposed "experts" and "observers" at The
Atlantic Council of Ukraine's political scene who have expressed opinions that basically
exonerate Poroshenko as godfather of a group of hucksters smuggling Russian weapons and
military spare parts into Ukraine and then charging the Ukrainian government hefty prices for
them. John Herbst thinks it's great that the Banderites got weapons from Russia and the only
thing they did wrong was take a hefty personal cut from the sale; never mind that they broke
some other laws, let's say, laws that forbid Ukraine from purchasing anything from Russia
because Russia is under US / EU sanctions. Other opinions suggest that Poroshenko should just
distance himself from the people involved in the scandal because the most important thing is
to lead Ukraine as far away from Russia as possible – as if it is that easy for
Poroshenko to do, because if he did, his associates in the scandal will squeal on him.
It's hilarious reading those "opinions" and see how far those Atlantic Council people are
trying to excuse Poroshenko by blaming the journalists for bringing up the story or
insinuating that Tymoshenko or the Kremlin is trying to bring Poroshenko down.
I shall paste her article below as I have access beyond the pay-wall to a limited number
of articles published in that rag:
Some in Ukraine may feel that April Fool's Day 2019 started a few hours early, at 8pm
the previous evening to be precise, when the polls in the first round of the country's
presidential election closed and the exit polls showed an actor who plays a fictional
president beating the real president into second place by a margin of almost two to
one.
Official results give Volodymyr Zelensky (the actor) around 30 per cent of the vote,
compared with 16 per cent for president Petro Poroshenko. From a field of 39 – yes, 39
– presidential hopefuls, it will be these two heading into the run-off on 21
April.
Yulia Tymoshenko – the only woman anywhere near the top 10 and the most
recognisable face for many outside Ukraine as "la pasionaria" of the 2004 Orange Revolution,
had led when the campaign began last December, but was knocked into third place. Mercifully,
the 3 percentage point margin between her and Poroshenko is probably clear enough to pre-empt
any challenge or dispute.
The question now facing the more than half of Ukraine's 35 million electorate who voted
for neither Zelensky nor Poroshenko on Sunday is which of the two to choose in three weeks'
time – and for the rest whether to stick with their original choice.
It would be fair to say that opinions about Zelensky are sharply divided. On the one
hand are those who argue that anything has to be better than the glacial pace of change and
endemic corruption over which Poroshenko has presided.
They include many young people who have joined what might be described as the
pan-European anti-politics tendency that brought Italy's current government to power.
Zelensky and his team of largely young volunteers ran a welcoming and modern campaign that
took on a life of its own as – rather like Jeremy Corbyn's 2017 campaign in the UK
– supporters spread the word on social media.
At the same time, there are many – perhaps over-represented among highly educated
professional Ukrainians at home and abroad – who view Zelensky with trepidation and
suspicion as just another populist, capitalising on his fame in another sphere. Their fear
– tinged with condescension – is that he could endanger the relative stability
Poroshenko has brought after the tumult of the Euromaidan (a wave of demonstrations) five
years ago.
The size of Zelensky's first-round vote, however, and its geographical spread –
he managed to appeal to Russian-speakers in the eastern areas bordering the war zone as well
as those in central and southern Ukraine – have led even doubters to feel that this
election is now his to lose. Poroshenko, however, should not be written off too soon. It is
not just fear of the unknown that could make the run-off very close; there are other reasons
why Poroshenko could yet prevail.
One is that, although Zelensky comes across well when he appears on his own terms
– at the comedy shows he preferred to conventional political rallies – he
performed poorly in the few television interviews he gave, appearing out of his depth and
using language that suggested a rather unreconstructed view of women.
It had been expected that one or more formal television debates might test his mettle,
but the plan for first-round debates foundered when Poroshenko and Zelensky both declined to
take part, and it now appears there may be no second-round debate either. With the contest
now reduced to two, however, this is bound to concentrate minds.
Another is the question of Zelensky's funding. Some suspect that the hand (and money)
of the exiled businessman/oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky, is behind him. Zelensky denies that he
depends on anyone, and some close to the campaign say that associates of Kolomoisky are at
best on the outer fringe of the campaign. But the suspicion persists, and when Poroshenko
spoke of "populists" and "puppets" in his campaign speeches, the inference was clear.
Poroshenko's first-round campaign pitch – a responsible leader whose video
stresses the importance of the nation, the army and the Church – could have more
resonance now that it will be pitted directly against what could seem a leap into the unknown
with Zelensky. Then again, just looking at the way the two handled the provisional
first-round results on the night – Poroshenko looking exhausted and just a little
jaded, and Zelensky bouncing around, smiling, with a ready word for the media and
glad-handing his supporters, it was tempting to imagine a new Ukraine already eclipsing the
old.
But – to put it at its most basic – will Zelensky be "allowed" to win?
While there have been some reports of polling violations on Sunday, the first round appears
to have been an admirably clean and open election to the point where a complete outsider was
not only able to stake a claim to the country's top job, but to reach the run-off. And the
outside attempts to influence the poll (by Russia and the west), so apparent in previous
elections, were almost not in evidence.
With the presidency itself now at stake, however, and the confusion of a ballot paper
with 39 candidates safely in the past, could the old ways make a comeback? Might there be a
sudden upsurge of attempts to influence the campaign from the outside: new money, hacking,
dirty tricks,"Kompromat"? Is there a "deep state" that could stop Zelensky?
Leaving aside the imponderable, there are perhaps three factors to watch over the three
weeks. The first is whether any of the other first-round candidates who obtained more than a
handful of votes will endorse – or do any deal with either of the candidates. And if
they did – if Timoshenko, for instance, or Yuriy Boyko, the pro-Russia candidate,
backed Zelensky – would it have a positive or negative effect on his campaign? One key
broker could be the anti-corruption candidate, Anatoliy Hrytsenko, who came fifth.
The second is how far Zelensky can convince his critics that he could actually do the
job. Members of his team told me that he was consulting widely and taking the prospect very
seriously and he has attracted at least two past ministers to his team. The fluidity of
Ukraine's political parties also means that not having a developed party of his own might not
be a huge liability in parliament, as MPs might well flock to a winner. Parliamentary
elections later in the year could do the rest.
His manifesto is also more specific than his detractors say: it includes an end to
immunity from prosecution for MPs and government officials; "not a battle, but the defeat, of
corruption", referendums on important state issues, including possible membership of Nato,
talks with Russia to end the fighting in eastern Ukraine, tax breaks for entrepreneurs, a
drive to introduce technology in schools, higher pay for the military.
But the biggest question could be this: how far will voters distinguish between
Zelensky the real-life candidate and the fictional schoolmaster-turned-president whose
secretly taped anti-corruption rant propelled him to the top job?
By using the title of the series Servant of the People as his campaign slogan, and the
name of his embryonic political party, Zelensky could be accused of encouraging the
confusion. And the fictional president comes with an attitude and an almost naive agenda that
is the stuff of many a Ukrainian's dreams. He is principled, quizzical, supports the "little
man" and has the welfare of his people at heart. The less voters are able, or choose, to
distinguish the two, the better Zelensky's chances of leading the real Ukraine.
Note how, in the extract below, Dejevsky displays her lack of objectivity in the way she
regards the Ukraine from her oh-so-liberal point of view and, thereby, morally castigating
the dump after having right at the top her article mentioned that Tymoshenko was "the only
woman anywhere near the top 10":
although Zelensky comes across well when he appears on his own terms – at the
comedy shows he preferred to conventional political rallies – he performed poorly in
the few television interviews he gave, appearing out of his depth and using language that
suggested a rather unreconstructed view of women .
[my stress]
Yes, that will really turn the Yukies against him, I am sure, Ms
Dejevsky!
A filthy mysogynist!
How shocking!!!
One could not possibly cast one's vote for such a monster!
And what's with this criticism of both Zelensky and Poroshenko's refusal to have a
televised debate?
True, they hold such debates in US presidential elections as part of the "real democracy"
show in the "exceptional nation", but if other countries shy from similar performances, is
that so bad, so "undemocratic"?
And one comment, so far to the article, from a frequent troll at the Independent who likes
to add ПТН X̆ЛО (abbreviation for the Russian "Putin is a
prick) just to show how smart he is:
As usual no mention of any Russian monkey business so I guess Mary is still angling for
the dacha near Moscow.
I have a dacha near Moscow, wanker! Does that mean I am a tool of the Kremlin?
How about digging up the evidence for "Russian monkey business" and presenting it
yourself, arsehole, if you are so sure that such interference by Russia in Banderastan
politics exists?
"... Well, since 2002, people made a lot about the neo-cons being heavily influenced by Leo Strauss. I think this is only part of it. These people seem to me to be just as heavily influenced by George Berekeley: things don't really exist, there's no causation, therefore there's no consequences to one's own actions. ..."
"... "Corruption cannot lead to prosperity." Nor can it field a competent military with functional weapon systems. ..."
"... The comments at the end about how Turkey can maintain good relations with NATO and at the same time develop cooperation with Russia is clearly nonsense. NATO whole reason for existence now is as an anti-Russia military alliance. Pence is absolutely right about that ... you cannot be a member of NATO and develop close cooperation with Russia. ..."
Tweeting direct from NATO
meeting provides inside details not found in press articles, particularly the NATO
talking-point ending. IMO, the tweeter Mehta was right to highlight this exchange:
"Bennan: Do you know what the US policy in syria is?
"Çavuşoğlu: No, and this is the problem.
"He points to different statements from WH, Pentagon, CENTCOM, State. 'There is no clear
strategy. This is the problem.'"
Further on:
"Wow. Çavuşoğlu just compared Turkey to Ukraine, saying Ukraine let
itself be told it had to decide between West and Russia, and look what happened; Turkey
cannot be forced into same choice."
Pence threat is also stupid as there is no mechanism to expulse any member from NATO. NATO
members can only leave voluntarily.
Since when this stopped the USA?
The reason Turkey won't exit NATO are many. Among them:
1) Turkey's economy is in meltdown. It only didn't collapse yesterday because, luckily,
Turkey has only "burnt" one third of its Dollar reserves. For comparison, the usurper
government which toppled Dilma Rousseff burnt almost 50% of Brazil's then gigantic US$ 795
billion -- only to try to keep interest at a staggering 9.5% rate. Lucky for the Turkish
people, Erdogan survived the 2016 coup, but he was already trounced in the three main cities
and those reserves won't last forever. Time is in favor of the Americans in this case;
2) Contrary to, e.g. China and Russia, Turkey has a strong pro-USA political-popular base.
It really doesn't need to topple Erdogan through a violent coup (Obama made an unforced error
in 2016) in order to install a puppet government in Turkey;
3) The USA has the IMF. The IMF is the only institution which can do regime change and
nobody will question. Erdogan is, for now, refusing its "aid", but he's just one man. That
means that, even if Turkey remains with an Islamist (Ottomanist) or end up electing a neutral
government, the Americans will still be capable of exerting formidable pressure;
4)Turkey is, perhaps, the geostrategically most important individual country for NATO. If
the Americans still dream of defeating and balkanizing Russia through a hot war, then the
path will go through Turkey and the Bosphorus. It is not on rogue POTUS or Veep who will
change that.
"But current American elites have no concept of own actions having consequences."
Well, since 2002, people made a lot about the neo-cons being heavily influenced by Leo
Strauss. I think this is only part of it. These people seem to me to be just as heavily
influenced by George Berekeley: things don't really exist, there's no causation, therefore
there's no consequences to one's own actions.
Bolton
unwittingly utters truism but has no idea that it applies to him and the Outlaw US
Empire billions of times over: "Corruption cannot lead to prosperity." Nor can it field a
competent military with functional weapon systems.
Another OT note, this one about the technical development of generation 6 military
aircraft,
Hypersonic and hydrogen fueled and most likely piloted by droids or remotely given speed
and G-forces.
The US are threatening friend and foe alike, whereas those sanctions against their foe's are
real, sanctions against NATO members can be counterproductive, for instance Germany being
told to stop Nord Stream 2 and increase its contributions to NATO, 2% of Germany's GDP [4
trillion dollars] is an enormous amount of money to protect against a non existent enemy.
The
time will come when the US will be ignored, then, unless the US acts on those threats, its
own credibility will be called into question, then the only way is down.
Whenever anyone suggests that we should stop supplying bombs and military equipment to the
Saudis who are murdering Yemenis, moralists like Mike Pence, Pompeo, and the rest of the
religious right thunder, 'THEY WILL BUY ARMS FROM THE ROOOSHINS!'
So it is quite funny that they are willing to play hardball with the Turks.
The comments at the end about how Turkey can maintain good relations with NATO and at
the same time develop cooperation with Russia is clearly nonsense. NATO whole reason for
existence now is as an anti-Russia military alliance. Pence is absolutely right about
that ... you cannot be a member of NATO and develop close cooperation with Russia.
At
least in the eyes of NATO (i.e. the US) Russia is the enemy.
Under neoliberalism any regime change is necessary followed by an economic rape. That was the case with the USSR in 1991,
that was the case in Ukraine in 2014. Only the size and length of the looting varies depending of the strength of new government.
Both the size and the length is maximal if in power are marionette like Yeltsin or Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko.
Saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" now should sound as "Beware of Americans who bring you color revolutions." They bring the
economic rape (aka "Disaster
capitalism") as the second phase. That's the nature of neocolonialism -- now you do not need to occupy the country.
It's enough to make it a debt slave using IMF and install compradors to endure the low of money and continuing impoverishment of the
population.
With such crooked and greedy friends as Biden and Kerry and their narcoaddicts sons you do not need enemies. But the main
danger are not individual sharks but Western financial institutions like IMF and World bank. Those convert countries into debt slaves
and that means permanently low standard (Central African in case of Ukraine, something like $2 a day) of living for generations
to come.
What is interesting is that unlike say German nationalists in 30th, the Ukrainian nationalists proved to be completly
useless in defending the Ukraine from looting. They actually serves as supplementary tool of the same looting.
The standard of living of Ukrainians dropped 2-3 times since 2014. How pensioners survive, on $50 a month pension I simply do not
understand. In any case Neoliberalism proved to be very effecting is keeping "developing" nations economic growth down and converting
them into debt slaves. The fact that Biden use loans as a tool of extortion (as in threat to cancel one billion loan) to close criminal
investigation of his sons company is just an icing on the cake. Poroshenko and his camarilla should be tried in the court of law for
his corruption and pandering to the Western sharks, who were happy to steal from Ukraine as much as then can.
To pay $166K a month for Biden's son cocaine is way too much to such impoverished country as Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... " Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat. ..."
"... The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member. ..."
"... U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. - The Hill ..."
"... And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill: ..."
"... The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's case against Burisma; ..."
"... President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 ..."
"... Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse. ..."
"... Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now! ..."
"... At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski. Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified. ..."
"... Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This is basic stuff. ..."
"... Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$. ..."
Originally from:
Forget 'Creepy'
- Biden Has A Major Ukraine Problem Joe Biden appears to have made a major tactical error last year when he bragged to an
audience of foreign policy experts how he threatened to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy if their top prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin,
wasn't immediately fired, according to
The Hill 's John Solomon.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council
on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden's account, though they claim the pressure was applied
over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day . Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine's
parliament obliged by
ending Shokin's tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not
bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired. -
The Hill
And why would Biden want the "son of a bitch" fired?
In what must be an amazing coincidence, the prosecutor was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas
firm - which Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of directors.
The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm
Burisma Holdings
that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers
into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period
when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. -
The Hill
The Hill 's Solomon reviewed the general prosecutor's file for the Burisma probe - which he reports shows Hunter Biden, his business
partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other
crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact
that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he
insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill:
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office
clearly had to know about the general prosecutor's probe of Burisma and his son's role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's
case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden's office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden's role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the
general prosecutor's Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president's office
suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 , after a popular revolution ousted
Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow
sent military forces into Ukraine's Crimea territory.
***
Key questions for 'ol Joe:
Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work
was performed for the money Hunter Biden's firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced
that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who
very publicly pursued Burisma?
Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization
campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding
Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse.
Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin
during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now!
Amazing that all 3 of them are still alive and that "Song Bird" McCain (#4) was allowed to die from his brain cancer instead
of joining them or being dismembered and put on display when he made these visit(s) (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbfsTcJCKDE ) along
with General Vallely (#5)!!!
Taras Bulba , 1 hour ago
At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski.
Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified.
CarifonianSeven, 2 hours ago
Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This
is basic stuff.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy, 1 hour ago
Joe cheated his way through undergrad and law school. He would be unable to understand any of that.
whittler, 1 hour ago
What? You mean folks will finally care about little Hunter hiring Azov neo-Nazi fighters (oops! security I mean) to protect
his fracking site just north of the 'troubles' in the eastern Ukraine? I'm sure they were working for free and that no Biden money
was ever used to payoff (oops again! I mean pay the wages of) a bunch of Nazis (dang it again, I mean neo-Nazis, it sounds so
much warmer and fuzzier when you add 'neo').
Creepy Joe and all D's agree, 'Nazi' = bad, neo-Nazi = warm, fuzzy and good; heck, they even like to kill Russians Russians
Russians!!!
Cracker 16 , 1 hour ago
Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$.
This article by late Robert Parry is from 2016 but is still relevant in context of the
current Ukrainian elections and the color revolution is Venezuela. The power of neoliberal
propaganda is simply tremendous. For foreign events it is able to distort the story to such an
extent that the most famous quote of CIA director William Casey "We'll know our disinformation
program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" looks like
constatation of already accomplished goal.
Exclusive: Several weeks before Ukraine's 2014 coup, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Nuland had already picked Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be the future leader, but now "Yats" is no
longer the guy, writes Robert Parry.
In reporting on the resignation of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the major
U.S. newspapers either ignored or distorted Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland's
infamous intercepted
phone call before the 2014 coup in which she declared "Yats is the guy!"
Though Nuland's phone call introduced many Americans to the previously obscure Yatsenyuk,
its timing – a few weeks before the ouster of elected Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych – was never helpful to Washington's desired narrative of the Ukrainian people
rising up on their own to oust a corrupt leader.
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the
Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.
Instead, the conversation between Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
sounded like two proconsuls picking which Ukrainian politicians would lead the new government.
Nuland also disparaged the less aggressive approach of the European Union with the pithy
put-down: "Fuck the E.U.!"
More importantly, the intercepted call, released onto YouTube in early February 2014,
represented powerful evidence that these senior U.S. officials were plotting – or at
least collaborating in – a coup d'etat against Ukraine's democratically elected
president. So, the U.S. government and the mainstream U.S. media have since consigned this
revealing discussion to the Great Memory Hole.
On Monday, in reporting on Yatsenyuk's Sunday speech in which he announced that he is
stepping down, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention the Nuland-Pyatt
conversation at all. The New York Times did mention the call but misled its readers regarding
its timing, making it appear as if the call followed rather than preceded the coup. That way
the call sounded like two American officials routinely appraising Ukraine's future leaders, not
plotting to oust one government and install another.
The Times
article by Andrew E. Kramer said: "Before Mr. Yatsenyuk's appointment as prime minister in
2014, a leaked recording of a telephone conversation between Victoria J. Nuland, a United
States assistant secretary of state, and the American ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt,
seemed to underscore the West's support for his candidacy. 'Yats is the guy,' Ms. Nuland had
said."
Notice, however, that if you didn't know that the conversation occurred in late January or
early February 2014, you wouldn't know that it preceded the Feb. 22, 2014 coup. You might have
thought that it was just a supportive chat before Yatsenyuk got his new job.
You also wouldn't know that much of the Nuland-Pyatt conversation focused on how they
were going to "glue this thing" or "midwife this thing," comments sounding like prima facie
evidence that the U.S. government was engaged in "regime change" in Ukraine, on Russia's
border.
The 'No Coup' Conclusion
But Kramer's lack of specificity about the timing and substance of the call fits with a long
pattern of New York Times' bias in its coverage of the Ukraine crisis. On Jan. 4, 2015, nearly
a year after the U.S.-backed coup, the Times published an "investigation" article declaring
that there never had been a coup. It was just a case of President Yanukovych deciding to leave
and not coming back.
That article reached its conclusion, in part, by ignoring the evidence of a coup, including
the Nuland-Pyatt phone call. The story was co-written by Kramer and so it is interesting to
know that he was at least aware of the "Yats is the guy" reference although it was ignored in
last year's long-form article.
Instead, Kramer and his co-author Andrew Higgins took pains to mock anyone who actually
looked at the evidence and dared reach the disfavored conclusion about a coup. If you did, you
were some rube deluded by Russian propaganda.
"Russia has attributed Mr. Yanukovych's ouster to what it portrays as a violent,
'neo-fascist' coup supported and even choreographed by the West and dressed up as a popular
uprising," Higgins and Kramer
wrote . "Few outside the Russian propaganda bubble ever seriously entertained the Kremlin's
line. But almost a year after the fall of Mr. Yanukovych's government, questions remain about
how and why it collapsed so quickly and completely."
The Times' article concluded that Yanukovych "was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by
his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone
else. The allies' desertion, fueled in large part by fear, was accelerated by the seizing by
protesters of a large stock of weapons in the west of the country. But just as important, the
review of the final hours shows, was the panic in government ranks created by Mr. Yanukovych's
own efforts to make peace."
Yet, one might wonder what the Times thinks a coup looks like. Indeed, the Ukrainian coup
had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in
1953 and in Guatemala in 1954.
The way those coups played out is now historically well known. Secret U.S. government
operatives planted nasty propaganda about the targeted leader, stirred up political and
economic chaos, conspired with rival political leaders, spread rumors of worse violence to come
and then – as political institutions collapsed – watched as the scared but duly
elected leader made a hasty departure.
In Iran, the coup reinstalled the autocratic Shah who then ruled with a heavy hand for the
next quarter century; in Guatemala, the coup led to more than three decades of brutal military
regimes and the killing of some 200,000 Guatemalans.
Coups don't have to involve army tanks occupying the public squares, although that is an
alternative model which follows many of the same initial steps except that the military is
brought in at the end. The military coup was a common approach especially in Latin America in
the 1960s and 1970s.
' Color Revolutions'
But the preferred method in more recent years has been the "color revolution," which
operates behind the façade of a "peaceful" popular uprising and international pressure
on the targeted leader to show restraint until it's too late to stop the coup. Despite the
restraint, the leader is still accused of gross human rights violations, all the better to
justify his removal.
Later, the ousted leader may get an image makeover; instead of a cruel bully, he is
ridiculed for not showing sufficient resolve and letting his base of support melt away, as
happened with Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.
But the reality of what happened in Ukraine was never hard to figure out. Nor did you have
to be inside "the Russian propaganda bubble" to recognize it. George Friedman, the founder of
the global intelligence firm Stratfor, called Yanukovych's overthrow "the most blatant coup
in history."
Which is what it appears if you consider the evidence. The first step in the process was to
create tensions around the issue of pulling Ukraine out of Russia's economic orbit and
capturing it in the European Union's gravity, a plan defined by influential American neocons in
2013.
On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has been a
major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington Post and
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
At the time, Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. Congress to the tune of about $100
million a year, was financing scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists, paying for
journalists and organizing business groups.
As for the even bigger prize -- Putin -- Gershman wrote: "Ukraine's choice to join Europe
will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.
Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near
abroad but within Russia itself."
At that time, in early fall 2013, Ukraine's President Yanukovych was exploring the idea of
reaching out to Europe with an association agreement. But he got cold feet in November 2013
when economic experts in Kiev advised him that the Ukrainian economy would suffer a $160
billion hit if it separated from Russia, its eastern neighbor and major trading partner. There
was also the West's demand that Ukraine accept a harsh austerity plan from the International
Monetary Fund.
Yanukovych wanted more time for the E.U. negotiations, but his decision angered many western
Ukrainians who saw their future more attached to Europe than Russia. Tens of thousands of
protesters began camping out at Maidan Square in Kiev, with Yanukovych ordering the police to
show restraint.
Meanwhile, with Yanukovych shifting back toward Russia, which was offering a more generous
$15 billion loan and discounted natural gas, he soon became the target of American neocons and
the U.S. media, which portrayed Ukraine's political unrest as a black-and-white case of a
brutal and corrupt Yanukovych opposed by a saintly "pro-democracy" movement.
Cheering an Uprising
The Maidan uprising was urged on by American neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Nuland, who passed out cookies at the Maidan and reminded Ukrainian
business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European
aspirations."
A screen shot of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland
speaking to U.S. and Ukrainian business leaders on Dec. 13, 2013, at an event sponsored by
Chevron, with its logo to Nuland's left.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, also showed up, standing on stage with right-wing extremists
from the Svoboda Party and telling the crowd that the United States was with them in their
challenge to the Ukrainian government.
As the winter progressed, the protests grew more violent. Neo-Nazi and other extremist
elements from Lviv and other western Ukrainian cities began arriving in well-organized brigades
or "sotins" of 100 trained street fighters. Police were attacked with firebombs and other
weapons as the violent protesters began seizing government buildings and unfurling Nazi banners
and even a Confederate flag.
Though Yanukovych continued to order his police to show restraint, he was still depicted
in the major U.S. news media as a brutal thug who was callously murdering his own people. The
chaos reached a climax on Feb. 20 when mysterious snipers opened fire, killing both police and
protesters. As the police retreated, the militants advanced brandishing firearms and other
weapons. The confrontation led to significant loss of life, pushing the death toll to around 80
including more than a dozen police.
U.S. diplomats and the mainstream U.S. press immediately blamed Yanukovych for the sniper
attack, though the circumstances remain murky to this day and some investigations have
suggested that the lethal sniper fire came from buildings controlled by Right Sektor
extremists.
To tamp down the worsening violence, a shaken Yanukovych signed a European-brokered deal on
Feb. 21, in which he accepted reduced powers and an early election so he could be voted out of
office. He also agreed to requests from Vice President Joe Biden to pull back the police.
The precipitous police withdrawal opened the path for the neo-Nazis and other street
fighters to seize presidential offices and force Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their
lives. The new coup regime was immediately declared "legitimate" by the U.S. State Department
with Yanukovych sought on murder charges. Nuland's favorite, Yatsenyuk, became the new prime
minister.
Throughout the crisis, the mainstream U.S. press hammered home the theme of white-hatted
protesters versus a black-hatted president. The police were portrayed as brutal killers who
fired on unarmed supporters of "democracy." The good-guy/bad-guy narrative was all the American
people heard from the major media.
The New York Times went so far as to delete the slain policemen from the narrative and
simply report that the police had killed all those who died in the Maidan. A typical Times
report on March 5, 2014, summed up the storyline: "More than 80 protesters were shot to death
by the police as an uprising spiraled out of control in mid-February."
The mainstream U.S. media also sought to discredit anyone who observed the obvious fact that
an unconstitutional coup had just occurred. A new theme emerged that portrayed Yanukovych as
simply deciding to abandon his government because of the moral pressure from the noble and
peaceful Maidan protests.
Any reference to a "coup" was dismissed as "Russian propaganda." There was a parallel
determination in the U.S. media to discredit or ignore evidence that neo-Nazi militias had
played an important role in ousting Yanukovych and in the subsequent suppression of anti-coup
resistance in eastern and southern Ukraine. That opposition among ethnic-Russian Ukrainians
simply became "Russian aggression."
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a
Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
This refusal to notice what was actually a remarkable story – the willful unleashing
of Nazi storm troopers on a European population for the first time since World War II –
reached absurd levels as The New York Times and The Washington Post buried references to the
neo-Nazis at the end of stories, almost as afterthoughts.
The Washington Post went to the extreme of rationalizing Swastikas and other Nazi symbols by
quoting one militia commander as calling them "romantic" gestures by impressionable young men.
[See Consortiumnews.com's " Ukraine's
'Romantic' Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers ."]
But today – more than two years after what U.S. and Ukrainian officials like to
call "the Revolution of Dignity" – the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is sinking into
dysfunction, reliant on handouts from the IMF and Western governments.
And, in a move perhaps now more symbolic than substantive, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk is
stepping down. Yats is no longer the guy.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Khalid Talaat , April 16, 2016 at 20:39
Is it too far fetched to think that all these color revolutions are a perfection of the
process to unleash another fake color revolution, only this time it is a Red, White and Blue
revolution here at home? Those that continue to booze and snooze while watching the tube will
not know the difference until it is too late.
The freedom and tranquility of our country depends on finding and implementing a
counterweight to the presstitutes and their propaganda. The alternative is too
destructive in its natural development.
Abe , April 15, 2016 at 18:49
Yats and Porko are the guys who broke Ukraine. By the end of December 2015, Ukraine's
gross domestic product had shrunk around 19 percent in comparison with 2013. Its decimated
industrial sector needs less fuel. Yatsie did a heck of a job.
The timing of "Yats" departure is ominous. Mid-April, six weeks from now would be the
first chance to renew the invasion of DPR Donesk/Lugansk."Yats" failed in 2014, and didn't
try in 2015. Who is "the new guy"? Will the new Prime Minister begin raving about renewing
the holy war to recover the lost oblasts? 2016 is really Ukraine's last chance. Ukraine
refuses to implement Minsk2, and they have been receiving lots of new weapons. I believe
President Putin put the Syrian operation on " standby" not only to avoid approaching the
border, provoking a Turkish intervention, but also so he can give undistracted attention to
DPR Donesk/Lugansk.
Bill Rood , April 12, 2016 at 11:50
I guess I must be inside the Russian propaganda bubble. It was obvious to me when I
looked at the YouTube videos of policemen burning after being hit with Molotov
cocktails.
We played the same game of encouraging government "restraint" in Syria, where we
demanded Assad free "political prisoners," but we now accuse him of deliberately encouraging
ISIS by freeing those people, so that he can point to ISIS and ask, "Do you want that?"
Targeted leaders are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Andrei , April 12, 2016 at 10:26
"the Ukrainian coup had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the
CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954", Romania 1989 Shots
were fired by snipers in order to stirr the crowds (sounds familiar?) and also by the army
after Ceasescu ran away, which resulted in civilians getting murdered. Could it possibly be
that it was said : "Iliescu (next elected president) is the guy!" ?
Joe L. , April 12, 2016 at 11:00
Check out the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela 2002, that is very
similar with protesters, snipers on rooftops, IMF immediately offering loans to the new coup
government, new government positions for the coup plotters, complacency with the media
– propaganda, funding by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy etc. John
Pilger documents how the coup occurred in his documentary "War on Democracy" –
https://vimeo.com/16724719 .
archaos , April 12, 2016 at 09:45
It was noted in the minutes of Verkhovna Rada almost 2 years before Maidan 2 , that
Geoffrey Pyatt was fomenting and funding destabilisation of Ukraine.
All of Svoboda Nazis in parliament (and other fascisti) then booed the MP who stated
this.
Mark Thomason , April 12, 2016 at 06:57
Also, the Dutch voted "no" on the economic agreement the coup was meant to force through
instead of the Russian agreement accepted by the President it overthrew. Now both "Yats" and
the economic agreement are gone. All that is left is the war. Neocons are still happen.
They wanted the war. They really want to overthrow Putin, and Ukraine was just a tool in
that.
Realist , April 12, 2016 at 05:51
You're right, it doesn't have to be the military that carries out a coup by deploying
tanks on the National Mall. In 2000, it was the United States Supreme Court that exceeded
its constitutional authority and installed George W. Bush as president, though in reality he
had lost that election. I wonder when that move will rightfully be characterized as a coup by
the historians.
"On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has
been a major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington
Post and called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling
Russian President Vladimir Putin."
It should be remembered that Victoria Nuland took up the post of Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs in Washington on September 18, 2013.
Coincidentally, two other women closely connected to events in Ukraine were also in
Washington during September 2013.
Friend of Nuland and boss of the IMF, which has its own HQ in Washington, Christine
Lagarde was swift to respond to a Ukraine request for IMF loans on February 27th 2014, just
five days after the removal of Yanukovych on February 22nd. Lagarde is pictured with
Baronness Catherine Ashton in Washington in a Facebook entry dated September 30th 2013.
Ashton was High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy at the
time.
Though visiting Kiev at the same time as Nuland in February 2014 Catherine Ashton never
appeared in public with her, which seems a little odd considering the women were on the same
mission, and talking to the same people. Nevertheless, despite appearing shy of being
photographed with each other the two women weren't quite so shy of being pictured with
leaders of the coup, including the right wing extremist, Oleh Tyahnybok.
Ashton refused to be drawn into commenting on Nuland's "Fuck the E.U.!" outburst,
describing Nuland as "a friend of mine." The two women certainly weren't strangers, they had
worked closely together before. September 2012 saw them involved in discussions with Iran
negotiator Saeed Jalili over the country's supposed nuclear arms ambitions.
The question is not so much whether the three women talked about Ukraine's future –
it would be ridiculous to think they did not – but how closely they worked together,
and exactly how closely they might have been involved in events leading up to the overthrow
of the legitimate government in Kiev. More on this here:
Another failed "regime change". Aren't these guys (Neoconservatives) great. They fail,
piss off/kill millions, yet seem to keep making money and retaining power. Time to WAKE UP
AMERICA.
Skip Edwards , April 11, 2016 at 20:06
Read "The Devil'Chessboard" by David Talbot to understand what has been occurring as a
result of America's Dark, Shadow government, an un-elected bunch of vicious psychopaths
controlling our destiny; unless stopped. Get a clue and realize that "Yats is our guy"
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's "gal." Hillary Clinton is Robert Kagen's "gal." Time to
flush all these rats out of the hold and get on with our lives.
Joe L. , April 11, 2016 at 18:40
Mr. Parry thank you for delving into the proven history of coups and the parallels with
Ukraine. It amazes me how anyone can outright deny this was a coup especially if they know
anything about US coups going back to WW2 (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, attempt in
Venezuela 2002 etc. – and there are a whole slew more). I read before, as you have
rightly pointed out, that in 1953 the CIA led a propaganda campaign in Iran against Mossadegh
as well as financing opposition protesters and opposition government officials. Another
angle, as well, is looking historically back to what papers such as the New York Times were
reporting around the time of the coup in Iran – especially when we know that the
US/Britain overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh for their own oil interests
(British Petroleum):
New York Times: "Mossadegh Plays with Fire" (August 15, 1953):
The world has so many trouble spots these days that one is apt to pass over the odd one
here and there to preserve a little peace of mind. It would be well, however, to keep an eye
on Iran, where matters are going from bad to worse, thanks to the machinations of Premier
Mossadegh.
Some of us used to ascribe our inability to persuade Dr. Mossadegh of the validity of our
ideas to the impossibility of making him understand or see things our way. We thought of him
as a sincere, well-meaning, patriotic Iranian, who had a different point of view and made
different deductions from the same set of facts. We now know that he is a power-hungry,
personally ambitious, ruthless demagogue who is trampling upon the liberties of his own
people. We have seen this onetime champion of liberty maintain martial law, curb freedom of
the press, radio, speech and assembly, resort to illegal arrests and torture, dismiss the
Senate, destroy the power of the Shah, take over control of the army, and now he is about to
destroy the Majlis, which is the lower house of Parliament.
His power would seem to be complete, but he has alienated the traditional ruling classes
-the aristocrats, landlords, financiers and tribal leaders. These elements are
anti-Communist. So is the Shah and so are the army leaders and the urban middle classes.
There is a traditional, historic fear, suspicion and dislike of Russia and the Russians. The
peasants, who make up the overwhelming mass of the population, are illiterate and
nonpolitical. Finally, there is still no evidence that the Tudeh (Communist) party is strong
enough or well enough organized, financed and led to take power.
All this simply means that there is no immediate danger of a Communist coup or Russian
intervention. On the other hand, Dr. Mossadegh is encouraging the Tudeh and is following
policies which will make the Communists more and more dangerous. He is a sorcerer's
apprentice, calling up forces he will not be able to control.
Iran is a weak, divided, poverty-stricken country which possesses an immense latent wealth
in oil and a crucial strategic position. This is very different from neighboring Turkey, a
strong, united, determined and advanced nation, which can afford to deal with the Russians
because she has nothing to fear -and therefore the West has nothing to fear. Thanks largely
to Dr. Mossadegh, there is much to fear in Iran.
My feeling is that the biggest sin that our society has is forgetting history. If we
remembered history I would think that it would be very difficult to pull off coups but most
media does not revisit history which proves US coups even against democracies. I actually
think that the coup that occurred in Ukraine was similar to the attempted coup in Venezuela
in 2002 with snipers on rooftops, immediate blame for the deaths on Hugo Chavez where media
manipulated the footage, immediate acceptance of the temporary coup government by the US
Government, immediately offering IMF loans for the new coup government, government positions
for many of the coup plotters, and let us not leave out the funding for the coup coming from
USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy. I also remember seeing the New York Times
immediately blaming Chavez and praising the coup but when the coup was overturned and US
fingerprints started to become revealed (with many of the coup plotters fleeing to the US)
then the New York Times wrote a limited retraction buried in their paper. Shameless.
SFOMARCO , April 11, 2016 at 15:16
How was NED able to finance "scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists,
paying for journalists and organizing business groups", not to mention to host such
dignitaries as Cookie Nuland, Loser McCain and assorted Bidens? Seems like a recipe for a
coup "hidden in plain sight".
Bob Van Noy , April 11, 2016 at 14:36
Ukraine, one would hope, represents the "Bridge Too Far" moment for the proponents of
regime change. Surely Americans must be catching on to what we do for selected nations in the
name of "giving them their freedoms". The Kagan Family, empowered by their newly endorsed
candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, will feel justified in carrying on a new cold war,
this time world wide. Of course they will not be doing the fighting, they, like Dick Cheney
are the self appointed intellects of geopolitical chess, much like The Georgetown Set of the
Kennedy era, they perceive themselves as the only ones smart enough to plan America's
future.
Helen Marshall , April 11, 2016 at 17:11
I wish. How many Americans know ANYTHNG about what has happened in Ukraine, about Crimea
and its history, and/or could even locate them on a map?
Pastor Agnostic , April 12, 2016 at 04:11
Nuland is merely the inhouse, PNAC female version of Sidney Blumenthal. Which raises the
scary question. Who would she pick to be SecState?
"... Writing off Brazil (and India and South Africa for that matter) just because the empire has succeeded in swinging an election or two in those places, or because the empire's lawfare scams seem to be working at the moment, is a mistake. ..."
"... These conspicuous successes of the Empire of Chaos , as Escobar calls America, do not significantly change the anti-imperialist attitudes of the populations in these countries. ..."
Writing off Brazil (and India and South Africa for that matter) just because the
empire has succeeded in swinging an election or two in those places, or because the empire's lawfare scams seem to be working at the moment, is a mistake.
These conspicuous
successes of the Empire of Chaos , as Escobar calls America, do not significantly
change the anti-imperialist attitudes of the populations in these countries.
There will be
backlash against the fascists in Brazil, and the right wing leaderships in governments
elsewhere in Latin America that the US has maneuvered into place as these leaders fail to
deliver material gains to their populations. And fail they will considering we are in
late-stage capitalism.
In the letter that was addressed to Avakov on March 15, French Ambassador Isabelle Dumont
wrote on behalf of her fellow ambassadors that "the G7 group is concerned by extreme political
movements in Ukraine, whose violent actions are worrying in themselves."
"They intimidate Ukrainian citizens, attempt to usurp the role of the National Police in
safeguarding elections, and damage the Ukrainian government's national and international
reputation," Dumont continued, in a thinly veiled reference to the National Corps and National
Militia, the far-right Azov group's political and vigilante wings, respectively.
... ... ...
'Nationalist Hate Groups'
The National Corps and National Militia were products of the Azov Battalion, a volunteer
military regiment formed in the early days of the conflict against Russia-backed separatists in
eastern Ukraine that began in 2014. The battalion has been accused by international human
rights groups of "war crimes" on the battlefield and has since been brought under the control
of the National Guard, which is overseen by Avakov.
Members of the National Corps and National Militia have been blamed for multiple violent
attacks on minorities in Ukraine, particularly Roma and LGBTI persons, in the past year.
The U.S. State Department described those far-right entities as "nationalist hate groups" in
its Ukraine country report on Human Rights for 2018 released on March 13.
.... ... ...
On March 9, the National Corps and National Militia clashed with police outside the
presidential administration in Kyiv and later in Cherkasy, where Poroshenko was campaigning.
At least 15 police officers were wounded.
"The violent incidents of March 9 were a reminder that, just a few weeks ahead of the
elections, one crucial challenge is to prevent an escalation of tensions," Dumont wrote in the
letter to Avakov. "We have noted with concern that the very same groups involved in the violent
incidents have registered as election observers and publicly threatened to use violence should
they consider that election fraud is occurring."
Indeed, Ukraine's Central Election Commission has approved the National Militia to monitor
the polling. Soon after that announcement, the group's spokesman warned that "if law enforcers
turn a blind eye to outright violations and don't want to document them," then they plan to
follow the lead of a group leader
who said they would "punch someone in the face in the name of justice...without
hesitation."
So the question is: what's better proven corruption or a new face in politics? And the
best answer is, "Politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason" -
Mark Twain
Don't laugh. Professional comedians are actually very intelligent. They have excellent
memory -- I know, think very very quick on their feet, and deal with hecklers of all stripes
all the time. Such attributes are handy in time of crisis. But don't expect them to crack a
joke once they're elected. Look at Al Franken. Having been elected to and served in the
Senate, he's yet to say anything funny in public, lest people not take him seriously.
I wonder if Boyko will be arrested upon his return?
TASS has several additional short items related to this meeting and the upcoming
election in Ukraine of March 31. IMO, if Boyko wins, the Outlaw US Empire's Ukrainian project
will be concluded.
What he discussed with Medvedev and Gazprom's Miller is of extreme importance to Ukraine's
economy and are important election issues.
This MIC prostitute Karan, like his wife Nuland are un-reformable. They just earn their living ing by warmongering. And they
will screem like pigs if they are deprived from those money, and do not care one bit how many people will be
killed as the result of their policies.
There is no war that those neocon chickenhawks do not like. It's their family racket.
Notable quotes:
"... Kagan's preferred foreign policy requires that there is some global "ideological confrontation" for the U.S. to be engaged in. If there isn't one, it has to be invented. ..."
"... Kagan isn't all that interested in details or accuracy. Those are "beside the point." ..."
"... Kagan doesn't make it explicit in this essay, but his larger goal in all of this is to advocate for a more confrontational foreign policy mobilized against the authoritarian enemies that he has described. He hints at this when he disparages contemporary "realists" ..."
"... realists, non-interventionists, and progressives that see no compelling reason for the U.S. to engage in destructive rivalries with major authoritarian powers in their own backyards. Except for a lame, overused comparison to the 1930s, Kagan doesn't even try to explain why we are wrong to think this. Kagan assumes that such destructive rivalries are both necessary and desirable, and this essay is the latest part of his effort to lay the groundwork for the ideological justification for those rivalries. ..."
"... A recent WSJ article (03/11/19) titled "Russian Gas Plan Divides U.S., Allies" with the subtitle "Washington fears undersea project would make Germany too reliant on Moscow" tells the tale of what the real reasons for America to demonize Russia and Putin. The U.S. leaders fear that the German-Russian pipeline project, Nord Stream 2, will make Europe reliant on Russian energy instead of Europe purchasing it energy from the United States. What gives the U.S. the right to stop one nation from doing commerce with other nations? The answer is "Greed." ..."
"... Kagan is and will until the bitter end defend American hegemony and the ideological mantle will be used as a cover ..."
"... People also forget that US is not a democracy, but a managed Republic, and according to all indicators, it is not even that liberal ..."
"... The fallout from the actions of these "interventionists" is millions are dead in a number of countries. Millions are refugees and thousands of soldiers are dead or maimed. More facts on these war criminals at link below. https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-facts-on-crimes-of-war-criminals.html ..."
"... This Kagan family, with Robert now the lead figure, has done a great deal towards furthering conflicts and violence in the world. It is long past time that they be put in their place, whatever that is, but it will not happen because their Zionist mindset is very well funded. ..."
"... "The U.S. has spent the last twenty years fighting wars that Kagan and other like-minded interventionists advocated for and endorsed. We shouldn't make the same mistake again when the stakes are even higher." We ought to do more than that. He should be muzzled and sent to live in a cave somewhere to repent the consequences of the terrible damage he and other incompetents have done to America. That people like this still have access to the media is almost beyond belief. ..."
Brookings Senior Fellow and author Robert Kagan in March 2018. (Brookings Institution/Paul Morigi) Robert Kagan
warns us about global authoritarianism:
Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these days, the one for which we are least
prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism. We are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a
distinct worldview that offers a real alternative to liberalism.
We are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a distinct worldview because it isn't one. All authoritarian states share certain
things in common, and they may see some of the same things as threats, but there isn't a single worldview that all authoritarian
governments subscribe to. There is no one ideology that binds them together. Most of them are nationalistic to one degree or another,
but because of that they usually have competing and opposing goals. Treating all authoritarian regimes as part of the same global
threat lumps illiberal and majoritarian democracies together with kleptocracies, communist dictatorships, and absolute monarchies.
That exaggerates the danger that these regimes pose, and it tries to invent a Cold War-like division between rival camps that doesn't
really exist. If the U.S. treats these states as if they are all in league with one another, it will tend to drive together states
that would otherwise remain at odds and keep each other at arm's length.
Kagan's preferred foreign policy requires that there is some global "ideological confrontation" for the U.S. to be engaged in.
If there isn't one, it has to be invented. His account of the history of the 20th century shows how determined he is to see international
politics in terms of grand ideological battles even when there wasn't one. He takes seriously the idea that WWI is one of these struggles:
"But for those who fought it, on both sides, it was very much a war between liberalism and authoritarianism." Kagan makes the mistake
of treating wartime propaganda descriptions of the war as the real motivation for the war, and he relies on stereotypes of the nations
on the other side of the war as well. The world's largest colonial empires were not fighting for "the liberties of Europe" and they
certainly weren't fighting for the rights of small nations, as wartime British propaganda would have it, and that became abundantly
clear in the post-war settlement. It was primarily a war among empires for supremacy in Europe, and the surviving Allied empires
consolidated their hold on their own colonial possessions and gained more. To the extent that Americans genuinely believed that joining
the war had something to do with vindicating the cause of democracy, they were quickly disabused of that notion when they saw the
fruits of the vindictive settlement that their allies imposed on the losing side.
Kagan admits that there are many differences of regime type that he is trying to collapse into one group:
We have become lost in endless categorizations, viewing each type of non-liberal government as unique and unrelated to the
others -- the illiberal democracy, the "liberal" or "liberalizing" autocracy, the "competitive" and "hybrid" authoritarianism.
These different categories certainly describe the myriad ways non-liberal societies may be governed. But in the most fundamental
way, all of this is beside the point.
In other words, Kagan isn't all that interested in details or accuracy. Those are "beside the point." What matters is dividing
up the world into two opposing camps: "Nations are either liberal, meaning that there are permanent institutions and unchanging norms
that protect the "unalienable" rights of individuals against all who would infringe on those rights, whether the state or the majority;
or they are not liberal." The criteria for qualifying as a liberal nation are extremely demanding. What institutions can honestly
be called "permanent" and what norms are ever truly "unchanging"? Judged against this extreme and unreasonable standard, there won't
ever be many nations that qualify as liberal, including quite a few that we would normally consider liberal democracies in good standing.
That makes it a lot easier for Kagan to exaggerate the power of "resurgent authoritarianism."
Kagan doesn't make it explicit in this essay, but his larger goal in all of this is to advocate for a more confrontational foreign
policy mobilized against the authoritarian enemies that he has described. He hints at this when he disparages contemporary "realists"
whom he doesn't name or cite:
Just as during the 1930s, when realists such as Robert Taft assured Americans that their lives would be undisturbed by the
collapse of democracy in Europe and the triumph of authoritarianism in Asia, so we have realists today insisting that we pull
back from confronting the great authoritarian powers rising in Eurasia.
To be much more accurate, there are realists, non-interventionists, and progressives that see no compelling reason for the U.S.
to engage in destructive rivalries with major authoritarian powers in their own backyards. Except for a lame, overused comparison
to the 1930s, Kagan doesn't even try to explain why we are wrong to think this. Kagan assumes that such destructive rivalries are
both necessary and desirable, and this essay is the latest part of his effort to lay the groundwork for the ideological justification
for those rivalries.
Kagan's analysis suffers from the problem of mirror-imaging that always plagues ideologues. He assumes that everyone sees the
world in starkly ideological categories just as he does, and he thinks that other actors are just as determined to export their ideology
as he is. His entire worldview depends on linking great power competition with larger ideological causes, and for almost thirty years
there has been no such "ideological confrontation" for Kagan to theorize about. Despite Kagan's insistence to the contrary, there
still isn't. He wants the U.S. to take a more confrontational approach to dealing with Russia and China, and in order to sell that
today he has to dress it up as something more than the destructive and costly pursuit of hegemony that he has been pushing for decades.
The U.S. has spent the last twenty years fighting wars that Kagan and other like-minded interventionists advocated for and endorsed.
We shouldn't make the same mistake again when the stakes are even higher.
A recent WSJ article (03/11/19) titled "Russian Gas Plan Divides U.S., Allies" with the subtitle "Washington fears undersea
project would make Germany too reliant on Moscow" tells the tale of what the real reasons for America to demonize Russia and Putin.
The U.S. leaders fear that the German-Russian pipeline project, Nord Stream 2, will make Europe reliant on Russian energy instead
of Europe purchasing it energy from the United States. What gives the U.S. the right to stop one nation from doing commerce with
other nations? The answer is "Greed."
All wars are predicated on lies, and all wars are fought for economic reasons and not the so called humanitarian reasons that
are fed to the people.
Always insightful indeed: Kagan is and will until the bitter end defend American hegemony and the ideological mantle will
be used as a cover (Mel Gibson screaming "Freedom!" in Bravehart; killing the babies and stealing the incubators!).
People also forget that US is not a democracy, but a managed Republic, and according to all indicators, it is not even
that liberal
So better save this post because you are still young and in 30 years from now you will be able to re-post it and just change
a couple of names
Anytime, anywhere, anyone comes out and destroys kagan's Zionist globalist babble as you have done, it is a very commendable
exercise for the good of mankind and America.
This Kagan family, with Robert now the lead figure, has done a great deal towards furthering conflicts and violence in
the world. It is long past time that they be put in their place, whatever that is, but it will not happen because their Zionist
mindset is very well funded.
"The U.S. has spent the last twenty years fighting wars that Kagan and other like-minded interventionists advocated for
and endorsed. We shouldn't make the same mistake again when the stakes are even higher."
We ought to do more than that. He should be muzzled and sent to live in a cave somewhere to repent the consequences of the
terrible damage he and other incompetents have done to America. That people like this still have access to the media is almost
beyond belief.
You are a little wrong when you call this system "colonial". Today it is neo-colonialism.
When the United States subordinates the country, they do not bear any responsibility for the
fate of this country, since the formally subordinate country remains independent and all its
actions are performed "voluntarily."
Ukraine is a good example. Now this country commits ritual suicide "completely
voluntarily."
They've thought of that. That's why they tell us "The US has no colonies". Because you
have to support them if you admit to owning them. That's why by 1960, every colonial nation
on earth was giving its own colonies independence. They were costing more than they were
worth.
What we do now is to groom some local fellow, like Guaido, to take over the government and
run it the way we would like him to. We pay generously for this favor, in the form of loans
and direct investments. The fortunate ones near the seat of power come out fabulously well.
But neither we nor the country's rulers take on any responsibility for the welfare of their
people.
One of the dictators we backed was the director of the Brazilian military, who seized
power back in 1964... a fellow named Castelo Branco. And he was asked once at a press
conference how the economy was doing.
He replied "The economy, it is doing marvelously! The people, on the other hand-- not so
good."
If you don't offer protection to your puppet eventually some other power might try the
same trick and overthrow him. But if you do provide protection that area becomes a
colony.
So what you describing can only work when there is only one major power on the planet. The US
enjoyed it for some time but it can't have it anymore, that's reality.
The system is predicted to work some time into the future, for the reason that it is based
on subterfuge and military force. And we have a military as large as that of the entire rest
of the planet put together. So to us it doesn't matter what you call it. They control the
media, so they can just not report a word you say about them.
What will undo it will be a collapse of the dollar-based economy. And that will be kind of
hard to achieve, as every rich person on earth keeps his wealth denominated in dollars. So
there is little pressure to kill it. That's why we always used to call it The Almighty
Dollar.
However there are limits. Our main weapon now being used to enforce behavior is financial
sanctions. So it's pretty much assured that at some point in the near future the sanctioned
nations (Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela...) will be getting together to set up an alternate
financial system. Probably based on the yuan.
That's the thing about offensive weapons systems. As a Mexican wit put it "Let them build
a twenty foot wall. We will build a 21 foot ladder."
Ukraine is now a pawn in a big geopolitical game against Russia. Which somehow survived 90th when everybody
including myself has written it off.
That's why the USA, EU (Germany) and Russia
pulling the country in different directions. But the victory of Ukrainian nationalists is not
surprising and is not solely based on the US interferences (although the USA did lot in this
direction) pursuit its geopolitical game against Russia. Distancing themselves from Russa is a unversal trend in Post-Soviet
space. And it often takes ugly forms.
So Ukraine in not an exception here. It is part of the "rule". Essentially the dissolution of the USSR revised the
result on WWII. And while the author correctly calls Ukrainian leader US stooges, they moved in this direction because
they feel that it is necessary for maintaining the independence. In other words anti-Russian stance is considered by the
Ukrainian elite as a a pre-condition for mainlining independence. Otherwise people like Parubiy would be in jail very soon.
They are tolerated and even promoted because they are useful.
It repeats the story of Baltic
Republics, albeit with a significant time delay. There should be some social group that secure
independence of the country and Ukrainian nationalists happen to be such a group. That's why
Yanukovich supported them and Svoboda party (with predictable results).
Notable quotes:
"... The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional negotiations. ..."
"... Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President. And who were helping lead this effort? ..."
"... The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia, which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine. ..."
"... US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such facts. ..."
"... US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets. One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS. ..."
"... This is : ..."
"... Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11. ..."
"... There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous to our nation's safety and freedom. ..."
"... A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list. ..."
"... An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf. Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced in the Slavic sphere as well as the west. ..."
"... The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them. ..."
"... I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans until late in the fifties. ..."
"... "Prorussian" Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic". ..."
"... But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy? ..."
"... A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression. ..."
"... I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption. ..."
"... What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. ..."
"... Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government. Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis. ..."
The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble
the warring camps that characterize the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits
groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants of real Nazis and
Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be
bridged through conventional negotiations.
Who is the United States government and media supporting? The Nazis . You think I'm joking.
Here are the facts, but we must go back to World War
II :
When World War II began a large part of western Ukraine welcomed the German soldiers as
liberators from the recently enforced Soviet rule and openly collaborated with the Germans.
The Soviet leader, Stalin, imposed policies that caused the deaths of almost 7 million
Ukrainians in the 1930s--an era known as the Holomodor).
Ukrainian divisions, regiments and battalions were formed, such as SS Galizien, Nachtigal
and Roland, and served under German leadership. In the first few weeks of the war, more than 80
thousand people from the Galizien region volunteered for the SS Galizien, which later known for
its extreme cruelty towards Polish, Jewish and Russian people on the territory of Ukraine.
Members of these military groups came mostly from the organization of Ukrainian nationalists
aka the OUN, which was founded in 1929. It's leader was Stepan Bandera, known then and today for
his extreme anti-semitic and anti-communist views.
CIA documents just recently declassified show strong ties between US intelligence and
Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.
Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan
2). The US was firmly on the side of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the
elected President. And who were
helping lead this effort?
Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. Parubiy
was the founder of the Social National Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler's
Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.
The Social National Party would go on to become Svoboda, the far-right nationalist party
whose leader, Oleh
Tyahnybok was one of the three most high profile leaders of the Euromaidan protests. . .
.
Overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security
is Dmytro Yarosh , the leader
of the Right Sector – a group of hardline nationalist streetfighters, who previously
boasted they were ready for armed struggle to free Ukraine.
The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an
anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent
on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia, which includes
uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing
so we have closed our eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in
western Ukraine.
US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that
the wife of former President Viktor Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior
official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints if Melania Trump
was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are
happily ignorant of such facts.
But Viktor Yushchenko is not an American who speaks a foreign language. He is very much a
Ukrainian nationalist and steeped in the anti-Semitism that dominates the ideology of western
Ukraine. During the final months of his Presidency, Yushchenko made the following
declaration:
In conclusion I would like to say something that is long awaited by the Ukrainian patriots
for many years I have signed a decree for the unbroken spirit and standing for the idea of
fighting for independent Ukraine. I declare Stepan Bandera a national hero of Ukraine.
Without hesitation or shame, Yushchenko endorsed the legacy of Bandera, who had happily
aligned with the Nazis in pursuit of his own nationalist goals. Those goals, however, did not
include Jews. And here is the ultimate irony--Bandera was born in Austria, not the Ukraine. So
much for ideological consistency.
US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko
marriage. It also included the open and active funding of certain political groups and media
outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets. One of these was the
Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS.
This
is : a USAID program with other National Endowment for Democracy-affiliated groups: the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute and the
International Foundation for Electoral Systems. In 2010, the reported disbursement for CEPPS in
Ukraine was nearly $5 million.
The program's efforts are described on the USAID website as providing "training for
political party activists and locally elected officials to improve communication with civic
groups and citizens, and the development of NGO-led advocacy campaigns on electoral and
political process issues."
Anyone prepared to argue that it would be okay for Russia, through its Foreign Ministry, to
contribute several million dollars for training party activists in the United States?
What we do not know is how much money was being spent on covert activities directed and
managed by the CIA. During the political upheaval in April 2014 (Maidan 2), there was this news
item:
Over the weekend, CIA director John Brennan travelled to Kiev, nobody knows exactly why, but
some speculate that he intends to open US intelligence resources to Ukrainian leaders about
real-time Russian military maneuvers. The US has, thus far, refrained from sharing such
knowledge because Moscow is believed to have penetrated much of Ukraine's communications
systems – and Washington
isn't about to hand over its surveillance secrets to the Russians.
Do you think Americans would be outraged if the head of Russia's version of the CIA, the SVR
or FSB, traveled quietly to the United States to meet with Donald Trump prior to his election?
I think that would qualify as meddling.
Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display
in the United States. I am not talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and
Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian citizens writing on
Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the
Russian Government. No. There are foreign and domestic forces aligned who are keen on
portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending and
tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these
days. And that is truly dangerous to our nation's safety and freedom.
Good post pt.. thanks... i never knew ''the wife of former President Viktor Yushchenko was an
American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department.'' That is
informative.. i recall following this closely back in 2014.. the hypocrisy on display in the
usa at present is truly amazing and frightening at the same time.. it appears that the public
can be cowed very easily..
On the twitters, you would be accused of "whatabouttism" - which is the crime of excusing
Putin's diabolism by pointing out American interference with the internal politics an
elections of other nations. A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes to 'promote
democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a
long long list.
An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk
Treaty (the equivalent of the Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how
much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi state-let (oh what irony!) is
a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig
leaf. Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project
of creating a brown Europe will be advanced in the Slavic sphere as well as the west.
It's not only the US. The EU borg are also meddling. In my country we had a referendum about Ukraine. The population voted "Against" on the
question: "Are you for or against the Approval Act of the Association Agreement between the
European Union and Ukraine?"
This was the only referendum that was done since it was implemented in 2015. A second one
is being organized on the Intelligence and Security Services which has controversial parts
with regard to access to internet traffic.
This referendum will take place on March 21, 2018 and will probably be voted against because
of the controversial elements (in part because there is still living memory of our Eastern
neighbors in the second world war)
These 2 will probably be the last. Our house of representatives have voted yesterday to end
the referendum law (with a majority vote of 76 out of 150 representatives!)
So much for democracy. The reason stated that the referendum was controversial (probably
because they voted against the EU borg). Interesting is that the proposal was done by the
party that wanted the referendum as a principal point. This will almost certainly ensure that
the little respect left for traditional parties is gone and they will not be able to get a
majority next elections.
The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime
minister Guy Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the
protesters that the EU will support them.
I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no
better. They just won the war and the victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is
the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority of the country) Bandera
is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet
times people from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the
country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans until late in the fifties.
Even in the nineties anybody who travelled in Ukraine could feel the tension between East and
West. The Russians were certainly aware of it and mindful not to rip the country apart they
cut the Ukrainians an enormous amount of slack. Of course they supported "their" candidates
and shoveled money into their insatiable throats. Only to be disappointed time and again.
"Prorussian" Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and
the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People forget that he would have signed an
association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently
"democratic". Really the West should have been content with things as they were.
But the West
wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the
country apart. As a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to
ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like asking a child in divorce proceedings who
it liked more: daddy or mummy?
Really the West (not only the US -the Eu is also guilty) is to blame. It is long past time to
get down from the high horse and stop spreading chaos and mayhem in the name of
democracy,
An informative column.
The coup & later developments soured me on the MSMedia. I'm an initiate into modern
Russian history: NATO in the Ukraine = WW3!
Some additional history:
A Ukrainian nation did not exist until after WW1; one piece was Russian, another Polish and
another Austrian. The Holodomor is exaggerated for political purposes; the actual number dead
from famine appears to be 'only' 2M. It wasn't Soviet bloody mindedness, it was Soviet
agricultural mismanagement; collectivizing agriculture drops production.
They did this right
before the great drought of the 1930s - remember the dustbowl. There was a famine in Kazakestan at the same time; 1.5M died.
The Nazis raised 5 SS divisions out of the Ukraine.
As the Germans were pushed back they ran night drops of ordnance into the Ukraine as long as
they could. The Soviets had to carry on divisional level counter insurgency until 1956. After
the war, Gehlen, Nazi intelligence czar, kept himself out of jail by turning over his files,
routes & agents to the US. He also stoked anti Soviet paranoia.
The Brits ended up with a
whole Ukr SS division that they didn't want, so they gave it to Canada. Which is why Canada
has such cranky policy around the Ukraine!
A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt,
caught at picking the future rulers of liberated Ukraine :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian
agression.
I'm sure you'd like us to ignore Bandera. I bet he liked children and dogs. Just like Hitler.
Bandera was a genuine bad guy. There is no rehabilitating that scourge on society. Nice try
though.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your final comment is sarcasm. When you have
two senior US Government officials who will and will not constitute a foreign government, you
have gone beyond meddling. It is worse.
The media is hysterical. Today, Putin's Facebook Bot Collaborator contacted the Kremlin
before his mercenaries attacked Americans in Syria.
I've never seen such an intense barrage
of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This is no
coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and
there is a rush of corruption.
A World War is near. The realists are gone. The Moguls are
pushing Donald Trump pull the trigger. Either in Syria with an assault to destroy Hezbollah
(Iran) for good or American trainers going over the top of trenches in Donbass in a
centennial attack of the dead.
Hallelujah and jubilation! We're in full agreement on this subject. What we did to Ukraine
is shameful in every way. A remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG
place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's bag of cookies. I always
thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a
NATO naval base.
I would definitely want to see a full account of what support we provided to
the nazi thugs of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor. We have a long history of meddling, at least
twice as long as the Soviet Union/Russia. But that does not mean we should stop investigating
the Russian interference in our 2016 election. Just stop hyperventilating over it. It no more
deserves risking a war than our continuing mutual espionage.
Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided
between pro-Western and pro-Russian sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an
election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government. Among the
groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis.
As a result of this rebellion, the Russian majority in Crimea overwhelming voted to leave
the Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for over 150-years. While our
government continues to provide military aid to Israel, which used force of arms take over
the West Bank, it imposed sanctions against Russia when the people of Crimea voted to join
their former countrymen. Mind boggling.
@Felix
Keverich You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little
fart ? are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or
do you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
The Ukraine certainly had all kinds of 'entrepreneurs' they're called OLIGARCHS who
very capably enriched themselves unfortunately 'entrepreneurs' are what normal people would
call parasites, flim-flam men and hucksters
As for Ukrainian workers lacking 'marketable skills' I guess that would be 'skills' like
TROLLING, your specialty and making retarded statements on discussion fora
Ukraine had more very qualified engineers per capita than any country in Europe a huge
amount of intellectual capacity, and a very good industrial base especially in high tech
areas like aerospace and propulsion their problem was that they chose to play games with the
rotten west, instead of friendship with Russia, with which their industry was
integrated
You're a complete wanker in the A. Karlin mold. Get lost you have nothing to
contribute
@Big
Bill They fought that it was Russia, that was holding them back, and by separating they
could quickly achieve Western European standard of living. The first guy to become
president of independent Ukraine promised people that they were going to "live like France"
.in 5 years (!). lol
So their plan was something like this:
Lately, they began to think that the Ukraine's path to prosperity goes through EU
membership, hence popular support for Euromaidan, and you know the results
You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little fart
? are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or do
you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
Your industries are worth ZERO, if you're unable to sell your products, and the Ukraine
struggled to sell its manufactured goods after 1991. Its traditional customer – Russia
began to import Western goods.
You sound like Martyanov. lol It doesn't take any "special qualification" to figure out
that Soviet-era factories were churning out worthless crap – there is a reason why that
system fell apart, you know.
My, Ukraine's American Minister of Health – Yuliana Suprun – is doing an
outstanding job. Ukraine was the locus of the world's biggest rise in measles cases in 2018,
from about 5,000 cases the year before to 35,120 the year just past. Moreover, 24,042 new
cases were reported in the first 2 months of this year.
But it was the Moskali who caused the epidemic by trolling social network sites with false
information as regards the efficacy of vaccination against measles.
Russian-backed attempts to sabotage Ukraine's economic, political, and health
developments have left the country fighting a measles outbreak and continuing a bloody,
undeclared war. The situation is emblematic of increasing tension between the ideologies of
President Vladimir Putin and countries of the pro-democratic, neoliberal west.
The measles outbreak -- affecting other countries including Serbia, Georgia, Greece,
and Italy -- has hit Ukraine hardest, with the country's 23 000 cases accounting for
more than half the European regional total. Kremlin-supported social media accounts spreading
discredited theories about the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, combined with shortages
and underfunding, have been blamed for the outbreak. Research published on Aug 23 concluded
Russian trolls promoted discord and, masquerading as legitimate users, created a false
impression that arguments for and against vaccination were equipoised. The result has been an
erosion of public consensus on the value of vaccine programmes. The precipitous fall in
vaccination level began after 2008, when 95% of eligible children in Ukraine received their
second (and final) recommended dose of the MMR vaccine. By 2016, the rate was 31%, among the
lowest in the world.
Although now rising again, the latest 85% measles vaccination rate recorded by WHO
remains below that needed for herd immunity. Records in 2016 show poor vaccination rates for
other diseases: only 19% of children received the third recommended dose of the
diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine and 56% received the third recommended dose of oral
polio vaccine.
Hepatitis B vaccination was low, with coverage with hepatitis B birth-dose and
third-dose vaccines at 37% and 26%, respectively. WHO estimates between 3% and 5% of the
Ukraine's 45 million population has been infected with hepatitis C.
Ukraine bears the second largest HIV epidemic in eastern Europe and central
Asia.
The above was printed in the much respected "The
Lancet" . Who wrote it, I know not -- but I can hazard a guess.
It begins with the outrageous statement that "Russia" is resposible for the epidemic,
specifically, the"ideology" of the Russian president is the cause of the epidemic.
No proof given: no data: sweet fuck all. Just an assertion that "Pyutin" is
responsible.
You know, it's a shame Ukrainians are so gullible, and believe Russia's lies without checking
any other sources of information – don't they know how to use The Microsoft and The
Google? Not to mention gullible Americans, who also fell for it.
Oh, and the Australians, who were so gobsmacked by Russia's campaign to discredit
vaccinations that being a 'vaccine skeptic' is now punishable by up to 10 years in
prison.
Mind you, the 'anti-vaxxers' in those instances are reportedly Australian nurses and
midwives – but I daresay they. too, were taken in by clever Russian trolls posing as
legitimate users on social media.
Some of you will probably be asking "At what point, for the love of Christ, are people
expected to take responsibility for their own decisions, instead of hiding behind the
feebleminded excuse that they were tricked by the Russians?" For my part, I am convinced that
Russia is going to take over the world, because Russian trolls are so much smarter than the
public in any country you care to name. With a few cat pictures and a sprinkling of Black
Lives Matter stories, many of them generated after the American election was actually over,
the Russians tricked the American electoral college into making Donald Trump president of the
United States instead of Mrs. Clinton, but in such a way that more of the public actually
voted for Clinton than for Trump. And the electoral college is supposed to be made up of
America's leaders. Brilliant, you must admit.
Watch out for the Kremlin campaign against photography – because having your picture
taken steals your soul – due to open in The Ukraine this summer. Then there will not
even be a photographic record of all the Ukrainians who died from measles, conniption fits,
brain fever and the fantods, as the Kremlin wipes them out with their own gullibility.
Survival of the fittest, baby.
Red Alert!! Nobody will ever know the true winner (cough * Petro Poroshenko * cough) of the
Ukrainian elections in 2019, because the Russians are already preparing fake exit-poll
results, so that not even those who vote will be able to remember who they voted for. The
situation probably cannot be stabilized until the reigning government reviews the results and
supplies the ballots it says were properly counted. Better just play it safe, and leave
Poroshenko as president forever.
Please note, the fake exit-poll meddling is in addition to other Russian meddling efforts
which will take place at polling stations during the vote. It is literally not possible to
hold an actual democratic election any more, Putin has ruined everything. Democracy is dead.
Voting as a means of selecting a national leader is over.
This is so confusing -- Porko has single digit support last I heard so it would be expected
that exit polls would show a similar result. But, if the exit polls are consistent with
Porko's opinion polls then it must be a sign of Russian meddling! Geez, I would have thought
it would be the other way around -- an inconsistently high exit poll result would only be
consistent with pro-Porko rating swindle. Shows how little I know about these matters.
Exit polling is tremendously important, and in previous colour revolutions the west always
tried to get control of exit polling; often it was invited to do so by the target country,
since it was felt by the government that the imprimatur of western observers would help
reassure nervous westerners that the elections were fair and democratic. They apparently did
not realize that all the west needs to tip over your victory is exit-poll results which are
dramatically different from the way the vote was counted -- for example, Yanukovych wins with
39% of the vote, but the exit polls, in which those just leaving the polling station are
asked who they voted for, say his opponent got way more votes than he did. Bingo -- the
election is a big fraud -- campers, set up your tents on the Maidan, we're not going anywhere
until this grievous wrong has been redressed. Thanks, Berezovsky, for the tents and the hot
soup. But nobody really knows what the actual exit-poll results were, so the western
observers can basically say anything they want, and the western press will immediately run
with it.
Porky knows this very well, so he is trying to de-legitimize the vote in advance, knowing
he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning himself. If Zelenskiy wins, he'll be
a Russian pawn put in place by Putin, and consequently will have to make the most belligerent
statements against Russia and swear that he sleeps with a life-size blow-up doll of Bandera
so as not to be thought 'soft' on the Kremlin.
The west was not invited to do exit polls in Russia, but in each of Putin's wins as well
as that of Medvedev, the vote was consistent with pre-election polling in which decided
voters announced who they intended to vote for. Nonetheless, there is always a great boil of
noise afterward about ballot-stuffing and carousel voting, even by those who like to use the
term but don't know what it means.
I have often wondered which news agency Matt works for.
If he really did not know what carousel voting was, he should have contacted Yulia
Latynina, she 'd have told him; she's the carousel voting specialist: she can spot voters
being bused in at a 1,000 paces. During elections, she drives around Moscow sussing them out,
trailing them, writing reports on her findings in Novaya Gazeta or on the Ekho Moskvy site or
ranting on about them in her talk show there.
I wonder what she's doing now? I heard she had emigrated. She still sends in copy for the
aforementioned news media, though.
I remember with affection the old Anatoly Karlin, who could not endure western hypocrisy
without pointing it out with highly-enjoyable sarcasm. In the instance I'm thinking of, it
was the 'huge protest' (organizers claimed 120,000, police said around 29,000, objective
analysis put it at about 80,000) in Sakharov St. where the 'fiery' Alexey Navalny said he saw
'enough people to take the Kremlin'. The answering roar must have terribly tempted him to try
it, but he didn't. Anyway, there was a photo of that protest, taken from overhead – I
can't find it now – which showed a large block of city buses drawn up side-to-side;
transport for the protesters. They were 'bused in'. When you're going to attend a
western-backed demonstration, of course, you're just 'proceeding in an
environmentally-conscious manner to a responsible protest action'. When you are part of a
factory crew and the company lays on a bus to take everyone to the polls, you're 'bused in
for carousel voting', and the bus takes the entire contingent to multiple polling places
where they vote again and again. Or so Latynina says, although all she ever shows to back up
her assertions is a photo of a bus with people on it. But the western press is perfectly
happy to accept her word that they are seeing another sad example of the perversion of
democracy in Russia.
So there you have it, as usual – western exceptionalism goes global. When we do it
('we' being the children of the Limousine Liberals), we're just using a socially-responsible
method of getting to a place where we can make our voices heard and hold the authorities
accountable. When they do it, they're cheating democracy and imposing an oligarchical system
on us.
I have seen lots of photos of people on buses, and am perfectly happy to accept that they
all came from the same workplace – that makes perfect sense to me, and I see nothing
ominous in it. I have never seen any evidence that such people vote multiple times as a
group, and must therefore conclude that 'carousel voting' is a buzzword dreamed up by western
analysts in concert with sympathetic Russian liberal enablers.
The USA state of continuous war has been a bipartisan phenomenon starting with Truman in Korea and proceeding with Vietnam,
Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. It doesn't take a genius to realize that these limited, never ending
wars are expensive was to enrich MIC and Wall Street banksters
Notable quotes:
"... Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our republic. ..."
The one thing your accurate analysis leaves out is that the goal of US wars is never what the media spouts for its Wall Street
masters. The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives,
create more enemies to be fought in future wars, and to provide a rationalization for the continued primacy of the military class
in US politics and culture.
Occasionally a country may be sitting on a bunch of oil, and also be threatening to move away from the petrodollar or talking
about allowing an "adversary" to build a pipeline across their land.
Otherwise war is a racket unto itself. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "
― George Orwell
Also we've always been at war with Oceania .or whatever that quote said.
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into
an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously
pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our
republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and
Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters:
if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked
Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A
republic, madam, if you can keep it."
As neocolonial empire of it s own (albeit the one that is vassal of the USA) yes it does,
especially in xUSSR state where EU wants to capture the makets. Ukraine is a nice example
here.
Does the European Union generate external instability?
The historic achievement of peace within a Europe of universal norms is belied by the external
instability engendered by violent and incoherent interventions.
By Branko Milanovic
The European Union is justly admired for making war among its members impossible. This is no
small achievement in a continent which was in a state of semi-permanent warfare for the past
two millennia.
It is not only that we cannot even imagine the usual 19th and 20th century antagonists, such
as France and Germany, going to war ever again. The same is true of other, lesser-known
animosities which have led periodically to bloodlettings: between Poles and Germans, Hungarians
and Romanians, Greeks and Bulgarians. Unthinkable is also the idea that the United Kingdom and
Spain could end up, regarding Gibraltar, in a reprise of the Falklands/Malvinas war.
Destabilised
But creating geopolitical stability internally has not, during the last two decades, been
followed by external geopolitical stability along the fringes of the union. Most of the big EU
member states (UK, Poland, Italy, Spain) participated, often eagerly, in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, which led to the deaths of some half a million people, destabilised the middle east
even further and produced Islamic State.
Then, seemingly not having learned from this fiasco, France and Italy spearheaded another
regime change, this time in Libya. It ended in anarchy, another civil war, two competing
governments and a UN Security Council deadlocked for years to come -- since it is clear that
China and Russia will not in the foreseeable future vote to allow another western military
intervention.
The wars along the long arc from Libya to Afghanistan, in which EU powers participated, were
the proximate cause of large refugee flows a few years ago, which continue even now. (As I have
written elsewhere, the underlying cause of migration is the large gap in incomes between
Europe, on the one hand, and Africa and the 'greater middle east', on the other, but the sudden
outbursts were caused by wars.)
The next example of generating instability was Ukraine, where the then government of Viktor
Yanukovych, having only postponed the signing of an EU agreement, was driven out of power in
2014 in a coup-like movement supported by the union. It is sure that a reasonable
counterfactual, with the same EU-Ukraine agreements being signed and without a war in eastern
Ukraine and with Crimea still part of Ukraine, would have been much preferable to the current
situation, which threatens to precipitate a war of even much greater dimensions.
Finally, consider Turkey, in an association agreement with the European Economic Community
since 1963, and thus in a membership-awaiting antechamber for more than half a century. The
initial period in power of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was marked by pro-European policies, a
desire to create an 'Islamic democracy', in the mould of the Christian democracies of Italy and
Germany, and civilian control over the army. But realisation that, because of its size and
probably because of its dominant religion, Turkey would never be recognised as part of Europe
led Erdoğan, gradually, to move in an altogether different direction -- with an almost
zero chance that he would come back to his original pro-European stance.
The endless waiting period, with similarly protracted negotiations over what are now 35
chapters which need to be agreed between candidate countries and all 28 (or soon 27) members,
is what lies behind the frustration with the EU in the Balkans. Long gone are the days when
Greece could become a member after a couple of months (if that) of negotiations and an
agreement between the French president, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and the German
chancellor, Helmut Schmidt. The European bluff -- it neither has the stick nor the carrot --
albeit long hidden behind the veil of negotiations, was recently called by the Kosovo
leadership, when it engaged in a trade war with Serbia. The EU could express its 'regrets' but
it was squarely ignored. In the past, nether Kosovo nor any other Balkan state would have dared
to defy Europe so openly.
Slow and hesitant
It all means that Europe needs a much better thought-out external policy with respect to its
neighbours. There are already some signs that it is moving in that direction but it is doing so
too slowly and hesitantly. A multilateral compact with Africa is needed to regulate migration
from a continent with the fastest rising population and lowest incomes. Much more European
investment -- in hard stuff, not conferences -- is needed. Rather than complaining about
China's Belt and Road initiative, Europe should imitate it -- and, if it desires to counteract
Chinese political influence, invest its own money to make more African friends. A similar set
of much more proactive policies is required within the framework of the Mediterranean
initiative, while military options in the region should be forsworn no less clearly than they
are within the union.
When it comes to the potential members, as in the Balkans or the western republics of the
former Soviet Union, interminable talks should be replaced by either special association with
no expectation of EU membership or clearer, time-limited negotiations leading to membership.
Both would manage expectations better and avoid the build-up of resentment and frustration.
The most important challenge is the relationship with Turkey. The EU does not have a
blueprint for a Turkey after Erdoğan; nor can it offer anything to the Turkish secular
opposition, as it is not clear within itself whether it wants Turkey in or out. It should be
rather obvious that a European Turkey, with its vast economic potential and influence in the
middle east, would be a huge economic and strategic asset. Such a Turkey would also behave
differently in Syria and in Anatolia, because it would have an incentive to follow European
rules.
This rethinking of the EU's neighbourhood policy thus calls, in short, for three things:
greater economic aid to Africa, no support for wars or regime change, and much clearer rules
and time-limits for membership talks.
Perhaps, you ascribe to the EU successes that it did not create.
The formation of the EU is not the vehicle that created, nor sustained, the uneasy peace.
I suggest it was the resolution of WW2 that has determined the current state of
tolerance.
I fear that the formation of the EU, in the end, will be the cause of a re-instigation of
the age old skirmishes that have plagued the world, as you say, for two millennia.
The destruction of the Middle East by the West, not just the EU but the US, is a
foolishness of biblical proportions.
The EU's disposition of Greece and Brexit are red flags that the EU is an unsustainable
contrivance that will eventually, come undone. The mercantilist wars between France, England,
Spain, Germany, Italy, etc, may rise again. Hopefully, I'm wrong.
"... Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation. ..."
"In a Time of Universal Deceit -- Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act" is a well known quotation (but probably not of George
Orwell). And in telling the truth about Russia and that the current "war of nerves" is not in the interests of either the American
People or national security, Professor Cohen in this book has in fact done a revolutionary act.
Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea what the truth is. And the questions
raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the cause of the truth. As Professor Cohen writes in his introduction To His
Readers:
"My scholarly work -- my biography of Nikolai Bukharin and essays collected in Rethinking the Soviet Experience and Soviet
Fates and Lost Alternatives, for example -- has always been controversial because it has been what scholars term "revisionist"
-- reconsiderations, based on new research and perspectives, of prevailing interpretations of Soviet and post-Soviet Russian history.
But the "controversy" surrounding me since 2014, mostly in reaction to the contents of this book, has been different -- inspired
by usually vacuous, defamatory assaults on me as "Putin's No. 1 American Apologist," "Best Friend," and the like. I never respond
specifically to these slurs because they offer no truly substantive criticism of my arguments, only ad hominem attacks. Instead,
I argue, as readers will see in the first section, that I am a patriot of American national security, that the orthodox policies
my assailants promote are gravely endangering our security, and that therefore we -- I and others they assail -- are patriotic
heretics. Here too readers can judge."
Cohen, Stephen F.. War with Russia (Kindle Locations 131-139). Hot Books. Kindle Edition.
Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional
United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this
important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation.
Indeed, with the hysteria on "climate change" isn't it odd that other than Professor Cohen's voice, there are no prominent
figures warning of the devastation that nuclear war would bring?
If you are a viewer of one of the legacy media outlets, be it Cable Television networks, with the exception of Tucker Carlson
on Fox who has Professor Cohen as a frequent guest, or newspapers such as The New York Times, you have been exposed to falsehoods
by remarkably ignorant individuals; ignorant of history, of the true nature of Russia (which defeated the Nazis in Europe at a
loss of millions of lives) and most important, of actual military experience. America is neither an invincible or exceptional
nation. And for those familiar with terminology of ancient history, it appears the so-called elites are suffering from hubris.
I cannot recommend Professor Cohen's work with sufficient superlatives; his arguments are erudite, clearly stated, supported
by the facts and ultimately irrefutable. If enough people find Professor Cohen's work and raise their voices to their oblivious
politicians and profiteers from war to stop further confrontation between Russia and America, then this book has served a noble
purpose.
If nothing else, educate yourself by reading this work to discover what the *truth* is. And the truth is something sacred.
America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace makers..."
This is a compelling book that documents and examines the senseless and dangerous demonizing of Russia and Putin. Unfortunately,
the elites in Washington and mass media are not likely to read this book. Their minds are closed. I read this book because I was
hoping for an explanation about the cause of the new cold war with Russia. Although the root cause of the new cold war is beyond
the scope of this book, the book documents baseless accusations that grew in frequency and intensity until all opposition was
silenced. The book documents the dangerous triumph of group think.
"On my planet, the evidence linking Putin to the assassination of Litvinecko, Nemtsov, and Politkovskaya and the attempt
on the Skripals is strong and consistent with spending his formative years in the KGB. The naive view from Cohen's planet is
presented on p 6 and 170."
Ukrainian history. That's evident to any attentive reader. I just want to state that Ukrainian EuroMaydan was a color revolution
which exploited the anger of population against the corrupt neoliberal government of Yanukovich (with Biden as the best friend,
and Paul Manafort as the election advisor) to install even more neoliberal and more corrupt government of Poroshenko and cut Ukraine
from Russia. The process that was probably inevitable in the long run (so called Baltic path), but that was forcefully accelerated.
Everything was taken from the Gene Sharp textbook. And Ukrainians suffered greatly as a result, with the standard of living dropping
to around $2 a day level -- essentially Central Africa level.
The fact is that the EU acted as a predator trying to get into Ukraine markets and displace Russia. While the USA neocons (Nuland
and Co) staged the coup using Ukrainian nationalists as a ram, ignoring the fact that Yanukovich would be voted out in six months
anyway (his popularity was in single digits, like popularity of Poroshenko those days ;-). The fact that Obama administration
desperately wanted to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainians eludes you. I would blame Nuland for the loss of Crimea and the
civil war in Donbass.
Poor Ukrainians again became the victim of geopolitical games by big powers. No that they are completely blameless, but still...
It looks like you inhabit a very cold populated exclusively with neocons planet called "Russiagate." So Professor Cohen really
lives on another planet. And probably you should drink less American exceptionalism Kool-Aid.
That's probably wrong. Distancing from Russia was the main theme for all post Soviet States.
And the fact that Ukraine had chosen Baltin model -- becoming the sattelite of EU is not
surprising, taking into account connections of Western Ukraine and Germany which goes to the time
when this territory was a part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The the fact that this distancing took such a toxic and self-destructing form and incldes the
loss of territory and population, can be attributed to the USA. Here I would agree with the
author.
Notable quotes:
"... The term, roughly translated as Revolution of Dignity, was cooked up at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, well in advance of Victoria Nuland's assumption of the throne as de facto "Queen of the Ukraine," lording over her subjects, playing the role of "donut dollie." ..."
"... The roots of the conflict in the Ukraine with thousands dead and the threat of, minimally, a wider regional conflict, are attributable to extremist elements in the United States -- those faces and voices seen and heard promoting the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the supporters of ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria -- and the cheerleaders of the continued genocide against the Palestinian people." ..."
"A Pew poll from April 2014 revealed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents
believed the referendum was free and fair, 93 percent had confidence in Putin, and
85 percent believed Kiev should recognize the results.
Another poll in June 2014, this one from Gallup , showed 94 percent of
ethnic Russians in Crimea thought the referendum reflected the views of the people and 68
percent of ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea agreed . The poll found that 74 percent
believed that joining Russia would make life better.
A GfK poll from February 2015, sponsored by a pro-Ukrainian group in Canada,
revealed 93 percent of Crimeans endorsed the referendum."
"Enough documents have been released -- citing coup-backed snipers killing dozens of
protesters, US embassy officials planning false flag attacks, extremists downing a passenger
airliner and NATO peddling falsified intelligence -- to make it very clear that the "coup" is
more of an invasion than anything else.
The term, roughly translated as Revolution of Dignity, was cooked up at the Jamestown
Foundation in Washington, well in advance of Victoria Nuland's assumption of the throne as de
facto "Queen of the Ukraine," lording over her subjects, playing the role of "donut
dollie."
The roots of the conflict in the Ukraine with thousands dead and the threat of,
minimally, a wider regional conflict, are attributable to extremist elements in the United
States -- those faces and voices seen and heard promoting the invasion of Afghanistan and
Iraq, the supporters of ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria -- and the cheerleaders of the continued
genocide against the Palestinian people."
"In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI,
specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
acts mentioned under (i)."
@annamaria
Bravo, indeed, Annamaria. Beautiful, perfect, resounding, harsh, unforgiving words for a pair
of worthless human vermin masquerading as civilised, intelligent professionals with a moral
compass.
who has spent time in Ukraine knows how deep hatred of Russia goes
I don't know where is Ukraine you spent your time and in what company, but this is
complete BS. The South-Eastern Ukraine hates the Western Ukrainian "banderovtsi" as much as
the Russians do if not more -- after all, the followers of Bandera operated mostly on the
Ukrainian soil. There are deranged individuals in every country, of course, and Ukraine has
been subjected lately to intense hate propaganda as well as repressions, but there is no
hatred of Russia. This is contradicted by both sociology and everyday behavior of Ukrainian,
which move to Russia in droves, spend time in Russia, support Russian sport teams, etc.
we are supposed to dismiss the actual wishes of Ukrainians, Estonians, Poles, Georgians
and other peoples who hate Russia (and love the US)
Nobody is asking about what the real Ukrainians, Estonians, Georgians or even Poles
actually think, least of all the US. There are almost as many Georgians living in Russia as
there are in Georgia, and they show no desire to move back. In 2008 during the conflict,
their biggest fear was that they'd be deported.
The Ukraine's Maidan was a violent coup, where a few thousand militants armed and trained
abroad overthrew a government elected by the entire country. Protests that immediately
started all over the country were suppressed with force -- the one in Donbass still is.
How could anyone with an access to Internet remain unaware of these facts is beyond
me.
@Peter
Akuleyev Why should anyone freaking care and put his ass in the line of fire because you
bunch of primitives hate Russia? Between having a nuclear cataclysm because you pathetic
dwarfs of nations are frustrated to have a neighbour you can't bully and Russia obliterating
you, I say let Russia obliterate you, thus we won't have to suffer the ear-hurting
dissonnance of your incessant whining any more. Though I doubt Russia would stomp on you.
When you see shit, you don't stomp on it, you don't want you don't want your shoes to stink,
you just walk around it.
@EugeneGur
That's an interesting point. Even if true, doesn't matter. One could wonder ..who are the
people populating Ukrainian Armed Forces?
Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces, presently engaged against Donbass? All of
them. Including those is logistics/maintenance depots far away from the (current) line of
separation?
The will to fight against "Russia" ranges from a deep hate to simply not wishing to go
against the (current) Ukrainian government. The former are in those "shock" battalions. The
later are manning the logistics train. And everything in between.
Now .if/when a real shooting starts, as soon as Russia, as expected (and desired) by the
most of readers here, starts delivering ordnance into operational depth of Donbass enemy, the
ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I suspect.
4 февраля
гостьей
программы
"Гордон" была
народный
депутат
Украины V - VII
созывов Елена
Бондаренко.
Сильные мира
сего умеют
хранить свои
тайны, и тем
интереснее
задавать им
прямые и
неудобные
вопросы, чтобы
отделить
правду от лжи и
узнать истину.
Они будут
пытаться
уклоняться от
ответов, но
Дмитрий Гордон
постарается
докопаться до
самой сути.
Эти люди
расскажут о том,
о чем принято
молчать – что
волнует
общество и
Дмитрия
Гордона в
частности.
"... Senate Resolution on December 19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline ..."
"... Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. ..."
Senator Ron Johnson (R- Wis) and Richard Durban (D-Ill) and 39 of their colleagues introduced a Senate Resolution on December
19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline" as shown
here :
Here is a list of co-sponsors of the resolution:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), ranking member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation; and Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ben Cardin
(D-Md.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), James Risch (R-Idaho),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.),
Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.),
Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Roger Wicker
(R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
Here is the resolution (currently unnumbered) in its entirety:
Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
... ... ...
Whereas the United States has important national interests in the Black Sea region, including the security
of three NATO littoral states, the promotion of European energy market diversification by ensuring unfettered European access
to energy exporters in the Caucuses and central Asia, and combatting use of the region by smugglers as a conduit for trafficking
in persons, narcotics, and arms;
Whereas the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a proposed underwater natural gas pipeline project that would provide
an additional 55,000,000,000 cubic meters of pipeline capacity from the Russian Federation to the Federal Republic of Germany
through the Baltic Sea;
Whereas the Russian Federation's state-owned oil and gas company, Gazprom, is the sole shareholder of the Nord
Stream 2 project;
Whereas, in 2017, there was spare capacity of approximately 55,000,000,000 cubic meters in the Ukrainian gas
transit system;
Whereas Gazprom cut off natural gas exports to Europe via Ukraine in 2006, and again in 2009, over supply and
pricing disputes with Ukraine's state-owned oil and gas company, Naftogaz;
Whereas transit of Russian natural gas to Europe via Ukraine declined precipitously after the completion of
Nord Stream 1 in 2011, falling from 80 percent to between 40 and 50 percent of Russia's total exports to Europe;
Whereas, in 2017, Russian gas accounted for 37 percent of Europe's natural gas imports, an increase of
5 percent over 2016;
Whereas, on December 12, 2018, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning both the
Russian Federation's aggression in the Kerch Strait and the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline; and
Whereas, on December 11, 2018, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution calling upon
the European
Union to reject the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and urging the President to use all available means to promote energy policies in
Europe that reduce European reliance on Russian energy exports:
... ... ...
(9) applauds and concurs with the European 2 Parliament's December 12, 2018, resolution condemning Russian aggression in the
Kerch Strait and
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, calling for the pipeline's cancellation due to its threat to European energy security, and calling
on the Russian Federation to
7 guarantee freedom of navigation in the Kerch Strait;
and
(10) urges the President to continue working with Congress and our allies to ensure the appropriate policies to deter the Russian
Federation from further aggression.
Fortunately, these two neocons can make all the proclamations they want but without President Trump's support it's all just
words; neocon virtue signalling. And of course President Trump won't support what they're doing because he campaigned on and governs
as an anti-war president.
Ron Johnson is a Bushie neocon who actively supported the neocon ¡Jebe! (Please Clap) Bush while Durbin is a Hillary Clinton
neocon who actively supported that drunken, corrupt, warmongering shrew.
Thank all that's holy that we have a genuine anti-war POTUS in office and not either of those two neocons, both of whom were
utterly in the pockets of defense contractors.
Thanks for your research on relevant naval law. The Ukrainian vessel is reported to have violated the ongoing protocol by failing
to take on a Russian pilot as it transited the strait and an important bridge could potentially have been attacked by those vessels.
This was a provocation by Ukraine that seems to have its desired effect on the U.S. Senate. For essential background on the Ukrainian
civil war, I recommend reading Stephen F. Cohen's article in the Nation in 2014, titled "Kiev's atrocities and the Silence of
the Hawks." https://www.thenation.com/article/kievs-atrocities-and-silence-hawks/
Poland and Ukraine cannot stop provoking laughter from international observers. After the
lunatic idea circulating in Ukraine of resurrecting the country's nuclear arsenal, it is
now Poland's turn to send shockwaves around Europe. Polish foreign minister Czaputowicz
proposed that France share its nuclear arsenal and hand over its seat on the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) to the European Union. It is is worth noting that this suggestion did
not even receive an official comment from Paris, showing that there was little prospect of the
Polish idea being taken seriously . Warsaw continues its opposition to the EU's domestic
policies on migration and austerity, while in foreign policy, agrees with countries like
Ukraine and the United States, particularly the neocon faction opposed to Russia. If there is a
distinctive feature in the political proposals that come from Poland, it is an acute
Russophobia. The idea of hosting a US base on Polish territory, and assuming its
costs, is another Polish proposal. The Americans are serious considering taking them up on
the offer .
The Poles and the Ukrainians would be willing to sacrifice themselves on behalf of their
allies for the privilege of being able to poke the Bear. Fortunately for them, Paris, London
and Berlin have neither the military capabilities nor the suicidal intention to challenge
Moscow with permanent military bases on its border. Neither do they wish to share their nuclear
weapons with other EU countries, nor engage in any such hare-brained ideas that threaten
humanity as the American Aegis Ashore system or the planned US withdrawal from the INF
Treaty.
Off topic...but of interest to many here at MoA....The snipers that executed the Maidan
massacre in Kiev have come forward and have made sworn testimony///
63
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201802151061669056-georgian-snipers-maidan-evidence
"Adding a new twist to the story about the 2014 Maidan shootings, a Sputnik correspondent has
met with the purported snipers. The agency has obtained the records of interrogation of Koba
Nergadze and Aleksandre Revazishvili. Both Georgian nationals, they are ready to testify in a
Ukrainian court."
It was a matter of time when the participants in the Maidan Massacre would surface the coup
d'état didn't stop the carnage of Ukrainians nor corruption of people in power. The
witness accounts were described in the hours as the events unfolded. Only the faces were not
known ...
Maidan Massacre Bombshell: #Georgian snipers reportedly confess to massacring along
with Lithuanian snipers both #Police and #maidan protesters in #Ukraine in Italian
#documentary just broadcast by most popular
#Italian #TV channel [h/t Ivan Katchanovski]
Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard19:45:09 05/12/2018Aleksey
Zhuravko
Dear friends!
FOR INFORMATION. EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW THIS! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HIDE THE TRUTH.
Today I had a conversation with a serious person from Kiev who is on active service. For
safety reasons I cannot give its name. I trust this person. Many thanks that there are still
decent people.
Here is what he told me. The special
operation in the Black Sea made on November 25th in the Kerch Strait was prepared over
three months by the American intelligence agencies and the SBU. All orders on carrying out a
provocation in the Black Sea were given to Poroshenko by the US Embassy in Ukraine. And
Poroshenko, in turn, personally gave the instructions to the performers. He consciously sent
boats and young guys off to be shot, and members of the crew were equipped with a large number
of cartridges and small arms, having being told that they must fire back to the last bullet.
They were sent to a certain death for the purpose of carrying out a provocation.
There's more. Poroshenko gave the order to not hold any negotiations with Russia concerning
returning sailors, and if the people will insist and kick up a storm around it, then drag out
he negotiation process as much as possible. This order came from the US Embassy in Ukraine.
Dear parents of the aggrieved Ukrainian sailors detained by the border service of Russia!
Your children were used by Poroshenko and his gang as cannon fodder, and you continue to be
deceived. That 50,000 hryvnia that he promised you will end very quickly. He met you only to
calm your anger, to appease you, like saying "we are dealing with this issue
"... This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II. ..."
"... Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign. ..."
One of the local Washington television stations was doing a typical early morning honoring
our soldiers schtick just before Thanksgiving. In it soldiers stationed far from home were
treated to videolinks so they could talk to their families and everyone could nod happily and
wish themselves a wonderful holiday. Not really listening, I became interested when I half
heard that the soldier being interviewed was spending his Thanksgiving in Ukraine.
It occurred to me that the soldier just might have committed a security faux pas by
revealing where he was, but I also recalled that there have been joint military maneuvers as
well as some kind of training mission going on in the country, teaching the Ukrainian Army how
to use the shiny new sophisticated weapons that the United States was providing it with to
defend against "Russian aggression."
Ukraine is only one part of the world where the Trump Administration has expanded the
mission of democracy promotion, only in Kiev the reality is more like faux democracy
promotion since Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting
a situation that he himself provoked . He envisions setting himself up as a victim of
Moscow to aid in his attempts to establish his own power through a security relationship with
Washington. That in turn will help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections, in which his
poll numbers are currently running embarrassingly low largely due to the widescale corruption
in his government. Poroshenko has already done much to silence the press in his county while
the developing crisis with Russia has enabled him to declare martial law in the eastern parts
of the country where he is most poorly regarded. If it all works out, he hopes to win the
election and subsequently, it is widely believed, he will move to expand his own executive
authority.
There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch Strait
was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American neoconservative and
Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government for the past
several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it
was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside
the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir
Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.
The defection of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, together with the assumption that a lot of
anti-Trump dirt will be spilled soon, means that the American president had to be even more
cautious than ever in any dealings with Moscow and all he needed was a nod of approval from
National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to cancel the
encounter. A heads-of-state meeting might not have solved anything but it certainly would be
better than the current drift towards a new cold war. If the United States has only one vitally
important relationship anywhere it is with Russia as the two countries are ready, able and
apparently willing to destroy the world under the aegis of self-defense.
Given the anti-Russian hysteria prevailing in the U.S. and the ability of the neocons to
switch on the media, it should come as no surprise that the Russian-Ukrainian incident
immediately generated calls from the press and politicians for the White House to get tough
with the Kremlin. It is important to note that the United States has no actual national
interest in getting involved in a war between Russia and Ukraine if that should come about. The
two Eastern European countries are neighbors and have a long history of both friendship and
hostility but the only thing clear about the conflict is that it is up to them to sort things
out and no amount of sanctions and jawing by concerned congressmen will change that fact.
Other Eastern European nations that similarly have problems with Russia should also be
considered provocateurs as they seek to create tension to bind the United States more closely
to them through the NATO alliance. The reality is that today's Russian Federation is not the
Soviet Union and it neither aspires to nor can afford hegemony over its former allies. What it
has made very clear that it does want is a modus vivendi where Russia itself is not
being threatened by the West.
Recent
military maneuvers in Poland and Lithuania and the stationing of new missiles in Eastern
Europe do indeed pose a genuine threat to Moscow as it places NATO forces on top of Russia's
border. When Russia reacts to incursions by NATO warships and planes right along its borders,
it is accused of acting aggressively. One wonders how the U.S. government would respond if a
Russian aircraft carrier were to take up position off the eastern seaboard and were to begin
staging reconnaissance flights. Or if the Russian army were to begin military exercises with
the Cubans? Does anyone today remember the Bay of Pigs?
Crying wolf provides a perfect pretext for the Empire's MIC to line the pockets of the
merchants of death. In keeping with its time-honored tradition of propping up tyrants
kowtowing to imperial hegemonic wishes, America hardly has friends without some military
collaboration. Even the recently anointed sh*thole countries of Africa over 50 such countries
have American military cooperation agreements under the guise of the infamous AFRICOM and the
War on Terror. The number of military bases in sh*thole African countries remain unknown.
..the ability of the neocons to switch on the media
Hard to distinguish between the two really. The "free press" of WMD notoriety, Ghaddafi's
"genocidal drive" against Libyan citizens, Iraq's involvement with 9/11? Iranian arms in
Yemen that have not massacred children in school buses? Iranian fabricated nuclear weapons?
Syrian chemical attacks?
The biggest threats to America come from its "friends"
America is being unwittingly exonerated as an innocent bystander unable to choose her own
friends. It so happens America's "friends" share the common trait of pushing for war. In
countries awash in petrodollars, purchasing billions of dollars in arms used in Yemen to
murder children; Zionists are gifted with American state of the art arsenals to murder
Palestinians, including women and children. The biggest threat to America comes from inside
the deep state itself, especially with the Zionist Israel Firsters pulling strings at
will.
I agree with Phil Giraldi on its analysis of US foreign policy. When lying with dogs, you get
fleas. This saying holds especially true for the so-called US friends such as the Saudis,
Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and the Brits. The NeoZion gang plays President Trump is an open
secret. He still employes one of its guiding spirits as national security adviser. As long
this Gordian knot is not cut, American foreign policy will not change, and it's getting
worse. These folks who surround Trump want war, first with Iran and then with Russia. Their
lackey Poroshenko is doing the bitting of Trump and the Zionist regime and their European
puppets. The Zionist regime is deeply involved in steering up tensions. Prime minister
Wolodymyr Hrojsman is Jewish. Is anyone surprised?
What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina
Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?
Around 1890 one Rothschild wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
In my opinion at present the only enemy of the USA is the USA, that part of the USA that
failed in getting Hillary elected.
On the European continent a similar situation, even an establishment Dutch politician, of a
christian party, Segers, found out that a substantial part of the Dutch see the government as
the enemy.
He has the illusion that pr can save him, and his cronies.
He never understood. That was evident the moment he started floating names like Romney for
his cabinet. Personally, I sympathize with Trump after what the deep state has done to him
and his family, and I even respect the guy for telling things like they are – the poor
autistic bastard just can't help but blurt out the truth about things* but he's also not the
guy we needed. We needed a fearless, ruthless, and cunning fighter ready to martyr himself
for our interests, the people's interests.
*Global Warming IS a scam – the Paris Accords would not decrease CO2 levels even
under perfect – near miraculous – circumstances and is merely being floated by
the Chinese so they can give off the appearance of doing something while doing nothing, as
they have done before.
The EU IS a vehicle for Germany.
Hatti IS a shit hole, it's just that non-autistic people have the good sense not to say
that out loud.
Trudeau DOES have a fake eyebrow.
Hillary DOES wear a wig, or at least hair extensions on occasion.
China IS screwing us over economically.
Mexico isn't sending us their best, they are dumping their poverty problem onto us.
NATO doesn't have a purpose.
We shouldn't go to war with N. Korea.
We shouldn't destroy Syria but destroy ISIS.
John Brennan and the FBI really did run a deep state coup plot against him during the
campaign and first 100 days.
Russia isn't a big deal unless we make them a big deal.
@jilles dykstra 'One
of many truths lost within this discourse is the reality that the creation of a no-fly zone
would, in the words of the most senior general in the US Armed Forces, mean the US going to
war "against Syria and Russia". '
For a peek into Establishment orthodoxy, check out "Why Does America Spend So Much on
Israel?" on Beltway Conservatism's Cartoon Network, aka the PragerU Channel. I've recently
started auditing classes there via the Videos page here at The Unz Review.
Beyond parody, a pensioned warrior narrates over 3rd grade graphics, telling most
Americans all they care to know about what he calls "Izrul." Perhaps Mr. Giraldi could,
despite the apparent taboo, leave a comment and get some discussion going with the Team Red
NPCs -- it hasn't worked for me.
@Art I've wondered
why we are the way we are. Then I came across this, and I understood:
D.H. Lawrence
"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of
by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet
melted."
This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know
none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common
plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome
Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime
under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II.
"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a
sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has
never yet melted."
The leading sponsors of terror in the world are Israel and the Zionist controlled U.S. and
Britain and NATO and their terrorist mercenaries ISIS aka AL CIADA and all of the various off
shoots that have been seeded throughout the world by the satanic Zionists.
The Zionists have a long historical experience with bringing terror to the world , one
example being the Zionist/ Bolshevik revolution in Russia where the Bolsheviks killed some 60
million Russians bringing terror to Russia on an industrial level turning the whole country
into a slaughter house!
The Zionist attack on the WTC is but another example of Zionist terrorism, where in one
fell swoop the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and got away with it and every thinking
American knows that the Zionists did it!
The greatest terrorist kabal in the world is Zionism and these terrorists have control of
every facet of the U.S. government and at some point are going to provoke a war with Russia
that will get the whole world blown to hell and in fact this is what the Zionists want as
they believe they will survive in their DUMBS akd Deep Underground Military Bases which they
have in the U.S. and Israel and Britain, but they care not for the rest of humanity, that is
terrorism in spades!
The enemy is not at the gates , the enemy is in control of the U.S. government and is
going to be the destruction of America!
You can't really pin Ukraine on Trump. Maidan was not spontaneous.
Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that
much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and
NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating
such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor
Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it
was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign.
The real story on Russia is this: the same people that own every "Western liberal
democracy" owned the USSR. The Russians got rid of them, and the USSR collapsed. A new
invasion was hatched under the guise of "Westernizing" Russia. When the Russians saw that
Yeltsin was suckered, and it was the same game, run by the same people, they got a new
sheriff. That sheriff started to sort things out, while the owners fled to the UK and Israel.
The lives of Russians got better, as the owners are gradually being stripped of their power.
The long and short of it, our owners want their ownership of Russia restored.
All wars are economic wars. Capitalism and communism are the two sides of the same coin.
Both seek to concentrate ownership, just in different ways using different scams.
The reason why Trump supports the Ukraine is easy.
"According to the European Jewish Congress, as of 2014, there are 360,000–400,000
Jews in Ukraine."
And there you have it. Wherever or whatever the interest of Jewry there will be the United States standing tall
behind it. Let's just say the Ukraine is guaranteed to stay poor. While the Jews get rich!
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting a situation that he himself
provoked. He envisions setting himself up as a victim of Moscow to aid in his attempts to
establish his own power through a security relationship with Washington. That in turn will
help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections
Nah, Porky needs a war to avoid an election which he would undoubtedly lose.
There's no use having an empire if you can't exact an economic advantage. Ultimately, most of
the events unfolding today are about keeping the loot flowing to lower Manhattan and central
London.
Teenagers who get in trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives
around. There is still a chance for the United States if we keep our distance from the bad
friends
It's hard to do if you are in fact the worst of those bad friends.
friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices.
The poor choices had been made long before these friends even appeared on the scene. In
fact, many of these friends owe their very existence and/or influence to the poor choices the
US had made. It's so disingenuous to blame the US politics on someone's influence when the
reality is exactly the opposite.
If the US were in normal country prepared to behave in a sensible way it would've picked
much better partners. But the thing is the US isn't a normal country; it doesn't want
partners – in wants vassals, so it is naturally limited in its choice of friends.
September 17, 2014 US Pursues 134 Wars Around the World
The US is now involved in 134 wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White
House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to
describe its military actions against the Islamic State. US Secretary of State John Kerry was
at first reluctant: "We're engaged in a major counterterrorism operation," he told CBS News
on Sept. 11. "I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are
engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity I don't think people
need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of
counter terrorist activity." – Global Post
"Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from
the combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly, under the
nose of a shrugging law enforcement -- chronicling their experiences on social media before
they bring their lessons back home."
The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was
also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside
the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir
Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.
Trump isn't vulnerable he hired the Deep State apparatchiks, Bolton, Pompeo and many
others. Trump is a Deep Stater and is doing a great Kabuki theater to dupe his followers into
believing his hands are tied.
How do YOU expect me (and others) to swallow YOUR position?
with a great gulps of satisfaction, that's how.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine was manufactured by the ZUS State Dept. ((Victoria
Nuland)) and John McBloodstain in particular, when Putin upset the Zionist's plans to do a
'Libya' – to Syria.
It was a bloody coup foisted with 5 billion federal reserve note$, of the famous phone
call ('Yats is our guy'). Since then the imbeciles in Ukraine have been doing Nazi salutes
while taking orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists like Ihor Kolomoyskyi and assorted ZUS
Zionists.
The conflict with Iran started when the CIA deposed the duly elected president Mohammed
Mossadeq in 1953, and installed the brutal quisling Shah in his place. To keep the Iranian
people terrorized for decades into submitting to this perfidy, they utilized the CIA and
Mossad run SAVAK.
In reality this is mostly neocolonial way of dealing with countries. Allowing local oligarchy
to steal as much loaned by foreign states money as they can and converting the country into the
debt slave. Look at Greece and Ukraine for two prominent examples.
The position of OneCommentator is a typical position of defenders and propagandists
of neoliberalism
IMF is part of "Washington Consensus" with the direct goal of converting countries into debt slaves of industrialized
West. It did not work well with Acia counties, but it is great success in some countries in Europe and most of Africa and Latin
America (with Argentina as the most recent example)
Notable quotes:
"... As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well! ..."
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom..
Wrong. Traditional liberalism supported both social and economic freedoms. That
included support for most of the civil rights and freedoms we enjoy today AND free trade and
free investments. It used to be that liberals were practically unpopular with right wing
(traditional conservative for example) parties but more or less on the same side as left wing
parties, mainly because of their social positions. More recently the left wing parties became
more and more unhappy with the economic freedoms promoted by liberals while the right wing
parties embraced both the economic and social freedoms to a certain degree.
So, the leftists
found themselves in a bind practically having reversed roles which the the conservatives as
far as support for liberalism goes. So, typically, they're using propaganda to cover their
current reactionary tendencies and coins a new name for liberals: neoliberals which, they
say, are not the same as liberals (who are their friends since liberal means freedom lover
and they like to use that word a lot).
"austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it.
Austerity is caused by incompetent governments unable to balance their budgets.
They had 60 years to do it properly after ww2 and the reconstruction that followed but many
of them never did it. So now it is very simple: governments ran out of money and nobody wants
to lend them more. That's it, they hit the wall and there is nothing left on the bottom if
the purse.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt.
It is a bit more complicated than that. Developed countries like Greece are supposed to run
more or less balanced budgets over longer periods. Sure, they need to borrow money on a
regular basis and may that is supposed to be done by issuing bonds or other forms of
government debt that investors buy on the open market. For such governments the IMF is
supposed to just fill in in a minor way not to provide the bulk of all the loans needed on a
temporary basis. Because of incompetent governments Greece is practically bankrupt hence it
is not going to be able to pay back most of the existing debts and definitely not newer
debts. So practically the IMF is not, ending money to them, it is giving them the money. So,
I would say that they have a good reason to wag its finger.
If private, stockholder-held central banks such as the FED and the FED-backed ECB were not
orchestrating this depression, and anybody who believed they were was a "wacko-nutcase
conspiracy theorist", then why do they keep repeating the same mistakes of forcing un-payable
bailout loans, collapsing banks, wiping out people's savings and then imposing austerity on
those nations year after year – when it is clearly a failed policy?
Possible Answers :
1. Bank presidents are all ex-hippies who got hooked on LSD in the 70's and have not yet
recovered fully as their brains are still fried!
2. Central bankers have been recruited from insane asylums in both Europe and America in
government-sponsored programs to see whether blithering idiots are capable of running large,
international financial institutions.
3. All catastrophic events in the banking/business world, such as the derivative and
housing crash of 2008, the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and The Great Depression of 1929-40
were totally random events that just occurred out of nowhere and central banks were caught
off guard – leaving them no option but to play with their willies for years on end
until a major war suddenly happened to pull the whole world out of "bad times"!
4. As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot
be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters
having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so
as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums
and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while
possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well!
Please choose one of the possible answers from above and write a short 500 word essay on
whether it may or may not true – using well-defined logical arguments. I expect your
answers in by Friday of this week as I would like to get pissed out of my mind at the pub on
Saturday night!
The neoliberal idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as
well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom...it is a PR spin concept that names slavery with a a word that sounds like the
opposite...if "they" called it neoslavery it just wouldn't sell in the market for political
concepts.
..."austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it. To mend it was a case of preservation of the elite and
the devil take the hindmost, that's most of us.
...and even Labour, the party of trade unionism, has adopted austerity to drive its
policy.
...we need a Peoples' Party to stand for the revaluation of labour so we get paid for our
effort rather than the distortion, the rich xxx poor divide, of neoslavery austerity.
"... "When I look at this latest incident in the Black Sea, all what's happening in Donbass – everything indicates that the current Ukrainian leadership is not interested in resolving this situation at all, especially in a peaceful way," ..."
"... This is a party of war and as long as they stay in power, all such tragedies, all this war will go on. ..."
"... "As they say, for one it's war, for other – it's mother. That's reason number one why the Ukrainian government is not interested in a peaceful resolution of the conflict," ..."
"... Second, you can always use war to justify your failures in economy, social policy. You can always blame things on an aggressor. ..."
"... "We care about Ukraine because Ukraine is our neighbor," ..."
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has branded the Ukrainian leadership a "party of war"
which would continue fueling conflicts while they stay in power, giving the recent Kerch Strait
incident as an example. "When I look at this latest incident in the Black Sea, all what's
happening in Donbass – everything indicates that the current Ukrainian leadership is not
interested in resolving this situation at all, especially in a peaceful way," Putin told
reporters during a media conference in the aftermath of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
This is a party of war and as long as they stay in power, all such tragedies, all this
war will go on.
The Kiev authorities are craving war primarily for two reasons – to rip profits from
it, and to blame all their own domestic failures on it and actions of some sort of
"aggressors."
