As we enter 2015, it is not useless to look backwards in order to try to guess the trends of the
future. I would argue that the age that we are, to some extent exiting now, and which extended
from the early 1980s, can be called the “second age of imperialism”--the first one, in the
modern history, having been the age of high imperialism 1870-1914. I will focus here on some of
its key manifestations in the ideological sphere, in the areas I know, history and economics.
But it should be obvious that ideology is but a manifestation
of the underlying real forces, which were twofold:
i) the failure of most developing countries by 1980 to become economically successful
and self-sustaining after decolonization and the end of Communism as an alternative global
ideology, and |
(ii) the relatively solid economic record of Western countries (masked by the expansion
of borrowing for the lower classes), and regained self-confidence of the elites in the wake
of the Reagan-Thatcher (counter-) revolutions and the fall of Communism.
The violent manifestations of the second age of imperialism were invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq, brutal war in Libya...
Decrease of 40 to 50 percent - Many also feel that they are undesirable in the West
The dramatic drop of exchange rate for Russian ruble make the Russians significantly less trevel
abroad on holidays . The Numbers of travellers are in this year by 40 percent to 50 percent compared
to 2013 has decreased, said the Director of the Association of tourism in Russia, Maja Lomidse.
The reasons for the decrease were the lack of trust in the economy and the declining purchasing
power, because of the drop of ruble against Western currencies like the Euro and the Dollar . Lomidse
called that "external factors". which might lead to bankruptcies for travel agents
Many Russians also feel that they are now undesirable in the West because of the sanctions against
their. This also increase probability of mass bankruptcies of the travel agents. Turkey and Egypt
became the most popular tourist destinations in the Russians called Lomidse .
In the European Union, Greece and Spain remain the most sought-after countries with a share of
seven percent of the total number of the Russian tourists. The German Embassy in Moscow registered
a decrease of 16 percent to 20 percent in the number of Visa applications in comparison to the previous
year. (APA, 25.12.2014)
Germany hurts itself following the USA foreign policy. You can expect German trade with Russian
to be halved: "Including other companies like BMW, Mercedes and Ford of Europe, which is based in Cologne,
German automakers will lose 15 billion euros, or about $18.3 billion, in Russian sales and €600 million
in profit through 2017, according to estimates by Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, a professor at the University
of Duisburg-Essen. "
FRANKFURT - Few countries have invested more heavily in
Russia than
Germany has, rushing in to exploit new trade opportunities that opened up after the Cold War
ended. More than 6,000 German companies set up operations there, and Russia became a major customer
for German cars, pharmaceuticals and machinery.
But now the rush is going in reverse. The announcement last week by the German chemical giant
BASF that it had canceled a planned deal with
Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, involving
natural gas extraction and distribution, was the latest example of how German companies are
delaying projects and investment.
The United Nations estimates that 4,700 people have died in fighting - a death toll that may
be much highter
... ... ...
In a sign of good faith, the two sides launched a prisoner swap on Friday, with 146 Ukrainian
troops released for 222 pro-Russia rebels following peace talks.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced a "Day of Silence" on December 9 when the ceasefire
began.
But underneath the prevailing silence lies a bitterness and anger as deeply entrenched as the
soldiers themselves.
The anger is directed not only at their foes, camped out in positions fewer than 800 metres away,
but also increasingly against the government in Kiev, which some soldiers say is not doing enough
to win the war.
"This war is being prolonged for financial gain. There is a small minority who do not want this
war to end. If it stops, they will stop making money. We do not need these people," said Yegor,
who leads a Ukrainian army commando unit near the village of Trohizbinka. His view is shared by
many others who said that ultimately, only another revolution will be able to root out corruption
in the Ukraine government and the hardship it causes. "It is necessary to change the current system
and remove the sickness in the heart of our homeland," Yegor said.
Constantine, a tank specialist in the Ukrainian army's 28th Territorial Battalion, said the solution
is a re-organisation of the country's armed forces.
"We suffer from a Soviet mentality - that is, to favour numbers over quality. Here, numbers mean
nothing - logistics do … If we maintain our current tactics, the war will never end."
But most of the men serving on the front line are not thinking of more than the immediate future.
Recent memories of intense fighting and comrades' deaths can make it too bitter to consider much
else.
How can I talk about peace when there are traitors to kill?" asked Andrii, a former member of
the volunteer pro-government Dnipro Battalion, which suffered heavy casualties from separatist forces
in the Battle of Iloviask in August.
"I was captured when our column was ambushed as it retreated from fighting with LNR [Luhansk
People's Republic] separatists in August.
Many of my friends were killed. I was lucky. After some months they [LNR] released me and now
I am here to keep fighting."
An interesting contradiction is on show with the shooting down of a Jordanian F-16 pilot over
Syria. Everyone is begging the nutters to treat him properly, knowing fully well what will probably
happen to him. The newspapers make a point of him being a 'devout molsem' etc.
To the crux
(!) of the matter, so where is the West's bombast and threatening language of what they will
do if anything happens to him? Total silence. Their black propaganda campaign against these
fundamentalist nutters (funded by their Gulf allies) leaves absolutely no margin for any successful
negotiations. As we have been told, these nutters cannot be negotiated with so there are no
options. No blackmail, no threats, no promises. Nuffink. Nothing shows the gap of Western propaganda
(about its power) and reality so clearly separate.
My main point though is that when the West paints itself in to such an uncompromising position,
then it has nowhere to go. It certainly won't apologize. It will try to do Kennedy and get a
deal that they can paint as a victory where it was nothing of the like (as we have mentioned
many times on this blog before) when it comes to Russia of which the dimwits are in the process
of doing exactly the same. Putin has clearly said that this will cause lasting damage, particularly
to relations with the USA. 'Europe' has been cut some slack, but I wouldn't put it beyond Putin
to have it be known that supplies via Nord Stream may be at risk under certain circumstances.
The less the enemy can rule out as actions, the easier it is for them to game you.
The other useful point of Russia having distinct policy for the US & a separate one for the
EU is that it presents a portend of things to come.
{It is a fine for them not having oligarchs calling out the non existence moochers and having
better health outcomes than the US.}
In the WHO ranking, Costa Rica, at 37th place, betters the US at 38th, which betters Cuba
at 40th place.
The WikiP page is linked below. Note that, if we must compare apples and apples, then the
top 20 places are for the most part European. And the greatest distinction is that the US HC-system
is privatized whereas the EU-system is nationalized.
Ranking:
{The rankings are based on an index of five factors:
*Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
Overall or average : 25%
Distribution or equality : 25%
*Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
Overall or average : 12.5%
Distribution or equality : 12.5%
*Fair financial contribution : (25%)}
NB: I can't find the exact breakdown, but I'll bet that where the US is most faulted is the
"Fair financial contribution" category.
bakho -> pgl...
As General Sherman so glibly pointed out, "There is no property without government." Somehow
libertarians lose sight of this fact.
The Confederacy allowed people to own slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation ended Federal
support for slavery in the seceded states. When General Sherman marched his armies through Mississippi,
Georgia and South Carolina, property suddenly became "not-property" and walked off in Sherman's
wake. Thousands of slave owners "lost" their property with zero compensation, the price of declaring
war.
Same with Cuba. People only own property if a government says they own it. Cuba says they
don't own it, the government owns it. The US authority over property does not extend into Cuba
farther than Gitmo. The Revolution brought a new government with new laws and only a new government
with new laws is going to pay reparations.
pgl -> bakho...
The South wanted it both ways - free trade and slave labor. What we got after the Civil War
was free labor and continued trade protection for the industrial north. I suspect Republicans
forget this part of their checkered history. BTW - don't even mention Sherman's name in the
old south lest you get a nasty lecture. His burning of Atlanta still infuriates southerners.
ilsm -> pgl...
I have indeed used Sherman's name in the south!
While Sherman gets the credit, John Pope in summer 1862 directed foraging on occupied territory.
According to Sherman's memoir his troops only took what was needed for the army to subsist
in Georgia and the Carolinas.
I guess 150 years later the myhts remain of how bad Sherman was and how good a few had it
under the slavocracy.
I was a Yankee dealing in militocracy welfare in the "cold war" south.
Lots of expensive stuff from Tx to Ga worrying on Fidel!
bakho -> ilsm...
(We) "have carried away more than 10,000 horses and mules, as well as a countless number
of their slaves. I estimate the damage done to the State of Georgia and its military resources
at $100,000,000; at least, $20,000,000 of which has inured to our advantage, and the remainder
is simple waste and destruction. This may seem a hard species of warfare, but it brings the
sad realities of war home to those who have been directly or indirectly instrumental in involving
us in its attendant calamities.
- WT Sherman
bakho -> pgl...
150 years ago today, Sherman rode into Savannah on his horse, the Confederates having evacuated
on the 20th. Sherman would soon issue Special Field Order Number 15, giving to the masses of
former slaves following his army "40 acres and a mule" confiscating the Sea Islands from Confederate
white slaveowners.
Like many other promises of property by the US government, the order was Overturned by President
Andrew Johnson less than a year later.
Governments can and do change laws over ownership. Try blocking a major highway if it runs
through you living room on the map. Eminant domain.
In the 60s the Cuban government nationalized many businesses, meaning they passed laws transferring
ownership from private individuals to government.
The rights to property are worthless with out government protection.
Lafayette -> bakho ...
{The rights to property are worthless with out government protection.}
I would not dispute that fact, ever.
I figure that everybody is waiting for El Commandante to die, then Cuba moves into fast-forward.
It is an excellent country for investment, and its doctors are top-notch. If the doctors
are given the right equipment, Americans will be flocking to Cuba instead of Thailand for surgeries
...
bakho -> bakho...
"It is all idle nonsense for the Southern planters to say that they made the South, that
they own it, and that they can do as they please, even to break upon our Government and shut
up the natural avenues of trade, intercourse, and commerce.
We know, and they know, if they are intelligent beings, that as compared with the whole world,
they are but as five millions are to one thousand millions; that they did not create the land;
that the only title to its use and usufruct is the deed of the United States, and if they appeal
to war they hold their all by a very insecure tenure.
- WT SHERMAN
There is this gem in his letter to Huntsville:
"The Government of the United States has in North Alabama any and all rights which they choose
to enforce in war- to take their lives, their lands, their everything; because they cannot deny
that war does exist there, and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact.
If they want eternal war, well and good; we accept the issue, and will dispossess them and
put our friends in their place. I know thousands and millions of good people who at simple notice
would come to North Alabama and accept the elegant houses and plantations there. If the people
of Huntsville think different, let them persist in war three years longer, and then they will
not be consulted. Three years ago by a little reflection and patience they could have had a
hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war; very well. Last year they could
have saved their slaves, but now it is too late.
All the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves, any more than their dead grandfathers.
Next year their lands will be taken, for in war we can take them, and rightfully, too. In another
year they may beg in vain for their lives. A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain
limit ought to know the consequences. Many, many peoples with less pertinacity have been wiped
out of national existence."
-WT SHERMAN
Sherman was a banker.
Darryl FKA Ron :
"...You can't treat a modern society the way ancient Rome treated a conquered province without
destroying the very wealth you're trying to seize..."
[Even Rome found that conquest had its limits. Certainly Hadrian's Wall reflected those limits
reached once Roman soldiers encountered the barbarian Picts. By over-extending itself in every
direction of its realm then Rome lead to its own demise with the strong and the brave sacrificed
on its expanding frontier while the weak and decadent engaged in debauchery and spectacle at
home in Rome.
It was much easier for Europeans with guns, especially after Colt and Winchester entered
the dawn of the industrial revolution, to conquer stone-age native Americans in order to reap
the rewards of conquest and a much higher return on investment.]
ilsm -> Darryl FKA Ron...
Native Americans how could trillions in greed be slowed by rights?
Rifled muskets, repeating weapons, mass manufactured "shells" later called cartridges, rifled
artillery, forging techniques to get larger "bores", rapid firing "machine guns", physical chemistry
gives high energy smokeless "powder", metallurgy to make "hard" projectiles, internal combustion
engine to replace oat burners.........
Military Industry Congress Complex, how could trillions in greed be slowed by the needs of
poor children?
The BOMB!
Darryl FKA Ron -> ilsm...
Yeah, the bomb changed everything. For developed nations the purpose of war is now exhibitionism
rather than actual conquest, unless we happen to stumble across a stone age society sitting
on top of big oil deposits somewhere :<)
DrDick -> ilsm...
The greatest weapon that the Europeans had was unintentional. It was their disease ridden
bodies which introduced epidemic diseases into the Americas and wiped out millions. The Native
peoples were largely decimated in the first century after contact, leaving them too weak to
fend off the conquest.
paine -> Darryl FKA Ron...
Yes economic frontiers
loot and destroy first
create later
ilsm :
Rome was not all that successful. Its empire reduced the precious metal content of their
denarii over a few hundred years!!
If the legions were not patrolling the boundaries of empire the barabarians would come in
and take the rich oligarchs' stuff.
Inflationary spiral of militarism required to defend property.
If USCENTCOM were not patrolling the boundaries of the empire the terrists would take the
billionaires'stuff.
"I'm sittin' here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough to join
the Army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug."
MARIEL, Cuba - When Raúl Castro officially opened the new container terminal here on Cuba's
northern coast, he described the project and the special business zone alongside it as "a transcendent
project for the national economy."
Official documents promised big incentives for investors: Foreign companies would be given
greater control over setting wages at factories inside the zone; proposals would be approved
or rejected within 60 days.
A year later, the Cuban government has yet to announce a single foreign investment. Officials
insist that interest is high, but over the past few years, more foreign investors have left
Cuba than have arrived. Analysts and some foreign businesspeople say they have been turned off
by a government determined to open its economy and political system no more than a crack to
keep free markets and broader freedoms in check.
"Fundamentally, it's all about maintaining control," said Ted Piccone, a senior fellow at
the Brookings Institution who studies the Cuban economy. "It's seeing what works best while
still maintaining social and economic controls." ...
Foreign investment over all has contracted under the weight of Cuban officialdom and "a general
fear of capriciousness of policy toward foreign businesses," said Archibald Ritter, a professor
at Carleton University in Ottawa who studies the Cuban economy.
He cited, as an example, the case of a Canadian businessman who is serving a 15-year prison
sentence on charges of economic crimes against the state after complaining about corruption
among Cuban officials.
The country's most recent appeal for foreign investment, made last month, also clearly shows
that officials are divided when it comes to investment of all kinds. They appear to be convinced,
despite the evidence so far, that what they have to offer, restrictions included, is more than
enough to attract large interest. ...
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
The way Bastista allowed foreign investors to rip off the Cuban people, one should not be
surprised at all of this.
First time that I ever read the mob referred to as "foreign investors." That is sort of opposite
the approach used by Mike Stathis as he labels investment bankers "the Jewish mafia." Both euphemisms
are generally accurate despite one being overly sanitized and the other being libel.
...Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically
profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships
with the American mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana,
and with large multinational American corporations that had invested considerable amounts of
money in Cuba...
*
[OK, Batista had investment from large US multinational corporations as well as the US mafia,
but really there is not that much difference between the two.]
Fred C. Dobbs -> Darryl FKA Ron...
(Here's a list of property
expropriations, i.e. who
some of those corps were.)
[ What do we owe Cuba for methodically crippling or attempting to cripple the Cuban economy
for 50 years? Do we owe Cuba anything at all for 50 years of economic embargo? ]
Fred C. Dobbs -> anne...
(Aye, there's the rub.)
The Helms-Burton Act requires, essentially, that the matter of the expropriations be dealt
with
before the embargo can end.
I don't happen to agree with this, but it *is* US law.
The point of the list, however, was not to bring up this issue again. Rather, it was to suggest
the range of US corps involved in pre-Castro Cuba.
im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs...
IMO, your memories are too short. We owe Cuba nothing while Cuba owes the US $Millions.
Nor did the US cripple or disrupt the Cuban economy, Castro did it by refusing to follow
International Law and suffered the consequences of denial of bilateral trade.
What you have both forgotten is that Fidel made his bed with the then USSR and the USSR sent
Fidel money and goods taking sugar in payment.
But as all false bargains end, it came to a halt when the USSR went bankrupt from supporting
needy satellite nations that sucked the life out of the Russian treasury.
The old time Commies actually thought and believe in barter trade bargains where you could
get something for nothing, e.g., exchanging $1 million in sugar for $25 million in food, gasoline,
and clothes.
Didn't work out for either of them.
Let the Cuban people earn their way. First they must stop their officially sanctioned trading
in illegal drugs, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.
Cubans can learn if they canearn their way in this world exporting cigars, sugar, Rum, and
expanding Tourism, which ought to be their number one income producer in no time as Americans
go there to sun themselves.
I don't believe a Commie Cuba has much to offer us or anyone.
They are very needy with little to offer in exchange for cash.
Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc...
Let's be generous & call it even,
as they were treated by US like sh*t.
Darryl FKA Ron -> im1dc...
Neither Batista nor Castro should be construed as representing the Cuban people. Cubans were
mostly Catholic. With their working class economy depressed into servitude for US tourists and
corporations the lot of a young pretty Cuban girl was for her to enter prostitution to afford
herself the highest available standard of living. WHat would you have done as a young man if
rich foreigners pimped out your sister?
anne -> Fred C. Dobbs...
The Helms-Burton Act requires,
essentially, that the matter of
the expropriations be dealt with
before the embargo can end....
[ Understood, and the tone of articles and commentary in the New York Times suggests that
the opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba is supposed to mean both the settling of defined
debts and dramatic structural changes in the Cuban economy. Cuba is by our pushing supposed
to undergo what I can only describe as a "shock doctrine" economic transition. ]
ilsm -> anne...
When Smedley Butler siad "war is a racket" he was referring to his Marines' participation
in making sure US bank interests were secured much like the $7B the fascist demand from Cuba.
"Methodically crippling or attempting to cripple the Cuban economy for 50 years?"
Has been much cheaper for the US taxpayer and immensely less body count on Cuban civilians
than US doing in Cuba what it did in Vietnam or Costa Rico in 1921.
But...modern siege warfare is not warfare, it's called "sanctions". So, no war reparations.
[ Ironic, but importantly telling. Where an embargo or siege was historically an act of war,
and we of course would regard an embargo or sanctions as such, sanctions as we apply them are
properly instructional. ]
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Coca-Cola and Exxon want the Cuban people to pay them big time. Yea - right.
anne -> Fred C. Dobbs...
There is a distinct danger to Cuba, a danger that any transition in the Cuban economy will
be handled as it was in the Russian economy, a shock doctrine transition to power-concentrated
exploiting markets that will be harmful to ordinary Cubans. The American attitude about the
restoring of diplomatic relations with Cuba seems to be that America will remake Cuba as a supposed
American reflection.
Shock doctrine for Cuba will be as destructive as it was in Russia.
ROME and BEIJING - The Roman Empire did it. The British Empire copied it in style. The
Empire of Chaos has always done it. They all do it. Divide et impera. Divide and rule - or divide
and conquer. It's nasty, brutish and effective. Not forever though, like diamonds, because empires
do crumble.
A room with a view to the Pantheon may be a celebration of Venus - but also a glimpse on the
works of Mars. I had been in Rome essentially for a symposium - Global WARning - organized by a
very committed, talented group led by a former member of European Parliament, Giulietto Chiesa.
Three days later, as the run on the rouble was unleashed, Chiesa was arrested and expelled from
Estonia as persona non grata, yet another graphic illustration of the anti-Russia hysteria gripping
the Baltic nations and the Orwellian grip NATO has on Europe's weak links. [1] Dissent is simply
not allowed.
At the symposium, held in a divinely frescoed former 15th century Dominican refectory now part
of the Italian parliament's library, Sergey Glazyev, on the phone from Moscow, gave a stark reading
of Cold War 2.0. There's no real "government" in Kiev; the US ambassador is in charge. An anti-Russia
doctrine has been hatched in Washington to foment war in Europe - and European politicians are its
collaborators. Washington wants a war in Europe because it is losing the competition with China.
Glazyev addressed the sanctions dementia: Russia is trying simultaneously to reorganize
the politics of the International Monetary Fund, fight capital flight and minimize the effect of
banks closing credit lines for many businessmen. Yet the end result of sanctions, he says, is that
Europe will be the ultimate losers economically; bureaucracy in Europe has lost economic focus as
American geopoliticians have taken over.
Only three days before the run on the rouble, I asked Rosneft's Mikhail Leontyev (Press-Secretary
- Director of the Information and Advertisement Department) about the growing rumors of the Russian
government getting ready to apply currency controls. At the time, no one knew an attack on rouble
would be so swift, and conceived as a checkmate to destroy the Russian economy. After sublime espressos
at the Tazza d'Oro, right by the Pantheon, Leontyev told me that currency controls were indeed a
possibility. But not yet.
What he did emphasize was this was outright financial war, helped by a fifth column in the Russian
establishment. The only equal component in this asymmetrical war was nuclear forces. And yet Russia
would not surrender. Leontyev characterized Europe not as a historical subject but as an object:
"The European project is an American project." And "democracy" had become fiction.
The run on the rouble came and went like a devastating economic hurricane. Yet you don't threat
a checkmate against a skilled chess player unless your firepower is stronger than Jupiter's lightning
bolt. Moscow survived. Gazprom heeded the request of President Vladimir Putin and will sell its
US dollar reserves on the domestic market. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier went
on the record against the EU further "turning the screw" as in more counterproductive sanctions
against Moscow. And at his annual press conference, Putin emphasized how Russia would weather the
storm. Yet I was especially intrigued by what he did not say. [2]
As Mars took over, in a frenetic acceleration of history, I retreated to my Pantheon room trying
to channel Seneca; from euthymia - interior serenity - to that state of imperturbability
the Stoics defined as aponia. Still, it's hard to cultivate euthymia when Cold War 2.0 rages.
Show me your imperturbable missile
Russia could always deploy an economic "nuclear" option, declaring a moratorium on its foreign
debt. Then, if Western banks seized Russian assets, Moscow could seize every Western investment
in Russia. In any event, the Pentagon and NATO's aim of a shooting war in the European theater would
not happen; unless Washington was foolish enough to start it.
Still, that remains a serious possibility, with the Empire of Chaos accusing Russia of violating
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) even as it prepares to force Europe in 2015 to
accept the deployment of US nuclear cruise missiles.
Russia could outmaneuver Western financial markets by cutting them off from its wealth of oil
and natural gas. The markets would inevitably collapse - uncontrolled chaos for the Empire of Chaos
(or "controlled chaos", in Putin's own words). Imagine the crumbling of the quadrillion-plus of
derivatives. It would take years for the "West" to replace Russian oil and natural gas, but the
EU's economy would be instantly devastated.
Just this lightning-bolt Western attack on the rouble - and oil prices - using the crushing power
of Wall Street firms had already shaken European banks exposed to Russia to the core; their credit
default swaps soared. Imagine those banks collapsing in a Lehman Brothers-style house of cards if
Russia decided to default - thus unleashing a chain reaction. Think about a non-nuclear MAD (Mutually
Assured Destruction) - in fact warless. Still, Russia is self-sufficient in all kinds of energy,
mineral wealth and agriculture. Europe isn't. This could become the lethal result of war by sanctions.
Essentially, the Empire of Chaos is bluffing, using Europe as pawns. The Empire of Chaos is as
lousy at chess as it is at history. What it excels in is in upping the ante to force Russia to back
down. Russia won't back down.
Darkness dawns at the break of chaos
Paraphrasing Bob Dylan in When I Paint My Masterpiece, I left Rome and landed in Beijing.
Today's Marco Polos travel Air China; in 10 years, they will be zooming up in reverse, taking high-speed
rail from Shanghai to Berlin. [3]
From a room in imperial Rome to a room in a peaceful hutong - a lateral reminiscence of
imperial China. In Rome, the barbarians swarm inside the gates, softly pillaging the crumbs of such
a rich heritage, and that includes the local Mafia. In Beijing, the barbarians are kept under strict
surveillance; of course there's a Panopticon element to it, essential to assure internal social
peace. The leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) - ever since the earth-shattering reforms
by the Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping - is perfectly conscious that its Mandate of Heaven is directly
conditioned by the perfect fine-tuning of nationalism and what we could term "neoliberalism with
Chinese characteristics".
In a different vein of the "soft beds of the East" seducing Marcus Aurelius, the silky splendors
of chic Beijing offer a glimpse of an extremely self-assured emerging power. After all, Europe is
nothing but a catalogue of multiple sclerosis and Japan is under its sixth recession in 20 years.
To top it off, in 2014 President Xi Jinping has deployed unprecedented diplomatic/geostrategic
frenzy - ultimately tied to the long-term project of slowly but surely keeping on erasing US supremacy
in Asia and rearranging the global chessboard. What Xi said in Shanghai in May encapsulates the
project; "It's time for Asians to manage the affairs of Asia." At the APEC meeting in November,
he doubled down, promoting an "Asia-Pacific dream".
Meanwhile, frenzy is the norm. Apart from the two monster, US$725 billion gas deals - Power of
Siberia and Altai pipeline - and a recent New Silk Road-related offensive in Eastern Europe, [4]
virtually no one in the West remembers that in September Chinese Prime Minister Li Keiqiang signed
no fewer than 38 trade deals with the Russians, including a swap deal and a fiscal deal, which imply
total economic interplay.
A case can be made that the geopolitical shift towards Russia-China integration is arguably the
greatest strategic maneuver of the last 100 years. Xi's ultimate master plan is unambiguous: a Russia-China-Germany
trade/commerce alliance. German business/industry wants it badly, although German politicians still
haven't got the message. Xi - and Putin - are building a new economic reality on the Eurasian ground,
crammed with crucial political, economic and strategic ramifications.
Of course, this will be an extremely rocky road. It has not leaked to Western corporate media
yet, but independent-minded academics in Europe (yes, they do exist, almost like a secret society)
are increasingly alarmed there is no alternative model to the chaotic, entropic hardcore neoliberalism/casino
capitalism racket promoted by the Masters of the Universe.
Even if Eurasian integration prevails in the long run, and Wall Street becomes a sort of local
stock exchange, the Chinese and the emerging multipolar world still seem to be locked into the existing
neoliberal model.
And yet, as much as Lao Tzu, already an octogenarian, gave the young Confucius an intellectual
slap on the face, the "West" could do with a wake-up call. Divide et impera? It's not working. And
it's bound to fail miserably.
As it stands, what we do know is that 2015 will be a hair-raising year in myriad aspects. Because
from Europe to Asia, from the ruins of the Roman empire to the re-emerging Middle Kingdom, we all
still remain under the sign of a fearful, dangerous, rampantly irrational Empire of Chaos.
Western mining companies operating in Eritrea are reducing workers to "abject slavery" at their
mines and worsening a human exodus that is driving more than 5,000 people out of the country every
month, a group of British MPs has said.
An early day motion, signed by 41 MPs, blasts Eritrea's poor human rights record, condemning
"arbitrary arrest and detention and compulsory military service" carried out by the government.
The bill "notes with concern the collusion between the government of Eritrea and the international
mining companies from the UK, Canada and Australia, which is using the forced labour of Eritreans
for work in extractive industries in conditions which have been described as abject slavery".
by Kolesnik Dmitriy Ukrainian web-journal Liva (liva.com.ua)
Ukrainian parliamentary elections, held on October 26, primarily showed the reality of the
country's split. The turnout was much lower than in all previous elections and the map of turnout
shows the split and division of the country – the fact that is being constantly masked by Ukrainian
nationalists and the authorities recently brought by them to power.
Half of the eligible voters boycotted the elections since they don't see any use of it, since
their will was again violated last February during the coup. Thus, in fact Ukraine has the parliament
and president representing actually a part of the country – the fact that inevitably contributes
to the escalation of the civil war. The whole election campaign was held in the atmosphere of intimidation
and terror of the political opponents, that reminds the elections in Germany 1933 – "free and fair"
despite the permanent attacks and terror against the Left, trade-unions and dissenters.
The president Poroshenko greeted the results of elections because "at last there will be no more
communists in the Parliament". Actually, there will be no more any kind of Left or at least Social-Democrats:
the whole staff of the new Parliament is almost completely rightwing and neoliberal.
How they managed to oust the political opponents? For that purpose various paramilitary thugs
of Nazi hooligans, Right Sector and unidentified armed gangs were used. Let's revise just some recent
incidents.
"On Saturday, September 27 the Communist Party (KPU) had called a "March for Peace". The call
was banned by the authorities and the rally was attacked by fascist thugs. The police then proceeded
to arrest dozens of protesters, including the first secretary of the Kharkov KPU". Before it "the
fascist thugs burnt Communist Party flags and materials". (http://ukraineantifascistsolidarity.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/communist-p...)
The day after, the police and the national guard allowed and protected a "Ukraine unity" march
to go ahead, which ended in the destruction of Lenin's statue by fascist thugs. Many of them were
masked and carrying weapons, as well as using neo-nazi symbols and those of the Ukrainian Insurgent
Army (UPA), which collaborated with the nazis in WWII and carried out a genocide of the Poles in
Western Ukraine. At the forefront of the crowd overthrowing the statue were militants of the neo-nazi
Social-Nationalist Assembly and Azov Regiment, as well as those from far-right Svoboda party. The
action was cheered by Interior Minister Arsen Avakov.
"On September 18 a gang of fascist thugs drawn mainly from ultras from the local Metallist football
team attacked a Communist Party rally protesting against price increases and Kiev's so-called "anti-terrorist
operation" against the Donbass. The tactic of using football hooligans bussed in from other towns
to terrorise your opponents and encourage your own side was already used in several cities in the
days leading to the Odessa massacre on May 2nd in which far right Kharkov Metallist football hooligans
played a role.On September 14, ultras from Carpathians and Vorskla also marched together with soldiers
from the neo-nazi Azov Battalion in another "march for unity" before a local football match." (http://ukraineantifascistsolidarity.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/kharkov-fas...)
"Since early September up to a dozen MPs, city councillors and other officials accused of wrong
doing have been hauled from their offices by masked gangs in what has become know as the "Trash
Bucket Challenge." The perpetrators - often members of the radical right-wing group Right Sector
- say the public humiliations are to punish the corruption and criminality that characterised the
previous regime. But critics warn the attacks are just one step away from mob justice and public
lynchings." – warns British the Telegraph. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11145381/Up-to-...)
Thus, we see again how 'inconvenient' candidates or parties are being targeted so that by means
of far-right violence – to get the desired result – to adopt the austerity measures, social cuts
and continue the war against own people.
The extraordinary elections were needed mostly to have an obedient parliament able to adopt unpopular
laws and spending cuts. As Marxist economist Michael Roberts wrote yet in August: "New President
Poroshenko, one of Ukraine's feuding oligarchs (in his case, the confectionery king), has dissolved
parliament and called elections for 26 October. The election will probably lead to the removal of
all the old supporters of the ousted pro-Russian former president still in parliament. They have
been blocking attempts by the current caretaker prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to carry out the
dictates of the IMF under the $17bn 'reform' programme agreed last April.In return for IMF money
to meet foreign debts and fund the state (for arms mostly), the Kiev government agreed to huge cuts
in public spending, pensions and welfare and, above all, to privatise state agencies and raise energy
charges for heating and fuel by over 40%, a total reduction of government spending of 6.75% of GDP."
(http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/ukraine-a-grim-winter-a...)
Thus, we see again the same pattern (as during Maidan) being used: use far-right thugs; hire
outright fascists so that to push through neoliberal agenda and adopt austerity measures.
In the new parliament we'll see many far-right nationalists – especially commanders of volunteers'
battalions included into the lists of parties. Among them e.g. Andriy Biletsky the commander of
the neo-Nazi battalion "Azov", and leader of the "Social-National Assembly". As reports BBC its
stated aim "to prepare Ukraine for further expansion and to struggle for the liberation of the entire
White Race from the domination of the internationalist speculative capital; to punish severely sexual
perversions and any interracial contacts that lead to the extinction of the white man". This Battalion
was formed and armed by Ukraine's interior ministry." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329)
Among others the seats in the Parliament won Dmytro Yarosh, Boryslav Bereza and Andriy Denysenko
from the coalition of neofascists "Right Sector".
Not less dangerous symptom of the far-right rise is the result of the Radical Party of O.Lyashko
associated also with neo-Nazi battalion 'Azov'. Amnesty International recently warned about this
political figure accusing him in torture and abductions: "In the broader context of a deteriorating
security situation in the east, Amnesty International has recently raised its concerns with the
Ukrainian authorities about one particularly errant MP who has been "detaining" – in effect abducting
– and ill-treating individuals across the region. (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/Impunity-reigns-for-abductions-ill-treatm...)
He's called Oleg Lyashko, he is the leader of the pro-Ukrainian Radical Party, Member of the
Ukrainian Parliament and former presidential candidate. He travels in the company of muscular armed
young men in military fatigues and the ubiquitous camera to record his exploits."
The Radical Party of O.Lyashko won some 7,5% and, among others, it brought into parliament such
notorious figure as extreme nationalist Yuriy Shukhevich – son of Roman Shukhevich – a Nazi war
criminal responsible for the Holocaust and genocide of civilians in Ukraine and Belarus during WWII.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Shukhevych)
Another Radical party deputy in new parliament – Ihor Mosiychuk the activist and one of the leaders
of neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and one of the commanders of the notorious battalion "Azov".
However, the most dangerous trend is that it's mainstream "respectable" parties adopt the ultra-nationalist
rhetoric and agenda, while introducing neo-Nazis in their ranks and promoting them to the highest
positions. As one of the analysts commented this trend: "The fact that the nominal fascists in ukraine
didn't do that well at the ballot box is partially down to the political 'centre' moving that far
to the right to almost dispense with the need for a far right political offering in the first place.
That the current prime minister is doing deals with Yarosh and standing down his own candidates
to give Yarosh a clear run and that the Popular Front is stuffed full of people like Andriy Parubiy
[the founder of Social-National Party] speaks volumes to that." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy)
Or, as writes Peter Mikhailenko for "In defence of Marxism": "While Svoboda has been losing support,
it certainly does not correlate with reduced influence of the far-right. In order to see this, one
has to merely look at the election strategy of the People's Front. As mentioned, the PF is an alliance
between pro-Western oligarchs and leaders of the National Guard battalions, including many elements
of the far-right such as Tetyana Chornovol, a far right activist who until recently was a leading
figure in the far-right organization UNA-UNSO [Ukrainian militant far-right organization responsible
for a number of violent assaults]." (http://www.marxist.com/ukrainian-parliamentary-elections-if-you-dont-hav...)
The leader of Ukrainian revolutionary Marxist organization Borotba commented the elections outcome,
stating that "the far-right nationalist electorate is still here. Moreover, it has grown considerably,
and expanded while voting for several rightwing parties. Have not gone away, of course, the traditional
supporters of the Left, but they, unlike the leadership of the Communist Party, have no parliamentary
illusions. Millions of people have realized that their participation in the elections is absolutely
useless, because the very elections are organized in such a way so that deliberately to deprive
them of any representation and ignore their position". (http://liva.com.ua/silent-protest.html)
While diverting people by nationalist rhetoric and suppressing social protests by the hands of
far-right paramilitaries, the government will go on plundering the country and imposing social cuts
without any serious challenge from the opponents.
The draft of the future coalition (http://solydarnist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B0%D0%...)
agreement implies such drastic measures: the change of the Labor Codex aiming at restricting workers'
rights; adopting the right to fire workers without trade-union's approval; cancellation the ban
on reducing the number of hospitals and clinics; privatization of coal-mines and rail-roads; the
rejection of the price regulation for agricultural products etc. Thus, we see the plans of the new
government and parliament – it's mostly neoliberal 'reforms', de-regulation, privatization and other
miracles demanded by the IMF. Meanwhile, the industrial production in August had fallen by 21.4%
compared to August 2013 and by 16.6% in September. Imports fell by 23.5% over the 9 last months
[compared to analogous period of the previous year]. Exports fell by 6.8% despite all the promises
from the EU about favorable terms. In such a drastic situation of nearing economic collapse Ukrainian
government can rely only on strategy of permanent war with own people, media censorship and far-right
terror. But it needs money for it – and the only source to pay for the military adventures, far-right
thugs, profits of our ruling oligarchs – is a western taxpayer. Only large sums of money and outright
terror can help to keep in power the government and parliament, representing actually the minority
of the society.
...In assessing the Obama administration's role in the Ukraine crisis, perhaps it might be worth
asking a number of questions along similar lines.
Was it worth it?
It would be difficult to answer in the affirmative. While the goals of the protesters in Kiev
were indeed met, the aftermath suggests that an alternative solution similar to the one Vladimir
Putin suggested to the German chancellor in the lead-up to the Vilnius summit could have and should
have been pursued. On the one hand, Kiev got its Association Agreement. On the other hand, the costs
of the ensuring crisis are staggeringly high: roughly 4,100 war dead, thousands more wounded, nearly
1 million people displaced, the loss of Crimea and the de facto partition of Ukraine. Further,
a new Cold War between the U.S. and Russia is now well underway while intra-European comity is beginning
to fray over whether or not to continue the sanctions regime against Russia.
Who in the Obama administration has been held to account?
For helping to engineer the worst foreign policy debacle since the second Iraq war, and possibly-though
it is still too early to say-since Vietnam, not one of the President's men or women have been called
to account. As of this writing key members of the national security team and the principal architects
of our Russia/Ukraine policy, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, UN Ambassador Samantha Power,
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Chief of
Staff Denis McDonough, and CIA Director John Brennan, remain firmly ensconced in their posts. And
for his part, Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken was just promoted to Deputy Secretary
of State.
Where do things stand now?
Three recent developments should concern us. First, the much-praised Ukrainian parliamentary
elections that took place on October 26 have only served to strengthen the hand of the hardliners
in Kiev. Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk's faction is ascendant; he will have a free hand to pursue
projects like the building of his very own Berlin Wall between Russia and Ukraine. A project such
as this, smacking as it does of Mr. Yatsenyuk's latent authoritarianism, receives little to no coverage
from our wondrously pliant media. Second, the Ukrainian crisis is splitting Europe. The governments
of Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia are turning against the sanctions. Serbia is, naturally,
pro-Russian. Germany and France are increasingly ambivalent regarding the sanctions while Poland,
the UK, Sweden, and the Baltics (no doubt with much American encouragement) are all for isolating
and punishing Russia. Third, a renewed push to arm Ukraine will emerge as the GOP takes control
of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. This week the incoming chairman of
Armed Services, Sen. John McCain released a joint statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham calling (again)
for the Obama administration to send arms to Kiev.
Why did the Obama administration feel compelled to get involved in all of this?
This brings us to the introductory quote courtesy of Isaiah Berlin. A curious aspect to this
whole affair is the seeming insistence on the part of policymakers and pundits alike that all of
the foregoing is solely the fault of Vladimir Putin. Yet the question remains: why did the U.S.
and EU think that Russia would stand idly by as it tried to wrench Ukraine out of Russia's orbit?
For 15 years, inordinately powerful neoconservatives and their liberal internationalist enablers
have been comparing Putin to Stalin and/or Hitler. Did they not believe their own rhetoric?
Perhaps not. But as was too often the case in the blood-soaked 20th century, a set of particular
(to say nothing of peculiar) set of ideas can sometimes become the driver of events, and in the
case of the year-long Ukraine crisis, it has been the Washington establishment's misguided and ultimately
dangerous belief that "democracy" is some sort of panacea for what ails developing nations.
The Ukraine crisis illuminates a central problem of contemporary political theory and practice:
the steadfast denial by policymakers and pundits of a certain stripe that something as seemingly
virtuous as "democracy" could lend itself to destructive ends. Further, our elites have the
sequencing backwards: democracy is not viable in the absence of accountable, stable, institutions,
and a political culture that values the rule of law. Democracy is not a midwife to these things.
And even if Ukraine did possess the requisite institutions and political culture conducive to
parliamentary democracy, we still lack both the right and the ability to transplant democratic
norms elsewhere. Yet democratic peace theory, entrenched and sacrosanct, is a line of belief, to
borrow a line from the
eminent historian of Europe, that grows more dangerous the more sincerely it is believed.
What the last year has shown is that our foreign policy has become hostage to our illusions.
And, tragically, for thousands of Ukrainians those illusions have proved to be fatal.
James Carden is a TAC contributing editor, and served as an advisor to the U.S.-Russia
Bilateral Presidential Commission at the State Department from 2011-2012.
Friends, something heartwarming happened in the last few days on the battleground of Novorussia
(SE Ukraine). Two Ukrainian enemy camps (Kiev Ukrainian forces and the SEastern Ukraine forces)––enemies
until they met - had a meeting that included guitars, singing and reciting poetry, plus some common
goals agreed upon. The power of people-to-people exchanges even between enemies is validated once
again! Please note the [ ] brackets where I have inserted a word or two to make the designations
easier to understand or remember. Please share this "good news" story with your friends and colleagues.
Sharon
The following report came Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Something very, very interesting has happened in Novorussia (SE Ukraine)
Something fantastically interesting has happened in Novorussia: two senior Novorussian commanders,
Igor Bezler and Alexei Mozgovoi have attempted to communicate with Ukrainian [Kievans] military
who are on the other side.
This apparently began when [SE Ukraine Novorussian Commander] Igor Bezler agreed to be interviewed
by three TV crews at the same time: a Russian crew, a Novorussian crew, and a Ukrainian crew. The
big news here was, of course, that a Ukrainian journalist was given access to the city of Gorlovka,
currently surrounded by Ukrainian forces, and that she [note a woman!] got to speak with the local
people, including combatants and then that she was given access to Bezler himself. Since all the
journalists were more or less openly accusing each other of "filtering the truth" all parties agreed
that the full recording, unedited, would be made available on YouTube. Now please keep in mind that
in Banderastan [what SE Ukrainians call the Kievans in West Ukraine whom they see as primarily pro-Nazis]
are blacklisted, Russian journalists are blacklisted, Russian TV stations banned, and that the people
in the junta [in their terms the illegal government of Poroshenko] controlling Ukraine are told
that the other side are terrorists and Russian soldiers. Oh, and the Kiev Ukrainian media is the
most disgusting, sold out, subservient, propagandistic you can imagine. And then suddenly, at least
one Ukrainian TV crew agrees to show the face of one of the most feared Novorussian commanders (SE
Ukrainian) and he get's to speak his mind.
But the next event was even more amazing. [SE Ukrainian Commander Alexei Mozgovoi agreed to a
videoconference with not only Ukrainian journalists, but with actual field commanders of the [West
Ukraine or Kiev] Ukrainian military. To see Mozgovoi and the [Kiev] Ukrainians speak directly to
each other was absolutely amazing. And here I have to apologize. I will not ask our translators
to translate and subtitle the full happenings. First, there were not one, but two such videoconferences.
Then, we are talking about three long videos, see for yourself:
First videoconference of Mozgovoi: Published on Oct 22, 2014
http://youtu.be/WYy5Y9MQozA (length: 1 hour 20 mins)
Second videoconference of Mozgovoi: Published Oct 28, 2014
http://youtu.be/tC7YGe0SmqQ (length:1 hour 51 mins)
I do hope that somebody somewhere will translate it all, but this is way too big a load for me
to ask any of our volunteers.
Also, these are very complex videos. There are discussions, some short moments of yelling and
interrupting, there is cross-talk and there are even two songs. This is complex, very emotional
stuff, very hard to convey in a translated text. Besides, who will have the time to sit through
it all?
No, what I propose is to share with you the elements which struck me so much.
But first I need to clarify an important point: while the original idea apparently had been to
have combatants talking to combatants, the Ukrainian side only had a few commanders and a few activists.
The Novorussian side was composed of actual soldiers. Apparently, the Ukrainian side did not feel
comfortable putting their foot-soldiers on the spot.
First and foremost, it was amazing to see how much both sides fully agreed upon.
Both sides agreed that this war was useless and only benefited the enemies of the Ukraine. Both
sides expressed contempt, disgust and even hatred for the politicians in power and the oligarchs
who rule over Banderastan today. Both sides also agree that Yanukovich [Ukraine's former president]
was a scumbag, and that the earlier Maidan protests were absolutely legitimate, but that the original
protests had been hijacked by enemies of the Ukraine [the Nazi elements]. Both sides also agreed
that this war had to be stopped. Now, please keep in mind that Ukrainian Nazis were, of course,
not invited. These were mainly regular Ukrainian military speaking to Novorussian military and Ukrainian
activists speaking to Mozgovoi. There were also some real disagreements.
The Ukrainian [Kiev] position was this (paraphrase - not real quote): "the Maidan protests
were legitimate and correct but you - the Novorussians - took up arms and you thereby created a
crisis which the illegitimate junta used and which prevented us from defending our political goals.
We don't want our country to further break up and what you are doing is exactly that. Also, we know
that the Russian "Polite Armed Men in Green" are fighting on your side and many of you are not representing
true Ukrainian interests, but Russian interests. Stop fighting and join the political process to
clean our country from the crazies".
To which Mozgovoi replied (paraphrase - not real quote): "we did not choose to fight, you
came to our land and you are killing our people. If you really want to clean Kiev from the Nazi
scum, then don't stand between us and Kiev and let us pass - we will take care of them, no problem.
You are taking orders from Nazis and oligarchs and you are doing nothing to stop them from killing
our people. If we were to lay down our arms, we would all be massacred.
One interesting thing was that when the Ukrainians accused the Novorussians of doing Russia's
bidding, Mozgovoi replied that the Ukrainians were pawns of the CIA and, amazingly, the Ukrainians
pretty much agreed that the CIA was running the show. As for Mozgovoi, he did not deny that Russia
was helping.
Both sides were expressing frustration that they could not unite their forces and jointly get
rid of the oligarchs and the Nazis.
During the [Commander from Novorussia-no doubt ethnic Russian] Bezler interview, there was one
amazing moment was when the Ukrainian crew asked Bezler if he spoke Ukrainian, to which he replied
that 'yes'. Unconvinced, the Ukrainian crew asked him if he could recite a poem by Ukraine's famous
poet Taras Shevchenko [which every Ukrainian would know at least one]. Then, to everybody's surprise,
Bezler recited the poem "To the Poles" in which Sevchenko describes how happy the Cossaks were,
Until in the name of Christ
The ксьондзи (Latin Priests) came and set afire
To our quiet paradise. And spilled
A huge sea of tears and blood,
And killed and crucified orphans
In the Name of Christ
The heads of Cossacks then dropped
Like trampled grass,
The Ukraine cried, and moaned!
And the head after head
Fell to the ground. As if enraged,
A priest furious tongue
Screamed: "Te Deum! Hallelujah! .. "
And this is how my Polish friend and brother!
Evil priests and rich men
Separated us from each other
When we could have lived together happy
[nb: this is my own translation, I could not find this poem in English anywhere; as any Russian,
I mostly understand Ukrainian, but I can easily misunderstand a word or expression so, caveat emptor,
and don't take this translation to the bank! The Saker]
It was quite amazing to see how well Bezler spoke Ukrainian and how he used this opportunity
to remind his Ukrainian counterparts how already in the past they were used and manipulated by Russia
and Orthodoxy-hating Westerners, and he did so using verses of their own national hero!
In another rather surreal moment, a Novorussian solider took out a guitar and sang a song about
the war. The Ukrainians were clearly moved, although they were also disturbed by the fact that the
song repeatedly said that these were "Russians fighting Russians". This issue came up several again
later in the conversation. From the Novorussian point of view, the Ukrainians were also part of
the "Russian cultural realm" (as opposed to state or nationality) albeit with a different accent
and a different history. The Ukrainians insisted that they were a different nationality, albeit
one with strong ties to the "Russian cultural realm".
During both the Bezler and Mozgovoi interviews the issue of prisoners was raised. Both sides
reported that their men were mistreated and even tortured while in captivity. Interestingly, during
the Bezler interview there were two [Kiev] Ukrainian officials present, one human rights activist
and another who was representing the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense for the topic of POWs. They both
readily admitted that Bezler treated the Ukrainian prisoners not as prisoners at all, but as guests:
they were free to walk around, they ate and slept with Bezler's men, they were treated with kindness
and hospitality. In one instance he even fed them red caviar! But the very same Bezler openly admitted
that "we take no prisoners from the Nazi death squads" confirming what I have said many times: the
Russian kindness and generosity towards Ukrainian POWs only extends to regular army units - captured
death squad members are immediately executed.
There are hundred of small moments and exchanges which I wish I could convey to you, but that
would take too much space and time. What I will say is that it was quite amazing to see enemies
talking to each other in a very friendly manner. I was also amazed at how readily the Ukrainians
agreed that the Ukraine must rid herself from the Nazis and the oligarchs. In various occasions
people on both sides said "let's do that together!". Others were more dubious. Frankly, I am extremely
impressed by the courage and decency of many of the Ukrainians in these interviews who, while standing
their ground on the issue of the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, quite openly said how much
they hated the Nazis and the oligarchs. I sure hope that God will protect these men for
their courage.
Both Bezler and Mozgovoi looked very, very good. The latter especially surprised me by explicitly
stating that his goal was regime change in Kiev and not just the separation of Novorussia which
he clearly sees as a only temporary solution and as a necessary self-defense measure. Clearly, both
Bezler and Mozgovoi are first and foremost anti-Nazis and both of them see that there is not "Novorussian
solution". Mozgovoi explicitly stated that he think that both sides could live together if the Ukrainians
got rid of their Nazis and oligarchs.
While I have always said that the only possible stable solution of the crisis is a de-nazification
of the Ukraine and a conversion of the current Banderastan into a "mentally sane" Ukraine, I am
not naive and I also see that this might take a decade or more. However, seeing how Mozgovoi and
his Ukrainian counterparts agreed on the need to de-nazify and de-oligarchise (is that English?)
I see that there is hope because the bottom line is this: both sides have much more
in common than what separates them!
Again, these were regular Ukrainians, not crazed Nazi death-squad members, I understand that.
And the two sides do disagree on fundamental issues. I see that too. But I also see that there is
a basis, a minimum in common, to negotiate. This does not have to be a war of extermination.
The Ukraine as we knew her is dead. Now we have Crimea and Novorussia which are gone forever,
and a rump-Ukraine I call "Banderastan" which is occupied by the US CIA, Ukie Nazis and oligarchs.
My hope is that the just as the Ukrainian civil war turned into a war for the self-determination
and liberation of Novorussia, so will the war for self-determination and liberation of Novorussia
turn into a war for the liberation of Banderastan from its US/Nazi/oligarchic occupiers. If that
happens and if a new Ukraine eventually emerges, then I have no doubt that the people of the Ukraine
will agree that each region should have the right of self-determination ranging from cultural right
to full separation. Only then will we really find out which regions want to stay and which ones
want to leave forever.
In the meantime, I am very positively impressed by the Novorussian field commanders. Bezler and
Mozgovoi of course, but also Givi, Motorola, Zakharchenko, Kononov and the others are all strong
figures capable of both fighting and talking. Strelkov, alas, is still more or less in political
no man's land and I am very concerned about his proximity with the blogger el-Murid who is clearly
a "gateway" to the "hurray-patriots" and "Putin bashers" which are being used by the Empire to try
to discredit Putin. Still, the political infighting amongst Novorussian leaders continues and there
is still no clear leader. Hopefully, the upcoming elections will help to solve this issue.
The "full potential" you refer too has already been well sized up be western corporations
like Monsanto and investors in fracking fronted by the likes of Hunter Biden.For ordinary Ukrainians
the IMF imposed austerity, privatisations and a huge hike in domestic gas bills will drive up
poverty, unemployment and extremist politics. The east lies in economic ruins, even now Kiev
will not (or maybe cannot) call off the private militias or the Right Sektor National Guard.
Perhaps not doing so is a political decision to disenfranchise Ukrainian Russians completely.
The "subservience" you refer to I suppose you mean as subservience to Russia. This is a simplistic
received notion.
Oligarchy will be more entrenched and enriched after this election even than it was before.
The only difference is that western corporations will now have carte blanche.Apparently it is
normal, given that our media omit to even talk about it, that billionaire oligarchs can run
their own private militias of extremist hooligans -- here is your new "subservience".
Porochenko and several others should face ICC investigation for crimes of mass murder and
war crimes. But of course they won't, even as reports of indiscriminate shelling and rocketing
of residential areas, of the use of cluster and phosphorous munitions are published, it merely
gets a minor mention here.
The oligarchs and political middle managers will do very nicely. For the rest of Ukrainians,
especially the Ukrainian Russians in the east hated by those who undoubtedly will form the incoming
government, the future looks dark indeed: poverty, unemployment, ultranationalist violence ...
and as for the "euro" in NED's "Euromaidan" campaign: it's as ashes in the mouths of all who
were tricked into believing it, it never had any basis in reality.
The "yoke of subservience" is to the U.S./EU/IMF, and no, that yoke will not be thrown off
by this election.
There is a good article in the Boston Globe today, "Vote all you want -- the secret government
won't change." The title says it all, and although it refers to U.S. elections, it surely will
apply to this Ukrainian one too.
The coup that removed the legitimate government of Ukraine is now trying to legitimise itself
with an election. The people of Crimea won't be voting because they have already voted. Their
choice was to leave Ukraine to the fascists who staged the coup. They ard very happy to be part
of Russia. As for the little bit of Ukraine that is under the control of Kiev. We in the Eu
don't want you. Many of us EU citizens don't want you and your neo nazi policies. Take a look
at the reality on the ground. Thw Republic of Donyets is here to stay. Your coup has divided
the country into 3 separate parts. ..
after 1500 dead ethnic Russians and over 1million fled from the Ukraine your troll friend
in the White house is normally sending his drones to kill the leader and plains to bomb the
people...
You will be pleased to know RT have put together a documentary about the downing of MH17
You should take a look at it - and maybe then you will realise what a shower of thugs you are
throwing your weight behind
Why do I hate racist scum? and sympathisers of neo-nazis from Kiev and Lvov?. precisely
BECAUSE they are ignorent, prejudiced scum...
Yet you use as an avatar a flag that bears a remarkable resemblance to the Confederate battle
flag? Yes, I know it's the flag of 'Novorossiya' but 'New Russia' might want to pick a flag
that doesn't have such racist overtones.
You're preconceptions and prejudice betray your ignorance. In 2012 I worked on a UN project
improving heating systems and insulation of schools in Lugansk, saving them over 300,000 euros
per year in heating bills, and last year I worked for 1+1 on a documentary about the mining
communities/industry.
You obviously don't know the definition of 'racist', and you label all people who want a
just, free and democratic Ukraine as 'neo-nazis'. Isn't tarring everyone with the same brush
a classic example or prejudice? And of course it's a complete lie. By the way, it's called Lviv.
You should go there sometime. It's really very lovely. See for yourself the people who live
there. Then come back on here and call them 'neo-nazis'.
Yes, I believe you, except the entire education budget of Luhansk Oblast was probably less
than the 300,000 euros you claimed to have saved them from heating. And what a plumber doing
for 1+1 documentary about the mining communities?
Which particular policies are "neo-nazi"? The people of Crimea will not be voting in this
particular election because they are being prevented from voting by the Russians occupying Crimea.
Crimean Tatar activists are being harassed and arrested by the occupying authorities because
they prefer for their (historical) homeland to be a part of the Ukraine. As for the "legitimate
government" of the Ukraine being toppled by a coup, one should mention that Yanukovych and his
cronies had transferred vast amounts of money from the state to their private accounts abroad
(with the connivance of Western banks, of course) by fixing state business contracts. The question
here is whether it is legitimate to stage an uprising against such a government rather than
wait and vote in rigged elections which would be impossible to win. I say that it is legitimate
to oust an increasingly corrupt and malign government when the chances of fair elections disappear.
Accusing others of being Russian village idiots after too many vodkas (Guardian censors did
not find this offensive) while your name is "down the pub Lewis" , lol, what s Freudian slip,
lol(the censors found this offensive!)
The Crimeans never wanted to be part of Ukraine. It was "given" to the Ukraine SSR by a communist
dictator without asking the people, the Crimeans had been voting for independence since 1991.
for your information, the historic home land of the Crimean Tatars is Mongolia.
Americans offered financial and informational assistance in the making of the "right sector
" a fully fledged political party. The U.S. proposed a form of the Ukrainian radical party with
a political platform, party structure and network of branches throughout Ukraine.
The Right Sector is fascist neo Nazi party. They are the militia's that are committing mass
murder, genocide, torture and rape in Ukraine.
Yep - and the separatists are angels who bring peace and love to all. Rank idiocy and exactly
the sort of propaganda spewed by BOTH sides. So, when looking for facts, consider who prospers,
who gains? Russia, Russia and Russia. That does not make their opponents innocent, but lets
keep it real.
Ukraine is a rogue state. It was a violent, armed coup spearheaded by right sector militants
that placed Yatsenyuk into power in the first place, along with the Neo-Nazi political front
Svoboda, and paved the way for fraudulent elections that predictably yielded a pro-US-EU client
regime. From fabricating an "invasion," to claims of "threatened" lives, to the labeling of
Russians as "subhuman," Yatsenyuk has recited fully the script of Nazism used to justify its
various historical crimes against humanity.
Its no coincidence that the CIA (a terror organisation) is in Kiev, its no coincidence that
the Rand corporation have documented the necessary steps to commit genocide in the eastern federations
prior to the events.Its no coincidence that Victoria Nuland indicated the US had invested $5
billion on a regime change in Ukraine, and its no coincidence that neo Nazi organisations were
enlisted to action the ethnic cleansing.
After the Maidan the leaders of two right wing fascist organisation were rewarded with control
of four ministries.
For example Andriy Parubiy, co-founder of the fascist Social National Party, which later
changed its name to Svoboda became the new top commander of the National Defense and Security
Council. (covering the military, police, courts and intelligence apparatus). Dmytro Yarosh,
Right Sector commander is now second-in-command of the National Defense and Security Council.
Notice how they never talk about the Ukraine regular Army, its always Oligarch battalions,
ie Azov Battalion etc, or they are Government militia's, these militia's are made up of Right
Sector fascists. The regular Ukraine Army has been sidelined as it will not murder its own countrymen.
Like I said, who gains. Russia gets Crimea (massivly strategic value) and will absorb Ukraine
over the next five years or so. I am sure Russia will hold War Crime Trials with predictable
results.
We all know that when Poroshenko committed to an illegal war against his fellow countrymen
that there was never going to be a path back. He expected he would win and it did not concern
him at all that he was committing crimes against humanity. He had no concerns about sending
neo Nazi militia's to the east to murder his fellow countrymen. And his US masters demanded
it.
But the 55% was on a very low turnout and so support for him was way under 50%. This time
the two eastern pro Russian republics which have effectively now succeeded from the Ukraine
are no longer included in the Ukraine's voting figures so most of the remainder are voting to
be able to one day join the EU, but in the meantime the EU is not prepared to give meaningful
financial assistance to the Ukraine so there will be hard times for the Ukrainian people coming
up in the near future. Look at the Poles who went to the UK in their hundreds of thousands and
are now either on the dole or working on very low wages, That is what the Ukrainians can look
forward to if they manage to get into the EU.
This is not of Russia's making, this is a US/NATO war against working class people in the
Donbass. This election is a battle of the billionaires, nothing more.
A pro EU government is guaranteed because this fascist government rules with unmitigated
brutality. If you stand up against them you get murdered.
This vote is just grandstanding the failed politics of Ukraine's kleptocrat oligarchs, but
the US and IMF need it to legitimise their continued meddling. I can't imagine much will change.
A Right Sector spokesman interviewed on the BBC said that if he doesn't get what he and his
compatriots want than dumping polliticians in dustbins will be replaced by hanging them from
lampposts. Strike that country off my holiday list.
"Nuland's cookies" have totally ruined Ukraine. Ukrainians are hated by Russians for killing
thier people in Donbass and sanctions after "Rescue Crimeans" operation. They are hated by most
of Polish people for the Bandera flags (flags which were used on Maidan and during The Volyn'
Massacre in which thousands of Polish children and women were tortured and killed by Ukrainians).
They are hated by most of The Europeans who want to live in peace, because everyone can see
that noting has changed inside the country - one oligarchic clan altered another, more radical
one. Nowadays political establishment of Ukraine are suiciders - sooner or later they will be
caught and sentenced, if not be able to escape to The US.
Its obvious that the Kiev fascist militia's continue to indiscriminately shell civilian populations
against the Minsk agreement.
The Ukrainian army has been committing gross human rights violations against civilians in
violation of the Geneva Convention. Specifically violations of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 of
the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of Article 3 of the Convention on Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948.
It is equally obvious that Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine continue attacking Ukrainian
troops at or near the Donetsk airport, and have been doing it all along, disregarding the so-called
ceasefire. Does the Geneva Convention even apply to armed terrorists?
According to Minsk Agreement Donetsk Airport down to Peski village should be under control
of DNR, not Ukrainians. How about that? Who is responsible for not leaving the Airport? And
who is responsible for civilian deaths after ceasefire caused by Ukrainian rocket system shellings?
This election is like the band starting up a new tune on the Titanic as its starts to slide
beneath the waves.
Yes, real change is coming soon to the Ukraine--- but in the form of no heating oil, no jobs,
militias running amok, rampant inflation, savage IMF austerity, continued civil war, famine,
more mayhem in the Rada and riots in the Maidan. It is too late to save the Ukraine. It's future
will bring disintegration as a country and, for many people, regression to pre-industrial subsistence
farming. The Haiti of Europe.
Yet more elections and red tape? More squandering of public funds to appoint a bunch of pre
determined cronies to positions where they can line their pockets from the state treasury (if
there is anything left).
Maybe poroshenko's priorities should be ending the war by stopping his military cluster bombing
cities in the east, trying to do something about the economy which is likely to see a double
digit decline or at least try and arrange to restore the gas supply before winter by giving
the Russians the money the eu gave him to pay his gas bills with! Or did he lose that somewhere?
If you don't like Poroshenko I should have thought you would welcome an election as the best
opportunity to get rid of him. Asking the Ukrainian people who they think should represent them
actually seems like quite an important priority at the moment. Unless your agenda is to rebuild
the Russian Empire I suppose.
I wonder what your agenda might be. Since you are talking about "asking the people", they
should have asked Ukrainians beforehand whether they would like their country to be sunk even
further, all for the price for a long, very long wait for an unlikely EU invitation. Today's
elections are not going to be democratic because parties have been made illegal, the opposition
have been terrorized. In many electoral districts in Eastern Ukraine people will not be able
to vote because the "authorities" claim they could not find enough people to man the election
committees. As for my agenda, I believe in a multi polar world with the US, China and Russia
in a political and military stalemate. Checks and Balances to avoid a monopolar global US superiority.
The most clear and objective reflections of the Ukrainian Govt and Pres which came to power
after Maidan are the laws issued by them. If you are really interested in Ukraine just go through
the drafts of the laws. I wonder if you still will be supporting Maidaners after the reading.
I actually have. I suppose you are referring to the one that would ban Russian being taught
in schools.
I agree. that was indeed a despicable move instigated by the die-hard nationalist in the
Ukrainian Parliament. Fortunately, the moderates came to their senses and repealed that law.
What other, if any, unfair or ill-conceived laws are you referring to?
Because it seems to me that there have been an awful lot of sense to the legislative work
in the Ukrainain Parliament apart from that awful law denying Russian in schools.
That law was not signed by the acting President, so didn't go into effect. But it was passed
by the parliament. (It's a mystery why the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine became opposed
to Kiev, eh?) It isn't about schooling, either, but about recognition of status as an official
language.
There are dozens of such laws, but the most recent one is just a complete collapse of any
concept of Law. I am talking about so-called "lustration law". It is a total farce by itself,
but if you look into the exceptions you just won't believe that such laws are possible in principle
in nowadays world. By this law the governing elite can dismiss any person from his position
and the only thing why they can not be dismissed themselves by the same law is that there are
exceptions written by their hads. Complete delirium.
You will see bloodmess after elections, ukrainian-Nazi army will try again kill freedom fighters.
Thanks to your western leaders civilians are dying now.
I got a surprise this morning, swedish newspaper DN published the article with a title:"
Ukrainian populist stand out with violence and threats" (Ukrainsk populist sticker ut med våld
och hot) about Lyashko. Something is definitely going on, I think, at least in Sweden, they
will avoid to shake hands with such person (but DN wrote he can be the next prime minister).
It'll be difficult, because they still trying to isolate Sverigedemokraterna(party, which
got around 13% of votes at last Riksdag election)- And they are nothing in compare with Lyashko
party.
Good analysis. I must note here that not every election in Ukraine was admitted as fair in
by the international observers. The presidential election in 2004 was declared fake and the
west urged Ukraine to stick with the pro-western candidate Yushchenko. Who ended up with 5%
support. As of freedoms in Russia you should take it into account that at the times when the
west is happy with Russian elections the Russians themselves live in poverty and humiliation.
Now that the Russians live probably better than ever the west is unhappy. You talk about freedom
of speech in Russia but compare it to freedom of speech in Ukraine: the journalists being beaten
and murdered, the channels are closed etc. What place does ukraine hold in the rating? As of
the objectiveness of those ratings and generally the information presented to the western auditory
here's a good example: a few weeks ago there was a marching in Moscow in support of the Ukrainian
government, a few thousand participants. Have you seen that news in the western media? Me neither.
I have checked all the MSM. I found a single sentence about it on the bbc inside an article
about something else, and a little article on the cnn. That cnn article ended with the words
that it's not clear it anyone was arrested or beaten (because no one was). These words give
a hint why there's so little interest in the west: if the news shows that Putin is not prosecuting
those who think different, you shouldn't know about it. Otherwise it will be everywhere
Well,, actually I saw the demonstration on several news channels including CNN. So why you
apparently have not been able to find it, I really do not know.
As far the 2004 elections in Ukraine goes, there were allegations of voting fraud. That led
to an independent investigation by the OSCE, who subsequently deemed it had been well within
acceptable standards.
Where are you getting your information from? Not Russian media, I hope.
US in Ukraine has declared war on Russia, they funded neo Nazi's in Kiev to overthrow a freely
elected government and then went about blaming Russia for the destabilisation. As we know from
past experience, Washington will pursue its strategy relentlessly while shrugging off public
opinion, international law or the condemnation of adversaries and allies alike.
The pattern, of course, is unmistakable. It begins with sanctimonious finger-wagging, economic
sanctions and incendiary rhetoric, and quickly escalates into stealth bombings, drone attacks,
unlawful detention and torture, massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, millions of
fleeing refugees, decimated towns and cities, death squads, wholesale human carnage, vast environmental
devastation, and the steady slide into failed state anarchy; all of which is accompanied by
the repetition of state propaganda spewed from every corporate bullhorn in the western media.
After all isnt this how it happened in Iraq, Libya, Afganistan, Syria etc etc etc
Even if what you claim were even remotely connected to reality, how exactly does that justify
Putins invasion, annexation and interference in a souvereign nation and the breaking ofg international
law?
The "The US is bad" narrative is getting old. And besides, two wrongs can never make a right.
That is a morally indefensible position. So Russia is - at best - no better
There is no invasion, annexation and interference in a sovereign nation and the breaking
of international law. It's all in your muddled mind. ... and no need to thank me for pointing
out your numerous spelling mistakes.
Condolences to all Ukrainians who are "voting" at gunpoint today. R.I.P. for your young country
that had the potential for a much better future. One day you'll understand that the murderers
were those bearing gifts. IMF loans, fracking contracts, western "investments".
In Crimea democracy actually worked as intended. The people of Crimea are living in peace
free of neo Nazi fascism. No one died and it was mostly peaceful, you have to admire the way
Moscow did it. They supported democracy, the will of the people.
Its when democracy is subverted that people die, the people of the Donbass who held a plebiscite
and are being denied democracy are being murdered by neo Nazi militia's in an attempt to subvert
their free will.
It is the Wests fascism that is killing people, it is the Wests fascism that is denying people
the freedom at the ballot box which according to the United Nations is every individuals basic
right.
Stop the Genocide of the Donbass people. Recognise the will of the Donbass people and allow
them to live in peace and be free of the fascists neo Nazi's in Kiev.
I do agree with the spirit of your post. Sure, the US standard practice since WW2, has been
to employ fascist groups to overthrow legitimate governments in support of its "national interests".
The sad thing for the Donbass area is that the present "leadership" is remotely controlled by
certain Russian circles. These circles did not allow the military advance of the DNR and LNR
when the situation turned in their favour. Neither did they allow the unification of the two
entities under a uniform military and political leadership. The combatants on the ground who
are a mixed group of socialists, nationalists and soldiers of fortune, bitterly complain about
the situation as they are doing the fighting and the dying. They are accusing their political
leaders of boycotting their efforts. It is painfully obvious that oligarchs from both Russia
and Ukraine have a hand in this and do not really care about the deaths and the destruction.
There will be plenty of business when the time of "reconstruction" comes. As things stand in
the Donbass there is no viable future. As for the rest of Ukraine things got even worse. A police
state run by private armies, terrorized citizens, terrorized opposition leaders, dramatically
worsened job prospects, certainly no chance of anything close to a Democratic Election today.
Another fine piece of work by the defenders of "democracy" and the "free world".
"Its when democracy is subverted that people die, (...)"
Agreed.
"(...) the people of the Donbass who held a plebiscite and are being denied democracy (...)"
That's so far off the truth as I understand it that it makes me sick.
As I read it (in the Western media) the people of the Donbass one morning had new leaders
who took over their cities, and since then denied them the vote in the presidential election,
and it wouldn't surprise me if the DPR and LPR leaders also denied them the vote in the Rada
election today.
Yet, you call them "the people of the Donbass who held a plebiscite". I translate that in
my language as "volksraadpleging". I don't remember that that has happened. In fact, the people
of the Donbass have been intimidated (some election authorities beaten or murdered) so that
they were *PREVENTED* from holding a plebiscite.
I rest of yur sentence reads "(...) are being murdered by neo Nazi militia's in an attempt
to subvert their free will."I won't complain about your description of their current plight
although I disagree. But the middle of the sentence was WAY off.
"Recognise the will of the Donbass people"Yes, but I have no idea how to do that. the DPR
and LPR leaders are not going to step down voluntarily, and the Ukraine army is not the right
agent to do it either. It will have to depend on the Donbass people themselves to get rid of
their current oppressors.
"Misrepresentation or technical means cannot affect the results by much. The [Ukrainian] result
corresponds to the mood of the electorate who agreed to go to the polls. It must be borne in
mind that a huge number of people did not go to the polls, especially in the southern part of
Ukraine. They do not consider this state as their own, and that's all. They are not interested
to go to vote. They would have voted if there was a political force which represents their interests.
At the moment, there is no such force. The reported violations could not have greatly affected
the results. Maybe 2% - maybe 3%, not more than 5%. In these specific conditions in the Ukraine,
such machinations could not significantly change the results."
I think Pedward Porkshanks screwed himself by banning political parties in the east and the
south. If they went to the polls, they would not vote for Arsenic, and some may have defected
to Porkshank's party. Now he finds himself at the center of the anti-war coalition.
On the eve of the elections to the Ukrainian Parliament one of the advisers told Obama in the Oval
Office: "Sir, the new Parliament will be a beast, enraged against Russia ..."
And that's what
happened.
The new Supreme Council of Ukraine is 100% pro-American and russophobic. This is expected, since
the election was handled by American specialists.
It is on their orders that the punishers took all polling sites under 'protection' (convoy) in
advance under the formal pretext 'to prevent provocations from the FSB'. During this time on sites
in charge were Nalyvaichenko SBU agents, who could do anything: fill the urns with previously filled
ballots, prepare the counted ballots and protocols, etc.
However, not everything went smoothly. Sensational news came from Kiev! A source in Central Election
Committee reported, that according to some private observers at the polling stations, Lyashko was
firmly getting second place, coming close to Poroshenko. This was a surprise to the masters. And
then - attention! - United States embassy representative, who during the entire time of the elections
was at the Office of the Chief Election Commissioner, ordered (quoting a source in Kyiv): "Reset
the votes of Lyashko in favor of Yatsenyuk. " And here we go! Open text over phone lines was delivered
to all the polling stations!
What else will be new at the new Supreme Council of Ukraine, besides
the anti-Russian rage? Yatsenyuk with Lyashko's votes went up head-to-head to Poroshenko and have
firmly settled in the Parliament, propped by the future coalition with implacable fascist wing:
Lyashko, Tyagnibok, Sadovoy and permanently attached to them Tymoshenko.
Poroshenko received not even a competitor, but an enemy in the face of Yatsenyuk. It's an
American trick: create a competitive environment in the occupation government, when each is pouring
dirt on the other. That's how all occupying pro-American regimes are designed in all occupied
countries. Strategically, the United States won the election. Therefore, there will be no peace!
Tactically the elections were won by three oligarchs: Poroshenko, Kolomoisky and Levochkin, who
financed the promotion of their plebeians to the Parliament. Therefore, further decline in the standards
of living is guaranteed!
PS Yatsenyuk's People's Front was the biggest surprise in this election, since he was getting
only 10% earlier in the polls. As a face of everything that happened since Maidan, its clear even
Ukrainian nationalists weren't satisfied with him. Now we know where he found his magic boost.
IMHO, it is more about the political than military realities. Poroshenko seems likely
to get a plurality, but not a majority tomorrow. Lyashko & the Radicals, the likely #2 finisher,
are campaigning under the slogan that they'll get the Crimea back. Popular Front has fielded
nearly a doz. "volunteer batttalion commanders" as candidates.
Ill-advised military, but well-played politically, to protect the right flank. And then
when it fails, well, we'll see who gets to sort the sheep from the goats, who sabotaged
the offensive and who are the "heroes."
And chet380 at #2 -- and it's a diversion from the economy too, a multi-purpose crisis.
Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 25, 2014 4:20:10 PM |
4
I'll vote they do.
Amerikas neo-conns never give up and they real don't care how many Ukraine's freeze to
death. I also read but can't find the link that Russia has started to ship arms into the
East. This won't end well for citizens in the Ukraine.
Talk about slinging shit at the wall to see what will stick, these neocons sure throw.
Everywhere that their fingerprints are, it's the civilian population who take the brunt
and suffer the most. But who really cares, as long as the bragging rights and 15 seconds
of fame are in the works. Sacrifice Ukraine, who cares how many perish? What kind of barbarians
have the U.S. bred and allowed to call the shots on the world stage?
"it's the civilian population who take the brunt and suffer the most. "
This is true as ever. The tactic to avoid total defeat in Iraq - ignite a sectarian civil
war which killed, by some estimates, 1,000,000 people - was evidence that these new imperial
wars were being waged with all the amorality and concern for human life as was Vietnam.
Of course, this was seen already in the Iraq sanctions, where the death of another 1,000,000
(confirmed) was announced "worth it".
The Ukraine is a horror. The USA giving the blessing - openly - to the nightmare of Naziism.
I don't believe that it will be the Novorussia who sparks a continuation of the current
war. The government of Russia seems to have convinced them to look at the bigger world picture
and not do anything rash. To put it another way: Russia is acting responsibly, the USA and
their Nazi proxies - fueled by propaganda and phony history - are not.
The recent scenes from Kiev of Nazis marching in the streets, flares and chains and racist slogans
and all, are a reminder of what Naziism means. With its repression, urge towards genocide, its
longing for war, its scapegoating, its headlong move towards self-destruction - is a frightening
reminder of what can happen when the specter of fascism is allowed to rise from its well deserved
tomb.
Ukraine is heading towards a state where this small, violent minority can take over
and spark a war with Russia. Like Naziism before it, it has been fostered by the West. First
as tragedy, then as farce.
The US as a whole has now fully rejected the lessons of the 1930s and 1940s. Despite even
that Communism cannot be used as an excuse. This is naked Imperialism doing its work under the
banner of "promoting democracy and tolerance".
This cannot go on as it is. There will be a clash, and we should all pray that it doesn't
become one of nuclear arms.
It should be noted (and heartening) that the top two contenders for power in Ukraine do not
even together form a plurality.
Ukraine is in a well deserved political meltdown. It is hard to imagine that any real government
can form out of this putrid morass of greed and psychopathy.
After having been, just 30 years ago, the most important and prosperous component of the
world's second leading power - Ukraine is likely moving towards a single outcome: earning the
mantle of a "failed state".
I find it very hard to accept that the Ukraine regime will initiate an offensive against
the Donbas republic in November just after they suffered a major defeat in August. During WWII
the most powerful army in the world, the Wehrmacht, never initiated an offensive that late in
the year. They always began in the summer. The two great offensives that saw the German armies
defeated early in the war (Moscow, the first winter and Stalingrad, the second) followed spring
offensives that petered out when winter came. The Soviets counterattacked in the late fall and
winter.
Poroshenko must be under tremendous pressure to reverse his last summer's defeat but even
with that pressure he (and the Ukrainian high command) cannot be stupid enough to start an offensive
in early November. There is one thing that Russia can supply to the Donbas militias and that
is the equipment to survive in winter war. They will be in defensive positions and if anything
was learned the Battle of Moscow it is very difficult to supply front line offensive operations
with sufficient clothing and shelter.
In general I have a lot of respect for Saker, but I do think he is way off on this prediction.
Unless the people in Washington who are pushing this conflict are even more clueless than they
have proved so far.
The way I see this conflict the Russians fear the nascent Peoples Republics in Ukraine as
much or possibly more than they do the Fascist regime in Kiev. Every move Putin has made especially
imposing the cease-fire has been aimed at stopping the spread of this Socialist idea aimed directly
at the Oligarchs supported by Russia and the West. Putin has begged and badgered the leaders
of Novorussia to stop their resistance and seek accomodation with the Kiev regime and this included
the removal of Strekov and other military commanders when the war was beginning to be won.
This is not the 1940's and the winter will not be a great factor, they have paved roads and
snow plows now and with Global Warming milder winters.
@2 It might not be a distraction as much as a means of weakening the street. The Kiev regime
gave the Brownshirts guns, military experience, and promises, and much of the old regular Ukraine
army has been taken out of commission. The CIA affiliated regime probably lacks the resources
and popularity to pull off a night of the long knives, but they still need to get rid of them.
Much like the Saudis funding various militants groups, they want to use an excuse to get
the more hot headed individuals to leave. If they don't leave soon, the Russians and the NAF
will lock down the border. The Kiev rump state will be more accessible to Europe which would
lead to an exporting of terrorism into Europe against groups who will be deemed traitors. My
guess is the saner elements have recognized NATO isn't coming which means there is no German
regular army available to protect the regime, so they need to get rid of their own thugs and
will try to get the Russians to do it for them.
Slightly off-topic. The International Business Times (Australian ed.) has published an article
about the 26 minute documentary about MH17 which RT released recently:
I'm surprised that this Anglophone news outlet is treating this RT documentary so neutrally.
Did it not get the memo that RT is Russian propaganda and Putin's alternate reality? The video
is well worth watching.
But b you are assuming they are rational, they are not. The neo-cons live in their 'bubble
of reality and hubris' which, at best, has only a tenuous link to any objective facts. In the
neo-con mindset, going to war with Russia in winter makes perfect sense.
One thing is that many of them actually believe their own lies and propaganda. For example
I saw an interview with Condalissa Rice recently and she was banging on about the EU doesn't
need Russian oil and gas because they could access the "bountiful riches of American energy
resources". The fact that, despite the oil and gas 'fracking' boom, the US is still a massive
oil/gas importer seems to have escaped her, but I'll bet she actually believed what she said.
In a true technical sense these people are mentally ill. So to expect any rational decision
making by them is a waste of time. I sometimes play 'thought experiments', trying to come up
with some new absurdity that they might do...and I am often right at predicting their behaviour,
and the more absurd the idea I come up with the more likely they will do it.
I know that it hard for people like b (and nearly all the commentators here) to try to think
in a non-rational way, but to really try to understand and predict neo-con's behaviour you have
to put that rationality and facts stuff aside at times, because it is certainly not a factor
in their decision making.
Posted by: Lisa Formally OldSkeptic | Oct 25, 2014 7:20:46 PM |
18
The purpose of the snap election was to cleanse parliament of any opposition to plans that
would see more money being poured into the war in the East. So, it follows, that it is rational
to assume that something is on the horizon. Testing Russian resolve now that oil prices have
plummeted isn't a bad idea.
Posted by: Pat Bateman | Oct 25, 2014 7:36:34 PM |
19
@Lisa #17:
Yes, the neocons are psychos, but I don't think they control Kiev when it comes to military
matters. The CIA and Pentagon do that, and I believe there are few neocons there. (But then
there was Paul Wolfowitz...)
The rebels (not just the Saker) are afraid that Kiev is going to start a new offensive, but
they are not saying that that is because of US pressure.
As for Condi's "bountiful riches of American energy resources": spoken like a true
evangelical nut job.
@Wayoutwest #14:
Since Strelkov supports Putin, by your logic, Strelkov supports the oligarchs. (Why do people
capitalize that word?)
Demian the neo-cons dominate all foreign (and by extension military) policy now, they won
all their internal battles years ago. So all those Pentagon/CIA/etc 'advisers' in Kiev are all
neo-cons too.
The first body in the US to really grab this was the USAF, 'full spectrum dominance' and
all that. But bit by bit the other arms of Govt have became neo-con centres too. Oh sure there
are individual hold outs in some places, but they are ignored and being steadily taken out over
time. So the whole mechanism of the US Govt is basically neo-con now.
You know how it works, if you are in some area of Govt and disagree, then your career options
go down the tubes real fast. So those that survive then, at least, pretend to be neo-cons because
it is the dominant ideology.
Go back in time and re-read Karen Kwiatkowski's columns pre the Iraq war and how the neo-cons
won all the internal political battles. She saw and documented how it was done in her area (Office
of Special Plans and all that stuff).
Since then their power has just grown until it is the totally dominant ideology in the many
power centres that comprise the US Govt. Idiots they may be in terms of rational decision making,
but they are all genius class at internal politics and nearly always win.
Just like their 'sisters and brothers', the neo-liberals, who have won all the internal political
battles about economic policies, to the point where anything that is not neo-liberal approved
never gets any time or consideration at all.
So the inmates are in charge of the insane asylum and it is not going to change, at least
for a very long time. They are far too immune to reality.
Posted by: Lisa Formally OldSkeptic | Oct 25, 2014 8:04:20 PM |
21
@15- Your scenario seems the most likely one if an offensive really is in the offing. This
would suggest Poroshenko might have seen the light and has ceased to be the US stooge.
Alternatively I wouldn't discount a night of the long knives- Victoria Nuland paid Kiev a
visit recently and I can't imagiine the state department walking away from their 5 billion plus
investment at this point. But who the hell knows.
Wayout west: The way I see this conflict the Russians fear the nascent Peoples Republics
in Ukraine
Utter nonsense. Putin does not fear socialist revolution in Donbas. He has been supporting
the Donbas rebels for months. At the most, he fears that their militias might provoke all out
war with NATO. Therefore he has been careful to give them enough support to thwart Ukrainian
aggression but not enough support for them to mount any real offensives that might take over
Maripul or Kharkov. Putin is simply protecting Russia's national interests. As much as I would
love to see the insurrection to be successful in Maripul and Kharkov I have to respect Putin's
judgement here. Actually he has a much better understanding of what is now possible on the battlefield
than do either of us.
I'm surprised that this Anglophone news outlet is treating this RT documentary so neutrally.
Did it not get the memo...?
Tried the link and got a 404. Recently in the "Waiting for Jack Frost" discussion I posted
on how the western corporate media self-censors; I suspect that this was one of the rare slips
in which a "off-message" (non-Russophobe) story briefly got published, but quickly got killed.
I tried quick searches for it elsewhere (including on RT) but found nothing--do you know of
another working link to it?
Posted by: Vintage Red | Oct 25, 2014 8:53:19 PM |
24
This time Putin will go all the way to Kyiv. The late September "cease fire" was used by
Usia to resupply the fascists. This will be an artillery war, not a ground war in winter. You
forget, the ground freezes hard by December. Go Novorussia!
Naturally those ever so clever neocons/Lwow superheroes/Kyiv geniuses do not imagine that
maybe, just maybe (having destroyed great swathes of infrastructure in DPR and LPR) someone
might seek to interrupt reverse gas flows or truncate western bound gas pipelines through Ukraine.
What's that wintry word? Ah, yes: Brrrrrr
Assuming the distribution of undecided voters (32%) mirrors the responses received, "7-8
political powers would enter the Verkhovna Rada:
Bloc of Petro Poroshenko (30.4%),
Radical Party of Oleh Lyashko (12.9%),
Narodnyi Front [Popular or National Front] (10.8%),
Samopomіch [Selfhelp] Association (8.5%),
Batkivshchyna [Homeland, Yulia Timoshenko] (7.5%),
Sylna [Strong] Ukraina of Tihipko (5.6%),
the party Opozytsiinyi [Opposition] Bloc (5.9%),
and probably Hromadska Pozytsia [Public Position] (4.8%)."
It looks to take a minimum of a three-party coalition to obtain a majority. As there are
single-member districts and national lists, the votes may not exactly translate to no. of seats.
About the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, from its page at
the
NED.
"The Democratic Initiatives Foundation celebrated its 15th anniversary last December with
much to be proud of. One of its enduring contributions to Ukraine's democracy was the perfecting
of the "exit poll" as an instrument for showing up falsification of elections by an authoritarian
regime." The founder, Ilko Kucheriv, "came to the United States as a Reagan-Fascell Fellow in
2006-7...." after his work on polling enabled the Orange Revolution of 2004.
So make of the data what you will.
NTGeithner at 15 And Nana2007 at 21 -- A "Night of the Long Knives" is certainly a possibility,
the respectable crazies of the Radical Party and Popular Front disposing of Pravyi Sektor and
Svoboda riff raff. Then the survivors get to sort things out.... Their "sabotage" of the late
fall campaign could be the means to dispose of them.
Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 25, 2014 9:15:20 PM |
27
@Lisa #20:
I stand corrected. I guess the basic error I made was forgetting that the
top brass are political
and not military in nature.
@Vintage Red #23:
LOL. I wonder if the author of that article has gotten her pink slip yet.
I have read most everything Putin has said to and about the people of the Donbas including
his pledge that he wouldn't allow anyone to harm them, which was an empty promise. The rest
of his statements have been calls for them to lay down their arms and submit to the dictats
of Kiev with some small protections. He allowed the flow of weapons to Donbas, IMO, because
of the overwhelming support from the Russian public.
Because, as you said, he knows much about the military situation there he had to know that
the cease-fire would save the Ukie Army and allow them to regroup, rearm and renew their attack.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO so they have no mandate to intervene and just as the US did
nothing when Criema was taken it is doubtful they would react any differently now. The people
of Donbas need to reclaim the large portion of that area they have lost before considering the
march to Kiev to liberate the rest of the Ukraine.
Putin and the Russian Ruling Class fear Socialism as much as any Capitalist regime does and
especially when it displays how direct democracy works as the People's Republics did.
Re: Labels, like neo-con.
They are convenient, but inaccurate. The simple fact is that US policy even before it was the
US has been a strategy of conquer-and-rule, dominate-and-subjugate, starting with the Native
Americans. It worked, for a while.
Posted by:
Don Bacon | Oct 25, 2014 11:50:39 PM |
30
@Wayoutwest
Yet another misreading of events. It is difficult to believe that you are not doing so deliberately.
The struggle between US-led West vs. Russia et al. has many dimensions. Your comment(s) conveniently
ignore such realities. You can't credibly comment here without understanding context and history.
You need these to see past the propaganda that is flung on both sides.
And NATO has taken a number of steps to counter Russia under the guise of assuring NATO countries
that border Russia. This posturing plus trumpeted guaranties of Ukrainian territorial
integrity by individual NATO nations (notably the US) plus the ongoing sanctions
and propaganda war mean the situation remains uncertain and volatile.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2014 12:35:13 AM |
31
Situation overview from 1st Inter-Brigade of South-East:
From the evening and until midnight the punitive troops proceeded bombarding Donetsk districts
Kievskiy and Kuybishevskiy by "Grad" rocket systems. District Petrovskiy and settlement Spartak
were also hit. During the day, as reported by the mayor's office, the situation turned calm.
Ignited clashes were confined to territory around the airport.
Gorlovka, clashes continued on fringes of the city; sides resorted to heavy weapons.
Mar`inka, west of Donetsk, Ukrainian territory, clashes resumed yesterday tonight. Same reported
from area of Novomikhaylovka, south-west of Donetsk, also Ukrainian territory.
From Lugansk, significant clashes were reported in Schast'ye: nazis' positions were attacked
by mortars and "Grad" systems fire. So far, Results so far are unknown.
Situations in area of "Bakhmutka" in area of settlement Smeloye remains unchanged.
"No one had broken the ring to outpost 32 despite upbeat announcements. Today they were let
go, they all, via a specially organized passage.
The Ukrainian Command was advised. Few minutes after the paratroopers of 80th brigade advanced
from their positions the Ukrainian artillery lashed at them. To shield them, Ukrainians were
struck back. The paratroopers were inflicted several "300th" (wounded); they had to turn back
to the outpost.
According to intelligence data, between October 28-30 the troops of Kiev junta plan
a treacherous offensive on Donetsk and Lugansk Republics. The offense main targets are Donetsk
and Mariupol`.
Bandera forces of these two groups of Ukrainian military would attack from crossing directions
to isolate combatants defending Donetsk, completing encirclement of the city in Ilovaysk.
By simultaneous attack in direction of Debal`tsevo – Uspenka it is expected to split the
armies of Donetsk and Lugans Republics and prevent from further communication.
In addition, by attacking in directions Schast`ye-Biryukovo and Starognatovka-Ul`yanovskoe,
it is planned to reach the Russia border and establish control over it.
The Command of Donetsk and Lugansk Republics is aware of opponent's plans and have reacted
accordingly.
States that some of the hostages were essentially suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, converting
to Islam and taking new names, with their captors intending to have them participate in a jihadist
training camp.
Key details of the article came from an ISIS source.
Initially no ransom was asked (why were they holding them). ISIS told families not to contact
authorities (since when do militants not want either money or attention for kidnappings, since
when do they contact families directly rather than governments?).
Sergey Gorbunov was the first prisoner executed - as a warning to other states to pay ransoms
(his supposed execution was never made public and there seems to be no mention of him on the
internet after appearing in a video warning he would be killed) apparently ISIS showed the execution
footage to the prisoners not the public or their governments.
Great analysis in general, but I disagree that the neocons "are all genius class at internal
politics."
You don't need to be a genius when you represent the combined political power of the military-industrial
complex and the Israel Lobby. Neoconism represents the nexus of economic interests between the
imperialist Israeli state and U.S. arms industries. Inside the beltway that's utterly dominant.
And so, as you say, Washington power people have gotten very comfortable over the last 15-20
years aligning their official views with neoconism, however badly that ideology deviates from
reality and common sense.
The sickness in the nexus comes from Netanyahu's Likudism and imperial Zionism. That ideology
is the product of some virulently sick, disconnected from reality people, very racist and comfortable
with racist theories to 'explain' and dismiss their enemies (who must also be their inferiors).
So you see it infecting official Washington (i.e., Hillary, McCain, Obama, etc.), in its arrogantly
dismissive attitude toward Russia. Normal common-sense Americans have no tradition of looking
down on Russia or of 'being a##holes', putting down other countries for no reason. That stuff
is jarring for a normal American, so we need a lot of anti-Russian propaganda to make it go
down easier. And we're getting it ...
Posted by:
fairleft | Oct 26, 2014 12:56:26 AM |
35
Look like the Nazi stratgegy at the Battle of the Bulge.....
Posted by: Jack Sparrow | Oct 26, 2014 1:03:29 AM |
36
Posted by: Bran | Oct 26, 2014 12:49:30 AM | 32
"Key details of the article came from an ISIS source."
It's a pity the JYT forgot to say whether the 'ISIS source' is from "Israel" or the US.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26, 2014 1:14:47 AM |
37
jack@29
The Big Picture sometimes obscures what is happening on the ground so I understand your missing
these important facts.
I have yet to see any reference to the People's Republics in Putin's or any other Russian
writings, they are always called by the region names or Novorussia, correct me if I am wrong.
This is a subtle but telling omission.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Oct 26, 2014 1:52:31 AM |
38
@8 fran. thanks for the link. i enjoyed reading what putin had to say. he was trying to be
positive, but i felt like it was a lot of work for him as he can see how the direction the world
is headed away from international law into a world where their are no rules, or rules that are
being broken regularly. the 3 paragraphs starting with "So, what is in store for us if we choose
not to live by the rules.." down to the break at "Colleagues, friends," are the critical part
of his interview as i see it..
@16 demian. that documentary from rt was quite good. just watched it. it is interesting that
it was mentioned in the australian msm. at the end of the documentary an australian couple is
briefly interviewed saying they are interested in the truth. perhaps the australian news outlet
felt some sense of responsibility for a broader examination of the mh17 accident and opted to
highlight this? one thing i know is malaysia as a country are said to be convinced it ( mh17)
was downed by ukrainian forces.. i guess they don't get the same blanket western msm that most
of us get in the west.
@36 and etc. wayoutwest... you aren't making much sense to me either.. you seem like a variation
of a previous poster that i haven't seen here for a while..
Just read that many facist parties did good in the election, one came #2 in the election.
Lets see how western MSM spin this!
Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 26, 2014 4:03:43 AM |
40
If the Nazis win, then there will be war.
Posted by: Fernando | Oct 26, 2014 4:42:09 AM |
41
Washington long ago learned the dark art of silencing truth with defamation. Washington used
defamation to overthrow Iran's elected leader, Mossadegh in 1953, to overthrow Congo's prime
minister Patrice Lumumba in 1960, to overthrow Guatemala's President Arbenz in 1954, to overthrow
Venezuela's President Hugo Chevez in 2002, a coup that was cancelled by the Venezuelan people
and military who threw out Washington's stooge replacement and reinstalled Chavez, to overthrow
Ukraine's elected President Yanukovych in 2013, to overthrow Honduras President Manuel Zelaya
in 2009 , to overthrow in 2013 Mohamed Morsi, president of the first democratically elected
government in Egypt's history, to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, in ongoing
efforts to overthrow Assad in Syria and the government of Iran, and in failed attempts to overthrow
Indonesia's Sukarno, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Castro in Cuba.
http://en.ria.ru/authors/20141025/194585344/Washington-Is-Defaming-Putin.html
There will be war (whether now or in spring) regardless who wins from US-installed camp.
Puppets wont be deciding anything on their own. Sure, radicals may be more inclined to fight
than oligarchs like candy-man, but ultimately it will be US who decides, and I dont see them
changing neither goals nor means how to achieve them.
For those of us who keep marvelling at how 'dumb' the neo-cons are and their demonstrated
ability to achieve only the opposite of their stated goals our friend
Joaquin Flores reminds ... don't listen to what they say, watch their hands.
Just as the US is simultaneously 'fighting' and arming ISIS in Syria-Iran so too it appears
to be orchestrating the collapse of Ukraine into a Nazi state, and then - just as in Syria-Iran
- the US will be warring against the Nazis it financed and armed. All-war all-the-time truly
is the object.
Incapable of anything positive at this point the US - like Israel, only larger - is down
to purposefully sowing death and devastation worldwide.
The TNCs don't mind at all, destroying governments destroys laws and regulations that inhibit
their 'free market' operations ... like buying up the pieces at fire-sale prices.
And the US government wants to be the king of the hill, even if it's the molehill left at
the end of its devastation.
Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 26, 2014 9:09:33 AM |
46
The $3 billion Putin needs to keep the hearth going is making them quite desperate. When
they are desperate, that's quite dangerous.
I really think the West wants to highlight the suffering in useful outlets as a form of genocide
on the Ukies, while they have been quite sedate about the Eastern front.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | Oct 26, 2014 10:19:01 AM |
47
wayoutwest - looks like a new infestation of the "concern" trolls. They are out in force
at The Saker, feigning concern for the people of the Regions, portraying themselves as "true
patriots".
This very much reminds me of the zio infestations, whenever the topic is I/P. One common
version is the would-be palestinian "sympathizer" who goes on to bash the solidarity activists
and/or BDS for being an inadequate tools with too little of a success.
Or, even more germane, the bashers of Snowden and/or Assange "outing" them as secret agents
of the cia, nsa or whatever. Typically these types also love to pile on greenwald for this or
that reason, as a 'stooge".
Concern trolling has an important role in the information propaganda. Their job is to show
up in comment sections and either derail discussions over some moot point, or precipitate a
spitball fight which then discourages more serious and knowledgeable posters, or mange to provoke
otherwise good commenters into intemperate outbursts, which will then haunt them.
Oh, I am sure people here know a troll when they see one - apologies for preaching to the
choir - no one in b's comment sections seems naive in the ways of internet discussions and flame-outs.
Still, never hurts to make it a matter of record - again.
Posted by: Merlin2 | Oct 26, 2014 11:57:13 AM |
48
Putin is absolutely right, in his speech at Valdai, to link the far-right elements in Kiev
with the Islamic radicals operating in Syria and elsewhere, and correct again to draw the link
between America's amoral support for the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan with where we are today.
Putin describes recent world history as it is. This is as opposed to the US Administration,
which have a perverted version of history that not even leading US intellectuals can agree with
anymore (we all recall Mearshimer's piece on the Ukraine).
People like WayOutWest, who come an show such dear care for Novorussia only when it can be
used to somehow smear Russia as "capitalist" and do the familiar DonkeyTale contortions which
try to make Russia - a relatively peaceful, (re)developing power that seeks stability with the
irrational and ultra-violent USA. Of course it is dishonest concern trolling in the same way
that those who declared Syria "weak" for not launching attacks on Israel after Israel bombed
what turned out to be chicken coops.
We should not fall for this phony concern trolling when forming our views of what happens
between Russia and Novorussia as allies. And make no mistake, they are allies. To suggest that
Putin is "scared" of them is preposterous. Putin is making them act rationally and in a way
which prevents the situation from getting more out of control. It would be an improvement if
Washington could do the same with their Nazi proxies in Kiev. And anyway, as Demian rightfully
points out, Putin is popular among the Novorussians - even among those Putin supposedly "sacked".
Such ridiculous claims, especially coming from someone who constantly spins the threat of
ISIS (a sign that he is either misinformed or a propagandist pushing an agenda), are not to
be taken seriously.
Of course the *real* puppets of the oligarchs are to be found in Kiev, Washington, and London.
Putin. put in place by the Russian people and supported by them broadly, has (popularly) put
the oligarchs in their place - something that will never happen way out West, where the oligarchs
choose the presidents.
@Merlin2 - right on for noting the phony concern. Like those who declared that the Syrian
government was "weak" for not attacking Israel after Israel bombed what turned out to be chicken
coops.
Beware internet philosophers trying to air the dirty laundry of two allies! Especially when
those two allies are the enemies of the US.
Of course the Novorussian's must follow the lead of Russia. And Russia is of course right
to encourage them to act responsibly. It would be nice if Washington would do the same with
their Nazi proxies in Kiev.
As for trying to compare the oligarchs of Russia - who are controlled by the government -
and those of the US and the west - who choose their governments - there is no comparison. To
act as if Russia is "frightened" of the specter of socialism is ridiculous. Russia is still
filled with monuments to Lenin. It still has a mighty and active Communist Party. There is no
"threat" to Russia from Novorussia, nor in Putin "scared" of them.
Putin is absolutely right to link the Kiev regime's Nazi allies and ISIS. They are the same
phenomenon - far-right movements supported by the US deep state.
A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead
of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states
we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very
dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.
Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments
along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease
to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say
here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.
They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups
got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information,
political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have
not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist
attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat
of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people
back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September
11.
Putin deals with reality. The US administration deals with phony and self-serving illusions.
Don Bacon;At least those old Americans worked for American interests instead of the current
crop of Israeli moles,who are correctly called neolibcons as in what's the diff?
And India just rejected American missiles for Israeli,oh the Islamic hatred ties that bind.
The difference between Russian and the US behavior on the world stage shouldn't really need
to be spelled out as it is so obvious. To speak of "Russian and American imperialism" in the
same breath ... it just doesn't pass the sniff test.
Especially considering we watch the increasingly long list of US sponsored coups, overthrows,
sponsored insurgencies, and outright aggressions since the fall of the Soviet Union.
It's a favorite tactic of those phony leftists like you can find over at Lousy Louie's Proyect's,
and, increasingly often, here at MoA.
Unless the real goal is not gaining ground, per se but to blame "the Russians" for breaking
the fake truce and then launch some new additional regime of sanctions.
@guest77 -- # 7 This cannot go on as it is. There will be a clash, and we should all pray that it doesn't
become one of nuclear arms.
rinf.com, Oct 26
Ukraine's Civil War Is Restarting
Ukrainian Government is said to have air-dropped leaflets: "leave or die."
Introductory note by Eric Zuesse: Below is from a recent day's report by the Belarusian
(or "Byelorussian") management-consulting firm Geopolitics, a site which often posts the
most-penetrating daily reports and analyses of the Ukrainian civil war, with a dozen or
more articles written by various Belarusian academics. One of these news reports, shown
below, is provocatively headlined "War will begin on Monday"; another is titled, "Kiev is
preparing to capture Donetsk, and it will be the biggest defeat for #russia since 1991";
yet a third is "Donbass pending decisive assault". So, some of these articles focus on the
historical importance of the events. . .
The Pentagon will be ready.
Stripes, Oct 25
Officials break ground on hospital to replace Landstuhl
RHINE ORDNANCE BARRACKS, Germany - After more than a year of delays, American and German
officials heaved the first shovels of dirt Friday to mark the symbolic start of construction
on a nearly billion-dollar U.S. military hospital here.
Expected to open in 2022, the new facility will replace the Army's aging Landstuhl Regional
Medical Center and the Air Force's medical clinic at Ramstein Air Base, both of which were
built in the 1950s and cost millions of dollars a year to maintain.
Work at the new hospital site began in earnest in February after the U.S. military and
its German counterparts laid out plans to mitigate the project's environmental impact, allaying
the concerns of environmental groups whose lawsuits had stalled the project.
Interesting post, a no. of separate reports, I liked the one from expert.ru predicting further
ineffectiveness and division over spoils and all-around political infighting. The site's
report on early election
returns has the Opposition Bloc as well as "Svoboda" making it in. Of the new Rada, it says
"the new parliament will be biased towards the patriotic and nationalist spectrum, as similar
ideology is now practiced in one way or another all the leading Ukrainian parties."
Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 26, 2014 4:28:28 PM |
59
@guest77 #48:
It is worth noting that our new defender of Novorossiyans made his appearance in these hallowed
halls by informing us that Iran is running death squads inside Iraq.
Eloquent observations about Russia and socialism. Russia has done a considerably better job
of Vergangenheitsbewältigung
than Germany. If Germans had truly come to terms with their past, they would understand that,
by allowing themselves to be occupied by the Empire, they have no moral superiority over their
Nazi grandparents.
@57 - TL;DR The USSR is regarded quite highly in much of the world, and for good reason.
___ I wrote the following, I just wanted to make it smaller so as not to take up too much
space___
It is not just my opinion that the successors to the Soviets have little Vergangenheitsbewältigung
to deal with.
Consider the view of the USSR in the third world, where it was instrumental in defeating
imperialism during the liberation movements of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. There are still,
in many countries from Africa to Europe to Asia, and South America, thriving Communist parties
and socialist movements that look at the USSR as a positive role-model. And to those countries,
many of them ruined by capitalism and imperialism, with much of their populations reduced
to absolute poverty and their countries stripped of all sovereignty - they are correct.
Consider the view of the USSR inside some of the former Soviet Union. As a society, a
majority feel that the post-war Soviet Union was the best of recent times. The comparisons
of the Soviet Union to the 1990s - the betrayal, the theft, the shock therapy - all made
the Soviet times look like a paradise in comparison. It is only now that Russian's have
a state they can be proud of, a state that is growing with vastly improved social conditions
- a condition that was made possible by Russia reversing or watering down the so-called
"reforms" of the 1990s.
The USSR under Stalin suffered greatly, but these were the Soviet people suffering. The
cult of personality and the repression - all acknowledged by Khruschev and reversed - showed
that the USSR was capable of change. But much of the "horrors" did not happen as presented
in the West. Much is crude propaganda - numbers that claim that Stalin "killed" "20-100
million" people are simply ridiculous and crass. Meant to present Stalin not even as Hitler's
equal in horror, but as worse than him. Considering the help offered Hitler by the west,
considering that the ideology of Communism is THE threat to capitalism while Naziism is
capitalism's thick-necked enforcer: it is easy to see why this *must* be the narrative.
"Hitler was bad" goes the story "but he was only trying to defeat the greater evil". Recall
the Ukrainian mayor declaring how Hitler "liberated" the Ukraine - such filth which would
have earned the speaker a punch in the face - has gone mainstream.
The USSR was not a perfect country any more than the USA. Many of the commitments in
its constitution were not lived up to. But then, how long did it take the USA to live up
to the words "All men are created equal..."? All countries are works in progress, all constitutions
are documents that define the ambitions of countries and are made true only by hard work.
And this applied to the Soviet Union as well. Unfortunately, the USSR never knew a day of
peace, and not because it didn't seek peace. It was the victim - in it's brief 70 years
- of a foreign invasion of 18 countries and a civil war, constant sabotage and propaganda,
the world's most vicious military campaign leading to the destruction of the country comparable
(in the words of JFK) equivalent to everything east of Chicago in the US being completely
destroyed, and finally a long, bitter Cold War in which the world's greatest military and
economic power, linking with the Nazi remnants and immoral forces all over the world, pushed
the USSR - poor and attempting to rebuild, and committed to never facing another such invasion
- to an arms race and to the economic breaking point.
And whats more, the break up of the USSR, though and awful, embarrasing tragedy - especially
considering what followed - deserve praise for achieving a relatively peaceful break up.
Save Chechnya, an internal civil war inside Russia which produced the casualties of one
of the smaller US aggressions in Central America, the break up of a country joined together
for 1000 years was astonishingly bloodless. Compare it to the bloody break up of the Portuguese
or the British Empires. Compare it to the French wars in Algeria and Vietnam. The actual
break up, though it happend through the machinations of traitors and for the most part against
the will of the population, is one of the greatest feats of peace and statesmanship in world
history. There were of course states that wanted out, but a close look at the politcs of
states such as the Baltics show large support for opposition parties, left wing groups.
Even in those countries, their is considerable nostalgia for the Soviet period. This applies
to Eastern Europe as well - the left parties in Germany are still strongest in former East
Germany, the country we constantly hear about in terms of being "Stasi State" (considering
that the country was a socialist state which had just been under Nazi rule and threatened
constantly by sabotage and spying, the Stast makes much more sense).
No, it is only in the USA, in far-right enclaves in South America, and amongst the European
elite that people buy into the "Soviet Union is comparable to Nazi Germany" pack of lies.
A pack of lies based on historical distortions and outright lies of those master "Big Liars"
the Nazis themselves.
The fact is that, when the history is written 300 years from now (should we survive till
then, and should our history), it will show the USSR as the progressive power that was instrumental
in ending the European Empires. A country that sparked and lead a movement for independent
development and international justice. The country that lead a genuine revolution that was
snuffed out by the bloodiest counter-revolution ever waged in world-history (a counter-revolution
which continues today).
I believe that depending how vicious and bloody the USA's decline is, the USSR will be
historically rehabilitated and considered a martyr for the best aspirations of humanity,
if not its realization.
The German attack on Moscow was in Nov.-Dec. 1941, and it was of course not successful. On
the other hand, the Russian counterattack on the Stalingrad front was in Nov.-Jan. 1942-3, and
it was eminently successful.
I agree with everything you say. And even my father, who wanted to enlist with the Germans
and didn't only because a German officer told him that that would be crazy, and who worked for
a US defense contractor, told me before the USSR collapsed that the USSR was necessary, because
a counterweight to US power was needed.
Since the Ukraine crisis, I have changed my view of the Soviet Union considerably, mostly
due to reading MoA.
I normally don't like this author, but this is brilliant. I know some here disagree with
the concept of blowback, but I think he is getting at something deeper - the post-war transformation
of the USA:
....conflict for conflict's sake became the operational ethos in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia
and Africa and South America and Central America and especially in the Middle East for decades,
and in the process of this multi-generational permanent state of conflict the weapons manufacturers
became wealthier and wealthier, and more and more powerful...
....so, when you sit in the darkness of your personal night and wonder what happened
to your country, to your aspirations and dreams, to the potholed road you drive every day
to the job that has no chance of letting you retire in comfort, to your barren savings account,
when you turn on your television and see paid shills shriek about how and why you're about
to die while your neighbor's kid comes home in a flag-draped box and you have to ask again
where your black suit is so you can go properly dressed to yet another funeral...
...remember that history exists, and actions have consequences, and this event is tied
to that event is tied to the other event in a tapestry of escalating cascading fallout,
which is called "blowback," which always carries a dear price unless you're getting paid
for it, which is why you think very hard before making a lethal national decision, because
every lethal decision always comes knocking at your door someday...
@64 Thank you Demian. That's fantastic. People from the Baltics are victims of that phony
history, and it is a shame. But there is a reason that nationalism is considered by many to
be a vice: because it encourages people to trade truth for pride.
Yes, it is important to go to the original source on these. As someone mentioned, Mr. Feely
at InformationClearningHouse rarely provides and easy way to get to the original source of his
content.
Wether he has a deal with the authors, I don't know. If not, it's too bad, because it is
easy to do and his site is quite good (he really picks up on amazing articles, especially in
each days "second section") and he should be respectful of others work.
Poetic and true except for calling it blowback. It isn't really blowback when intended consequences
have been factored into the plot from the beginning.
The chaos that results from the "fracturing of Nation States" has been stated clearly in
the Yinon Plan.
Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 26, 2014 7:24:28 PM |
74
It's Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. IOW randomly
killing them over there so they wouldn't randomly kill us here wasn't a good strategy.
from the web:
Within 72 hours, two members of the Canadian Armed Forces were attacked and killed on the soil
of Canada for no reason other than that they wore the uniform of the Canadian military.
--See if you can spot the irony.
OT but, congratulations to Dilma Rouseff and Brazil on her reelection. Her opponent has graciously
conceded defeat so a color revolution over a 'fraudulent' election is out of the picture. Not
knowing much about Brazilian politics, I can't really say if a Neves victory would really have
been a serious setback for the BRICS. It might be that as a state, Brazil would not want to
burn its trade ties with Russia and China and perhaps Neves would have understood that and acted
accordingly. But better to be on the safe side. Dilma's speech at the UN last year calling the
US out on mass surveillance earned her a special place for me.
A quick "thanks" to the poster, who, some while back, recomended Steven Kinzer, and his book
"Overthrow", here at MoA. Beautifully researched and written, anyone who has read it, will understand
the Empire's motives and methods in the Ukraine. I sincerly hope Russia, will, no matter the
cost, challenge the Empire's world hegemony dreams.
The blowback is also local, wherever the US overthrows a government and then has to fight
the "insurgents" who resist outside interference. That's why the Pentagon needs a new billion-dollar
hospital in Germany. In that vein I've always been partial to Mike Hastie. "One day while I
was in a bunker in Vietnam, a sniper round went over my head. The person who fired that weapon
was not a terrorist, a rebel, an extremist, or a so-called insurgent. The Vietnamese individual
who tried to kill me was a citizen of Vietnam, who did not want me in his country. This truth
escapes millions." --Mike Hastie, U.S. Army Medic, Vietnam 1970-71
I know that you guys have already mentioned most of this, but I was kind of surprised that
b, having been a member of the German army, wasn't aware of the principles of war on the eastern
front in WW2. In summer and winter you can fight because the ground is hard. In spring and autumn,
you can't because of the mud. Evidently today things have changed, because of the number of
hard roads.
Not to criticise b, a great host.Impossible to give a perfect post every time.
Is General Winter on Russia's side?
Telegraph, Oct 26
For a few months each year, Russian leaders have always been able to call upon a formidable
military commander who saw off Napoleon and Hitler. General Winter, the most dangerous and
annually reliable soldier in Russia's army, specialises in using snow-drifts, ice-clad roads
and bone-chilling temperatures to freeze invading armies in their tracks. Not once has he
let Russia down.
Very soon, President Vladimir Putin will be hoping to give General Winter a new task.
Instead of halting an invasion, his mission will be to join Russia's struggle against Ukraine
and the West. . .
Thank you for the cached link-I had read of
Peter Haisenko's revelations before, but it's interesting to see how they very briefly surfaced
in the corporate media, only to be scuttled immediately.
When I learn of false flag and other atrocity operations like this, part of me knows "there's
a war on"-carry on, people die, most innocent and often unaware even of what's happening (as
with those on MH17): "Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living." Then there's another
part of me whose blood quietly boils, imagining war crimes tribunals…
By the way, is Vintage Red anything like Deep Red?
No, but Deep Red sounds like a wild movie!
An old friend who knows my politics, my tastes in wine and my perspective on deep history
once called me a Vintage Red. When I first discovered this site and got the Brecht lyric references,
I figured that might be a good nom-du-bar.
[raising my glass]
In vino veritas!
Posted by: Vintage Red | Oct 26, 2014 10:29:31 PM |
84
@guest77, comment 61:
Excellent overview of the USSR and it legacy. Revolutionary processes develop and each culture's
revolution not only has to build from its own historical inheritance, but also in a planetary
context influenced by the global class struggle, not to mention overall development of forces
and relations of production. Similarly blockquoting myself to save space, in addition to the
factors you mention above:
1) The US didn't defeat the USSR in any kind of "fair competition." The USSR had a big territory
but a population emerging from feudal poverty and over a decade of war and civil war. Resources
spent on military defense were deducted from immediate living standards, infrastructure,
growth, research...
The US established its economic and technological superiority by genocidally stealing its
continental "homeland" and enslaving tens of millions from another continent, by supplanting
its imperial rivals (even as an "ally"!) in two world wars, by the financial hegemony of
the dollar, by scientific "brain drain," with the most high tech media-propaganda machine
in human history (Goebbels would've gone green with envy), and of course having an economy
that was generally "stimulated" by military spending.
The US competed with most of the planet's resources in its service; the USSR was by comparison
self-reliant. In the US Army I heard the USSR described as "a third world country with nukes
and a big army." My reply: "Well, if socialism can allow a third world country to give the
US, with a 140-year head start, a good run for its debased money, there must be something
to it, eh?"
2) However hard Soviet workers were driven (compared with western workers under corporate
bosses), the overwhelming majority took on this labor discipline proudly and unflinchingly
as they knew they were not toiling for a shareholder's profit margin but for their and their
children's future.
3) The first few capitalist revolutions against feudalism didn't survive either, at least
not intact; neither were they particularly gentle or polished-before Napoleon, consider
Cromwell. Only after capitalist economic relations deepened and strengthened to become the
dominant system on the planet did its political manifestations become secure enough to look
and act more "civilized," at least in its imperial centers.
I sense a comparable development dynamic for socialism. The (very) big questions in my mind
are time-sensitive challenges posed by capitalist destruction of the environment and the
threat of nuclear war by a desperate, vicious, and bloody Wall Street/Military-Industrial
Complex.
4) The USSR as such existed for about 74 years. The US had its Civil War 85 years after
coming into existence. The Russian Revolution is far from over. Same for the Chinese Revolution,
and for all others one can name…
(I've loved seeing the looks on US right wingers' faces who think
"history ended" when I bring this up--…)
I especially second your final point. Although US by citizenship I was born in Venezuela,
and take great heart in seeing a strong southern pole of socialism for a new century being forged
there, and throughout Latin America. ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!
Posted by: Vintage Red | Oct 26, 2014 11:15:40 PM |
85
No deliveries today to besieged Ukrainian outpost 32, Bakhmutka (near settlement Sleloye,
Lugansk). A group of military engineers (sappers), their carriers, armor shielding them – Cossacks
burned these all…
The sappers had losses. A supplies convoy did not even move ahead. Despite Poroshenko's personal
order, the besieged did not get anything – drink marsh water filtered through gas-masks. The
number of fallen reached 14. This is without lost by unblocking forces.
Besides outpost 32, a discotheque was going and in Nikishino, and in Debal`tsevo. The evening
one has just started in Debal`tsevo. Ukrainians anticipate a storm of Debal`tsevo in three days.
Situation overview from 1st Inter-Brigade of South-East:
No significant bombardment was detected in Donetsk today. Instead, increased activity of
Saboteur-Reconnaissance Groups was reported; these tried to infiltrate the city and the territory
of airport. The work of unmanned aircraft over the capital of Donetsk Republic was also reported.
The Ukrainian artillery pacified in Avdeevka. However, reinforcement in personnel and hardware
was arriving.
During night a violent fight with punitive troops of battalion "Aidar" erupted in Schast`ye,
Lugansk. Several nazis were taken prisoners.
Situation intensified in direction of Mariupol`. Shelling of Ukrainian fortifications was
reported.
This will be Kiev's revenge for Stalingrad, supplied to the hilt with USUK weaponry, their
soldiers being trained in winter warfare by USUKIL in Poland, and USIL satellites overhead.
USIL has no doubt established HUMINT and SIGINT by now, and you can expect USEU to throw a new
sanctions attack any moment. Think Battle of the Bulge, only this time, the Nazis win.
Posted by: ChipNikh | Oct 27, 2014 2:50:15 AM |
88
The impression I get - probably because it is the one I am meant to get - is that Russia
will intervene if Donetsk or Lugansk are invested by the Nazis and stories of war crimes begin
to emerge. But other than that, Russia is leaving the East to their own devices and they seem
to be managing quite well.
The fact is that Russia does not want war, while a full on war between the two most important
ex-Soviet states is surely beyond the wildest wet dreams of even the most aggressive Cold War
CIA operative.
The US, once again is using its geographic shielding to ignite chaos as "strategy". That
Europe goes along with swatting the nuclear armed bear in the nose is evidence that they are
mere colonies of the United States at this point.
Even if the worst happened, a "Battle of the Bulge, only this time, the Nazis win", I remember
back in the late Spring reading statements from militia fighters that if the junta overran Donetsk
and Lugansk entirely, resistance would continue as urban guerrilla warfare, and that it would
be protracted (Northern Ireland was cited as an example of what to expect). This was meant as
a grim worst case scenario, but mainly to illustrate the determination never to surrender to
fascism.
Western intelligence and sanctions would have to be cranked up an order of magnitude in effectiveness
to begin to register. Both the US and RF have satellites overhead, nothing has changed in orbit.
As far as "supplied to the hilt with USUK weaponry" I've not seen direct evidence of that--more
of supplying Poland, Romania, Croatia, etc., with NATO weaponry so that these countries can
send their old Warsaw Pact-era weapons to the Ukraine, thus preserving plausible deniability.
The Nazis better watch out what they wish for. The People's Republics have already shown
they can deliver revenge piping hot; I'm sure they can dish it out biting cold as well...
Posted by: Vintage Red | Oct 27, 2014 4:46:35 AM |
90
@ben #76
I second your thanks ben. I haven't finished it yet and am still reading it but so far think
it is a balanced and valuable contribution to understanding America's rise to the status of
global empire. It is also easy and good reading. I believe it was Malooga who recommended it.
I know it was he that recommended "the Cancer Stage of Capitalism" by John McMurtry, which offers
the model of capitalism as a malignant system that is metastasizing globally. Much more difficult
reading and poorly edited but IMO extremely valuable nonetheless.
I'm also very perplexed at the 'new offensive' chatter or predictions. I can't see it. Kiev
'lost' once and it is out of ressources (or whatever) and while some factions (fascists, etc.)
may want more war, there is also the general population who is against it and may take *very
badly* to continuation, this point is vital. The US obviously wants to keep Poroshenko (for
now anyway), Poroshenko has been running a fine line trying to keep all the allowed sides on
board, either under orders to do so, and/or for his own interests. The election results are
being spun as Pro-West Pro-Peace, a real 'victory.' Russia of course does not want to be dragged
in more than they are already, as has been stated ad nauseam. The EU, if it could defend its
own interests, would also wish an end to hostilities. What is difficult to understand - for
me anyway - is the structure and role of Svoboda/Pravy Sektor (not as pol parties but as groups
of ppl) and where the nexus of their control lies. On the one hand, they represent an anti-Poroshenko
force and hold him hostage to some degree, which is a natural, traditional role for such groups
(who tend to remain in opposition, stir up trouble, etc.) On the other hand….such groups can
go overboard, or be pushed to do so instantly, and therein lies their threat/hold. Who controls
them? - All this independently of Jack Frost.
Posted by: Noirette | Oct 27, 2014 9:18:30 AM |
92
Noirette
Ukraine have just vote parties that are for war into power, do the math.
Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 27, 2014 9:58:50 AM |
93
Noirette
It was 'over' in Syria too... except not.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 27, 2014 10:35:40 AM |
94
What choice does Poroshenko have? The two eastern provinces have rejected the option of autonomy
within Ukraine, opting for independence which Ukraine can't allow. In fact it wants Crimea back.
The recent election gives Poro the majority he needs in the parliament, and a pro-EU coalition
is being formed. Of course nobody wants war, but ...
Posted by:
Don Bacon | Oct 27, 2014 11:22:29 AM |
95
Don@92 - it looks like there is a head-on-head race going 0n between Poroschenk and Yatsenyuk.
Both their parties are approx. at 21.5%. That might still change as not even 50% of the votes
seem to have been counted, so that might still change again. But it might really get tight for
Poroschenko, its even possible that Yats migth be ahead if the trend continues.
Won't change the cold-war rhetoric, the masses still believe that Russia violated Sweden's
territorial waters, proof or no proof, and is ever increasing its sphere of influence in the
Baltic sea and beyond.
Posted by: never mind | Oct 27, 2014 11:49:46 AM |
98
@89- My understanding is that the US controls pravy and svoboda, and my guess would be they
will be used along the same lines as Isis in Syria/Iraq- from freedom fighters to bogeymen.
Posted by: Nana2007 | Oct 27, 2014 11:51:19 AM |
99
Porky's son got elected to Parliament!
I'm sorry, I know I am repeating myself, but I just can't help pointing out that this "chip
off the old block" has the physical appearance of of a complete wastrel, a rake, and possibly
even a serial killer! Just look at that decadent sneer on his lily-white face.
Kolomoisky accuses Pork-Shanks of falsifying the vote!
Benny's second-in-command and alter ego, Boris Filatov, today accused Poroshenko's party
of fraud in the Dnipropetrovsk polling places. Boris says they (=Porky's people) are continuing
to hold back the counting of ballots in several large cities, including Krivoy Rog. He says
there is eye-witness evidence of vote buying, falsifications, the use of camera phones to forge
ballots [by photographing and then copying or printing?], etc etc.
Boris says he tried to contact the prosecutor's office, to let him know about these infringements,
but he (the prosecutor) wouldn't even pick up his phone. The other people he comlained to, just
told them: "Stop over-dramatizing the situation."
The main take-away from Filatov's rant is that Kolomoisky is upset with Poroshenko, there
is some kind of feud going on between those two. Just like Benny vs. Lyashko. Or Benny vs. everybody
else!
I think their analysis is correct. Early in the voting, when he thought he was winning,
Porky came out and claimed that his "victory" was a victory for the party of "peace".
Even though it is an exagerration to call Porky a "peace" candidate, it is possible
that he IS tired of war and wants to just let things slide for a while, so he can go back
to making money. Hence, his "victory", if he had it, might indeed have been a signal that
the Minsk "truce" might hold, at least for a while longer.
However, once it transpired that this was actually Yatsenuk's victory, that changes
the equation. Because Yats has campaigned as a supporter of continuing the war against Novorossiya.
If Muride's analysis is correct, then Porky himself was robbed of a huge chunk of his votes!
Returning to El Muride's analysis from the linked piece:
According to El Muride, as soon as the polling stations closed (in all places), men in balaclavas
arrived, carrying boxes chock full of "correct" votes. The local election commissioners were
told that they had to comply. The masked men knew the names and addresses of their wives, their
children.
Nobody resisted these threats except for one man, in the town of Obolonia. It was said that
Avakov personally called this man and threatened him.
Instantly, the press were given the "corrected" results of the exit-polls. The main parties
who were robbed of votes were Poroshenko, Lyashko, and the "Samopomich" party of Sadovy.
Each of the above 3 politicians was forced to sacrifice a portion of their votes, in favour
of Yats.
"Poroshenko is enraged, but there is nothing he can do about it. Just a week ago, [American
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey] Pyatt made a cryptic but vaguely threatening statement, to the
effect that America would not tolerate any dissensions or protests against the vote."
El Muride goes on to prognose that the 3 victors (Porky, Yats and Avakov) will divide the
spoils, with all 3 retaining their current jobs and positions.
Pro-Western, pro-neoliberal votes is by definition a vote for corruption, no matter how brainwashed
electorate of Ukraine is. It's just different type of corruption -- sellout of national industry and
infrastructure for pennies on the dollar to Western multinationals.
Sunday's election raises the risk of renewed fighting in the east, because some of the parties
campaigned on promises of pushing back the rebels, and Yatsenyuk, although he is a Poroshenko ally,
has been critical of the cease-fire deal.
... ... ...
The Self-Help party, led by the mayor of the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, Andriy Sadovyy,
appeared to place third in polling. It is made up of candidates who are largely new to national
politics. The Opposition Bloc, a group largely composedof former members of Yanukovych's Party of
Regions, captured about 8 percent, more than opinion polls had predicted but a sharp reversal from
the 2012 elections, when the Party of Regions won 30 percent of the vote. Its base remained in the
parts of eastern Ukraine that were still able to vote, suggesting that deep divides still exist
even in united Ukraine. A party led by former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko also appeared
to have narrowly made it into parliament.
The final parliamentary outcome will vary slightly because of Ukraine's complicated system, in
which half of the legislature's 450 seats are directly elected by local districts.
... ... ...
Many voters in Kiev on Sunday said they were weary of the war in the east, which has killed
3,700 people since April, according to U.N. estimates. On a sunny, brisk day in which temperatures
hovered just above freezing, some said they had expected more changes to come from the protest movement
centered on Kiev's Independence Square.
"We see corruption at all levels, starting from at the nursery school and going up to the
presidency," said Dmitry Sidarov, 25, who works in his family's construction business and said
he had just voted for Poroshenko's party. "Changes will happen, and they will happen after the war
ends."
Party of war till bitter end led by pro-Washington candidate "Yayts" defeated pro-Washington party
of less war by "Porki" (there is no party of peace among the winners). The US Embassy achieved the main
goal of creation of system of control in which nether Poroshenko can do anything without Yatsenyuk approval,
nor vice versa. That mean that the embassy remain the real power broker behind the curtain. Divide and
conquer strategy in action. Now the Ukrainian government is essentially a puppet of Western powers,
no matter what is the composition of parties in the Parliament. Puppet President and puppet Prime minister
are guarantied to Ukrainians. Such a perverted form or neoliberal democracy... Top 0.01% always comes
to the top.
Yatseniuk is liked in the west for his commitment to deep reforms and astute stewardship
of the economy which has been wrecked by the separatist conflict in the eastern regions
Perhaps now that Nazi Party (aka Pravyi Sektor) and the Fascist Party (Svoboda) have polled
so badly, they will lose the ministerial posts (Interior and Defence) they currently control.
However, somehow I doubt it.
You call it bad? i think they did very well and since no party got majority Poroshenko has no
choice but again distribute the power. If he wants to be alive.
If I get a Penny for every time the phrase 'Neo-Nazi' will be used on this thread, I'll
sure have a lot of Pennies
Yes - because it's really funny to see the thugs of Right Sector and Svoboda attacking people
on the street, throwing MPs into bins, parading the streets in torchlight procession, etc. -
all filmed and uploaded by themselves.
Maybe, but realize that these groups could be even more dangerous outside the government
than inside of it. And with the war in the Donbass winding down, Porky no longer has any front
to throw them at. Interesting times...
The far right voted for Yatsenyuk. That was the strategy knowing that they cannot get what
they want on their own. The east pulled in 10%. Impressive, if you consider their campaign machine
is devastated, their candidates are intimidated and physically assaulted, and the eastern most
regions did not even vote.
We don't want the Ukraine in Europe. The EU is now a fucking mess anyway, after the premature
introduction into it of impoverished eastern European economies, the last bloody thing the EU
needs now is the Ukraine in it as well. And what is it with right-wing east European governments
in Poland and the Baltic states desperately trying to drag the EU into a conflict with Russia,
for their own ends? Poland and the Baltic states hate Russia, for historical reasons. It's sod
all to do with us. I used to be a big EU fan, but the combination of domination by useless governments
in France and Germany, and Eastern Europe dragging the EU down economically and dragging it
politically into a pointless conflict with Russia is destroying the EU. What a fucking mess.
No doubt the Russian will denounce the elections as flawed & unfair - usual stuff. Hopefully
the new gov will make a better fist of things than Yanukoich's bunch.
Actually, Russia (ie. Tsar Putin) seems to have a grown-up working relationship with Poroshenko
and probably would welcome him securing another few months as president. It's Nuland's pet
"Yats" who keeps trying to put the fire out with a can of petrol.
Not many votes for the Fascists/Nazi/Right Wing or whatever the current pejorative term is.
It's almost as if Putin was just spreading toxic propaganda about Ukraine.
Maybe the rest of the Ukrainian electorate are not prepared to vote for parties which, despite
their small size, still hold key ministerial positions and are actively supporting murdering
scum like the Azov Brigade.
Putin doesn't need to spread propaganda - the murderers of Odessa spread their own neo-Nazi
propaganda.
Or are you in denial and don't you believe that shit actually happened?
However, an election cannot cleanse their leaders hands of all the innocent blood spilt.
Almost 400 civilians have died since the "ceasefire" by Ukraine government shelling of residential
areas. Almost daily shelling od Donetsk by Ukie Army.
Evidently Russia's never ending round of accusations that Ukrainians are all fascists has
gone down well! Freedom of choice is a precious thing, and Ukrainians have shown that they wish
to make that choice and it doesn't include being bullied by Russia.
Evidently Russia's never ending round of accusations that Ukrainians are all fascists
has gone down well!
What was clear from the first weeks of the coup regimes existence was that were a number
of Neo-Nazis in key regime posts and given their voter share that number was too large.
Also it's well known the the National Guard, created after the coup, recruited heavily from
the Neo-Nazi Right Sector. These Neo-Nazi militias are now in the east fighting ''terrorists''.
The Right Sector spearheaded the coup, surrounding Parliament while the remaining MPs voted
to remove Yanukovich.
Nobody has ever said Ukrainians are all fascists, just they were the street muscle, the enforcers,
the foot soldiers and for their share of the vote had/have a disproportionate amount of power.
But some people HAVE said that "Ukrainians are all fascists". These people are the ones like
Peabody94 who put false quotes into the mouths of those they disagree with.
A strawman technique used with gusto several times already in this thread by supporters of
the Ukrainian regime.
Would it be too cynical to suggest that Ukrainian voters' sudden love for 'pro-Europe' parties
has less to do with a passionate love of liberal democracy and more to do with a belief that
if Merkel and the Poles and Baltic countries and Carl Bildt can scrape them into the EU, a massive
next influx of funds from rich west european countries will eventually double their living standards,
plus they'll all have the option to move to London and earm ten times more than they do now?
Cynical possibly. But with an element of truth. And something bizareely that no western politician
or journalist even dare, it appears, suggest.
So who pays the gas bill then? it will be the EU of course, which means UK taxpayers, If you
think thats fair them get out the bunting and start singing from the rooftops by all means.
britain backed EU, america and the rest of the world when imposing sanctions on russia. Now
pay the price...
Ukraine will probably join EU in 10 years. Ukrainian men will come and take British jobs,
Ukrainian women will come and take British men for money and pretend to love them... That's
how it works, that's what British people want: to oppose russia and to support Ukraine
Your fellow-travellers state that the EU will take Ukraine's natural resources and export
to it detroying its industry. Negatives all around hey? Far brighter people are in the Ukrainian
government than you and I. Ukraine wants to join the EU, Russia only opposes it.
Though a hawk in dealings with Russia, Yatseniuk is liked in the west for his commitment
to deep reforms and astute stewardship of the economy which has been wrecked by the separatist
conflict in the eastern regions.
''deep reforms'' mean IMF/EU austerity that nobody in the east got to vote for because Yatseniuk
and his buddies tore up
the EU brokered deal back in Feb ,that would have brought in election now anyway, and grabbed
power.
Grab power in a coup, get rid of the oppsotion, and the IMF and EU and pro-EU oligarchs are
free to loot what's left of Ukraine.
With propaganda you can accomplish anything. Just look at the Scottish referendum. I lived
with a Ukrainian and he says all the channels there are saying Putin is going to invade and
only the EU can help them. So they vote with fear not truth. Same as everywhere these days.
February 2014: violent U.S.-supported mob riots in Kiev overthrow the democratically elected
government, after armed thugs storm government buildings (189 police suffer gunshot wounds at
the Maidan in a three-day period).
U.S./NATO/EU reaction: all hail the democratic result!
October 2014: the Ukraine holds elections, after suppressing pro-Russian media and legal
harassment of pro-Russian parties.
U.S./NATO/EU reaction: all hail the democratic result!
How can 100,000 protesters be organisted by the US? Where is the evidence?
Using money and organization from various NGO structures. You know, that's so natural for
unorganized protests - they all come on the main square - and as a magic there is a huge scene
build on, various musician come (and paid), centralized support of food, informational support.
5 "Nuland billions on NGO" make this possible.
stuperman, I didn't say that the U.S. "organized" 100,000 protestors, I said the U.S. "supported"
the "mob riots." This U.S. support was critical------ the U.S. could have prevented the coup
if it had wanted to. Its support was financial, political, diplomatic, coordinated with similar-minded
Western powers, and was both covert and overt. These are basic facts---they don't need to be
sourced every time they are cited. If you need a citation, the Guardian articles on the Ukraine
this year are a good starting point.
The fact is that the U.S. spent $5 billion in the Ukraine,
nominally to promote "democratic values," but consistently supported armed "protestors" (thugs
might be a better word) who violently overthrew an elected government. Rather than voicing any
reservations over this unconstitutional coup, the U.S. immediately embraced the coup leaders
and has supported them ever since. Within three weeks after the coup, Yats was in the Oval office
for photo ops intended to legitimize the coup.
If these facts do not square with your ideology, perhaps your ideology should change to accommodate
the facts----- because facts don't change.
No, they can sod off. We are not having Ukraine in the EU. People are sick of the EU's politically
motivated Drang Nach Osten diluting the wealth of western Europe. It's over. Even in the Baltic
states people earn a tenth of what they do in the UK. Trying to join such different economies
in a united whole is insanity. And Ukraine is the last straw. Whatever the sodding polticians
say, Ukraine ain't coming into the EU.
Only two hours after the polls had closed Poroshenko said "The majority of voters were in
favour of the political forces that support the president's peace plan and seek a political
solution to the situation in the Donbass"
Has Poroshenko now become clairvoyant? or is he saying what he paymaster, the CIA tell him?
he is extremely arrogant, particularly when Yatseniuk's People's Front and other groups have
also got votes.
The US, CIA, Poroshenko has not 'got it' the people of east do not want to be part of his
puppet government, and dictated to, until they accept that, there will never be any peace.
Yep, that's the plan. So Hungary cannot subsidize its pensioners earning a couple of hundred
euros per month and thus unable to pay their gas bill, but we are supposed to send free gas
to the Kiev regime. Thankfully, the government stopped the reverse flow few a few weeks ago,
which is illegal in any case. There seems to be quite a few Chocoking and Yats supporters here,
they should perk out the money for Ukraine's gas bill.
Oh for god's sake don't piss on the parade. The western narrative from both politicians and
mainstream media is that this is a triumph of western democracy, lighting a spark in the darkness
of Russian-dominated Ukraine. Any questioning of the passion of Ukrainian for the pure air of
western liberty, on the grounds that a) not many turned out and b) many are probably voting
just becuase they think they'll get EU funds and the freedom to leave the Ukraine and work elswhere
in the EU, will not be welcome.
Though a hawk in dealings with Russia, Yatseniuk is liked in the west for his commitment
to deep reforms and astute stewardship of the economy which has been wrecked by the separatist
conflict in the eastern regions.
Astute stewardship of the economy (sic). The Ukraine economy has been on the economic/financial
ropes basically since independence under the various oligarch regimes. The civil war just made
a bad situation worse. Yatsenyiuk simply wants to sell Ukraine to the IMF.
Playing to the Atlanticist gallery he also claims that Russia wants to annex the whole Ukraine.
Pardon me but no-one wants to take over the Ukraine given its total basket-case economic status.
Ukraine is an open ended economic/financial liability. What Putin wants is to stay out as much
as possible but give the separatists the minimum support which makes Ukraine's membership of
NATO impossible. What the EUSA wants is to position its Anti Balllistic Missile system on the
western borders of Russia, and access to natural gas deposits to be exploited by the Burisma
company which includes a choice selection on its board of directors including Yanukovich, ex-Polish
PM Kwasnieski and Hunter Biden, son of US Vice President, Joe Biden.
As for the election, well another day, another western Ukrianian oligarch. Plus ca change.
Excellent insight, unlike all the sheeple who simply want to voice their dislike/hatred of
Putin, they are simply propaganda sponges. They can't bother to do any real research into what's
really going on and find out who the real enemies are for Ukraine. All the while the real vultures
wait to feast.
I assume that the US/EU expect to fish in muddy Ukrainian pond limited by ritual contributions
in a couple of hundred million dollars? It's very vain. Neither China nor Russia will pay for
your banquet and I afraid that IMF too.
Moscow went on to back separatist rebellions in Ukraine's industrialised east which have
killed more than 3,700 people.
This is a completely inaccurate statement. The ant-maidan defence forces in the East of Ukraine
were attacked by forces from Kiev. The civil war that ensued resulted in 3,700 deaths. The killing
were related to the Kiev Junta's decision to attack the East, nothing to do with Russia's support
for them
No mention either about how Proshenko and Yatseniuk's policies of ethnic cleansing have led
to 1 million Ukrainian citizens being displaced. It's a sad sham of a vote and a reflection
of how Ukraine has collapsed under the support of the US.
See the WSJ article, an American reporter in UA held territory might encounter a certain bias
or resistance by locals (here, Marson spent the full day in Kuhrakhove, not Kiev, and actually
spoke to people from Donbas, not government officials).
It is interesting that candid reporting is possible, also that it seems a significant proportion
of the locals there openly supported DNR, in a town under UA military supervision. This is not
to knock the idea of elections, but some of the realities that might be associated with the
lower turn-out in some places, and there may be a linkage with those sympathies.
BBC last night finally assessed (in final terms) a 40% participation rate (how reliable is
the 50% figure, and why the change, a normal question?).
THE tentacles of the balkanization policy of fragmenting states into small entities has spread
worldwide initiated by civil rights societies at first with protests which have the flare of popular
uprisings against the incumbent governments for democracy, human rights, minority rights and secularism.
More is yet to come in the Middle East using local collaborators and once the West has achieved
its objective it will discard them as they did with Saddam Hussein and are now in the process of
doing with Nouri Al-Maliki in Iraq. One must remember how Al-Qaeda had been declared enemy "Number
One" by the US-NATO yet Al-Qaeda is fighting on the side of the US-NATO in Syria (Al-Nusrat) and
Al-Qaeda groups (LIFG) listed among the UN terror list deposed Muammar Gaddafi and destroyed Libya,
which ranked as the number one country in Africa under the UN Human Index.
Aside from the balkanization of Iraq, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and
Syria. Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters assigned to the Office of the deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence
had redrawn the map of the Middle East as far as Baluchistan, a province of Pakistan and called
it "Blood Borders".
The creation of Kurdistan will change the existing map of Turkey, Iran and Syria besides that
of Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will not remain immune from the New Middle East. A new Palestinian
state may emerge in the existing Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which traditionally is greater Palestine.
Israel will enjoy the entire Palestinian territory as it existed under the British Mandate. West
Bank, the proposed territory for the Palestinian state is a reservoir for fresh underground water
and Gaza offshore contains rich gas fields. Thus Palestine is never to be realized. The Palestinian
Authority is fictitious as there is no Palestine since 1948. President Obama had said at the AIPAC
Conference, following his selection as the Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in the
US Presidential Election in 2007 that Jerusalem will remain as the indivisible capital of Israel.
Every effort to have Peace Talk between Israel and the Palestinian Authority for a two-state solution
since President Obama came to power is an illusion for there can be no Palestine without (East)
Jerusalem as the capital. The Hashemite dynasty may find itself reverted to its traditional home
in the Hejaz. Fred Halliday, the author of Arabia Without Sultans suggests that in the wake of any
threat to the flow of Saudi oil to the West, there may be no kingdom but a divided Arabian Peninsula
with its eastern section under direct US military control and the western section, the Hejaz with
sacred cities of Makkah and Madinah under the Hashemite control. The map prepared by Peters is also
indicative of independent states in the existing central and eastern Saudi territories and of an
Islamic Sacred State along the Hejaz.
The Balkanization of the MENA region falls in line with Pentagon's Full Spectrum Dominance
Doctrine", which aims for the dominance of the world in every aspect: strategic, political,
economic (agricultural and non-agricultural) cultural and military (nuclear and conventional) by
the United States in the wake of a rising China as a global power in alliance with a reemerging
Russia, and several multilateral blocs such as BRICS and SCO to name a few, challenging the western
monetary system backed by a show of military power. For the implementation of the Full Spectrum
Dominance, Pentagon has set up Command Centres throughout the world such as the EU Command, CENTCOM,
AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM. With over 800 bases overseas, the Command Centres serve as intelligence headquarters
for each specific region, promoting American and western economic and strategic interests. The Balkanization
Plan, which ensures a better US grip over small states extends into the former Soviet territories
in Eastern Europe (Ukraine and Georgia) and Central Asia, African continent covering Egypt, Somalia,
Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Kenya, and even includes the Peoples Republic of China, which has seen
disturbances in Xingjian and Tibet. Since the US-NATO occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, the extreme
western region of Xingjian province of China, which borders Afghanistan, has seen repeated insurgencies
in Muslim communities. The Chinese government has expressed concern about the security in that region
and says Muslim extremists receive help from neighboring countries. Also of security concern for
the Chinese is Tibet where Human Rights Activists incite pro-Tibet protests and a group called Reporters
without Borders staged their protest at the Beijing Summer Olympics in 2008. India which houses
the exiled Tibetan government is suspected of inciting protests against the Chinese authorities
within Tibet. Ralph
Peters echoed the sad consequences of the Balkanization Plan as envisioned under Pentagon's "Full
Spectrum Dominance Doctrine" in 1997:
There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will
be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the
headlines….The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy
and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.
With regard to the role of Israel in this mayhem, former Secretary Kissinger said when "the great
Russian bear and Chinese sickle will be roused from their slumber and this is when Israel will have
to fight with all its might and weapons to kill as many Arabs as it can. Hopefully if all goes well,
half the Middle East will be Israel". Russian and Chinese veto at the Security Council against US-UK-EU
resolution to militarily intervene in the Syrian civil war and the formation of the Palestinian
unity government, which has received worldwide acclamation are perhaps, warning bells for Israel
to wage an all-out war against the Arabs to maintain its hegemonic dominance in the MENA region,
through the full implementation of the Yinon Plan.
The exercise of force by great powers should be classified according to the category of foreign
actor being dealt with. For instance, when dealing with non-state actors, the deployment of force
is an exercise of 'pacification'. The counterpart is of course guerrilla warfare or insurgency.
It is the only available option to security actors who are too weak to raise conventional armies.
The line between conventional armies and rebel militias is murky. The rebel militia will, as soon
as the state relinquishes power, become a 'state actor'. The important point is that pacification
is the natural state of an empire at the periphery: only in exceptional circumstances does the territorial
control exercised by an imperial Metropole at the periphery fail to elicit armed resistance. The
Romans, the British, the Mughals, and so on, were constantly engaged in pacification operations
in remote margins of their empire. When the imperial Metropole decays and its ability to impose
its will weakens, unrest spreads in the periphery, and rebels gain ground. If the empire collapses
due to internal decay, therefore, it looks as if it had been brought down by 'barbarians'. For instance,
Max Boot glowingly
talks about "their consistent ability, ever since the barbarian assaults on Rome, to humble
the world's greatest empires." This is an optical illusion.
Another category of the use of military coercion is with regards to weak states that are essentially
defenseless against great powers. The problem of resistance or rather intemperance of such weak
states is a minor irritant to great powers. One that can be swiftly converted into one of pacification
by means of occupation, but it is more common to replace the intemperate sovereign with a puppet.
This is properly understood to be an exercise of 'gunboat diplomacy', although it need not
involve sea power at all. The point is that the sovereignty of the weak is a matter of choice of
great powers: sooner or later such states will be either absorbed by a stronger neighbor, fall into
the sphere of influence of a stronger power, or serve as buffers between two powers. The use of
military force is such circumstances is a 'police operation'. There are numerous such operations
in every given year and only someone totally ignorant of international relations would regard them
as anything but routine. The strong will demand obedience and the weak must submit, such is the
law of the jungle.
A third category of military coercion is with regard to what may be deemed to be minor or regional
powers. There are many regions in the world where the distribution of war potential allows for the
creation of regional balance of power systems. That is,
regional
security complexes. Such subsystems are fundamentally different from the international balance
of power system due to the simple fact that they do not share the most important characteristic
of the latter. Namely, they are not characterized by anarchy. Thus, neorealism does not apply
unless the system is totally isolated and every power is left to its own devices. In fact,
the predominant form of balancing of regional powers is to seek great power patrons. This has been
amply documented.[1]
The reason is obvious: the value of an alliance with a great power is more than what may be obtained
by internal efforts or regional alliances.
In this mezzanine floor of international relations, military coercion takes the form of a judicious
mixture of 'gunboat diplomacy' and balancing. Great powers will seek regional allies (and increase
support for already existing ones) to contain and balance a regional power. Moreover, they will
seek military bases and make efforts to bring power to bear in a region in case of a confrontation.
Coercive diplomacy is preferred to large-scale military action for the good reason that it offers
'more bang for the buck'. Great powers prefer to use 'carrots and sticks' to obtain diplomatic concessions
from regional powers, instead of outright invasion and occupation because the costs of pacification
are unbounded and uncertain. For instance, the United States can at a time of its choosing invade
and depose the Islamic regime. However, any reasonable cost-benefit analysis reveals that it is
better off using the threat of force, covert action, and economic warfare to secure Iran's obedience.
The costs of such a policy are reasonable, and more importantly, predictable. The costs of invading
and occupying Iran might exceed those of the adventure in Iraq which has been estimated to be upwards
of $3 trillion as of 2008.[2]
That number is approximately equal to the size of the German economy, the industrial powerhouse
of Europe.
The Iraq debacle bears witness to the categorical misjudgment of the Bush White House.
They thought they were dealing with the second category: a minor irritant that could be removed
and the problem transformed to one of pacification, furthermore, that pacification itself would
not be too costly and the Americans could leave an obedient substitute to Saddam without a decade
long campaign. In fact, they were dealing with a regional power which served American interests
in the regional balance of power in the
Persian Gulf. This is immediate from the strategic effects of the Iraq debacle: the removal
of the Iraqi pole from the regional calculus means that the United States is now required to expend
significantly more energy to balance a relatively stronger Iran. Moreover, it has made the US more
dependent on
Saudi
Arabia, increased the bargaining power of the latter, and reduced US' leverage in the region.
The smaller Arab Gulf states have increasingly come under the Saudi sphere of influence, as witnessed
by the events in
Bahrain.
The fourth and most important category of coercive diplomacy is vis-à-vis other great powers.
That is, Weltpolitik. This requires a finely calibrated and nuanced approach where credibility
is most important. Here,
neorealism applies with full force since the costs of mistakes are infinitely higher: the very
survival of the great power is at stake. Great power statesmen need to calculate the true balance
of power and conduct diplomacy in light of that knowledge. Disagreements and uncertainly about the
balance of forces increase the probability of great power conflict. Stability can persist for long
periods if there is little disagreement about the balance of power. Periods when the balance is
shifting rapidly are the most dangerous since rising great powers are eager to transform the international
order in their favor faster than established great powers would prefer. Limited trials of strength
are almost unavoidable, since otherwise disagreements over the balance of power persist.
In the years preceding the First World War, the only way Germany could've been dissuaded from
war was if Great Britain made it absolutely clear that she would not allow Germany to occupy Belgium
and destroy French power. German policymakers would not have gone to war if they did not see an
opportunity to knock France out of the war before Britain could mobilize on the continent: otherwise
German hegemony on the continent would then be a fait accompli for Britain. Fifty million soldiers
– an entire generation of young men in Europe – had to die for Great Britain's diplomatic blunder.
Coming to the present, a root cause of the Sino-Japanese
islands conflict
is uncertainty over American intentions. In 1996, State Department officials essentially declared
that the United States maintains a position of "neutrality" with regard to the islands. These islands
were annexed by Japan when it crushed China in the Sino-Japanese war of 1895. After the Second World
War, they were used a firing range by the Americans. In 1972, they were handed back for Japan to
"administer". Whether or not America's treaty obligation to protect Japan applies to these islands
has been a matter of much controversy. The current spat has its origins in Secretary of State Clinton's
recent remark that the treaty did, in fact, apply. It is pretty clear that the United States would
not allow any significant Chinese military action against Japan. However, it is also clear that
it will not go to war with China if the latter downed a couple of Japanese fighter jets. China knows
this. Hence, all the belligerence.
This is not a diplomatic failure of the Obama White House: there is a real commitment problem
for the United States. It makes no sense to trigger a high-cost confrontation with China over a
collection of islands that are of no strategic significance whatsoever. However, unambiguously declaring
that they are indeed under US protection means that if China were to occupy them tomorrow, the US
would face the unpleasant choice of losing credibility or embarking on a confrontation that it does
not want. The first would tempt China further by implying that the United States may in fact renege
on its security commitments in Asia. The latter raises the possibility of an all out great power
war. On the other hand, loudly declaring US' neutrality on the matter makes a Sino-Japanese conflict
over the islands much more likely since China would see a significant gain in international status
by means of coercive diplomacy vis-à-vis Japan. US' optimal strategy is therefore maintaining ambiguity
about its intentions: the possibility of a US intervention serves to dissuade Chinese adventurism
and the plausible deniability of the US commitment solves the credibility problem.
To the clear eyed realist, it's obvious that is it time for China to coerce Japan into relinquishing
exclusive control of the islands. But in the final calculus, even a theory as powerful as neorealism
cannot explain everything in international power politics: statesmen often fail to seize the moment,
sometimes spectacularly. [Still waiting for a scholar to take up research into the German General
Staff's thinking in
1905.] That
being said, the international arena is a tough neighborhood. You don't get to complain if you get
muscled out because you failed to close the deal.
[1] Walt,
Stephen M. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1987. Print.
[2] Stiglitz,
Joseph E., and Linda Bilmes. The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.
New York: W.W. Norton, 2008. Print.
The United States is pursuing a
strategy in Ukraine that it will come to regret. The White House has
leaked
a proposal to give precise, real-time locations of surface-to-air missiles in eastern Ukraine
to the government in Kiev. Such an information pipeline has an extremely high military value to
the government fighting Russian-backed rebels in the east. The rebels' anti-air capabilities have
been critical to holding back the central government's advance. They have brought down a significant
number of Ukrainian warplanes, including at least five in the past 10 days. That the government
in Kiev is seeking ways to counter these capabilities is, thus, not surprising. What is surprising
is that the United States is considering providing high-value, actionable military intelligence
to it. It would constitute a major escalation in the proxy war. It is plain to demonstrate that
Moscow would have no choice but to respond by escalating its own support for the rebellion. If push
came to shove, Moscow will send in a military force to secure its perimeter. The West has
simply no way to counter that. A more counter-productive policy is hard to imagine.
The Ukrainian government's counter-offensive has achieved a moderate degree of success over the
past few weeks. Government forces have recaptured a number of towns in recent fighting, including
the city of Lysychansk. These developments prompted Russia to escalate the flow of arms to the rebels.
Putin is acting out of fear of losing in eastern Ukraine; not out of inborn imperial ambitions,
despite claims in
a certain well-respected Western newspaper to the contrary. The demonization of Herr Putin in
Western media is a bad sign. Not because Putin is a great guy. Whatever his personal qualities,
he is simply trying to shore up Russia's security, just as any responsible Russian leader would.
The reason why it is a bad sign is because, while such a moralizing tone may be useful to mobilize
Western public opinion, it is inconsistent with a dispassionate evaluation of realities that bear
on actual decision-making.
Any serious analysis of the situation has to begin with the observation that Ukraine is squarely
in Russia's backyard. A Western-allied government in Ukraine is inconsistent with Russia's security
interests. The eastward expansion of Nato by the Clinton administration was ill-considered. It did
not seem especially stupid in 1991-1998, when Russia was weak and the US could impose its will in
Russia's backyard. But it ought to have been foreseen that Russia would inevitably regain at least
some of its former strength. And when that happened, the United States' marginal interests in the
region would undermine the credibility of its extended deterrence.
The US has continued to meddle in Russia's backyard. This has predictably backfired. The first
to crumble was the American penetration of the Caspian Sea region. The realignment of the region's
major polities was effected without violence in the mid-2000s. Russia managed to arm-twist the post-Soviet
republics to scuttle plans for a pipeline to the EU that would bypass Russian territory. Georgia
wasn't so lucky. Believing that Washington had its back, the small state foolishly confronted the
Kremlin over break-away provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russian military intervention in
2008 ensured that the provinces would never return to Georgian control, and reestablished Russia
as the regional hegemon in the Caucasus. There wasn't much Washington could do about it except issue
diplomatic protests. Washington's meddling in the Ukraine eventually convinced a faction of Ukrainian
oligarchs that the time was ripe to reorient the country to the west. US diplomats and intelligence
services played a key role in destabilizing the Ukrainian polity. Just as in the Caspian Sea region
and the Caucasus, Russia responded to the heightened threat by responding aggressively.
A peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian crises is impossible without Western recognition of Russia's
security interests. While the United States can support and arm the western oriented central government
in Kiev, it does not have sufficient interests at stake to militarily counter a Russian military
intervention. The best it can do is create trouble for Russia. For now, Washington seems to have
doubled down on its meddling. This is very bad news for the Ukrainian people. It is also a bad strategy
for the United States. A much more conflictual relationship with Moscow precludes cooperation in
Syria and Iraq, and over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Much more threateningly, it pushes Moscow closer
to Beijing. If Russia bandwagons with China-as it will if Washington doesn't stop meddling in Russia's
backyard-it will make balancing China considerably harder. In that scenario, China will not have
to worry about its western perimeter, freeing up power resources to confront US primacy in the maritime
zone. China is not the Soviet Union. It has the potential to be stronger than the United
States. And the US has never before faced an opponent that was potentially stronger than itself.
Let's not make this any harder than it has to be, shall we? Washington can start on a much more
prudent policy by scuttling the proposal to supply actionable military intelligence to Russia's
troubled neighbour.
To put it bluntly, bandwagoning with China is Russia's only viable option. This was probably
going to happen sooner or later. The fact that it is happening now is the result of the Washington's
ham-handed response to the Ukrainian crisis. Imagine Washington's response to Mexico becoming China's
junior geopolitical ally. And unlike the non-existent threat to the United States from the south,
Russia has been repeatedly invaded from the west. Extending Nato all the way to the Russian border
may have seemed like a good idea to proponents of American primacy when Russian power hit its nadir
in the 1990s. With the Putin restoration, Russia has resumed its role as the dominant land power
in Eurasia. Now, it only serves to sour Western relations with Russia, thereby pushing Russia prematurely
into Chinese arms.
Alongside Russia, the Obama White House risks losing India as well. As the invitation extended
to the leaders of India's neighbours to attend his swearing in ceremony demonstrates, Mr. Modi has
sound strategic instincts. He intends to preside over a decade of rapid modernization. Modi's dream
is for India's great power status to be unambiguous: India ought to become powerful enough to deal
with other great powers as equals. This is a tall order. But any significant increase in the war-making
capabilities of the Indian state will open up hitherto unavailable strategic possibilities. Sensing
Mr. Modi's disconnect with Washington-which denied him a visa for a decade because he presided over
a pogrom-the Chinese are hopeful for a strategic opening. Is a Sino-Indian alliance a real possibility?
And even if the Chinese are open to it, does it make sense for India?
India's geostrategic location is very favourable. It dominates the Indian Ocean and is protected
in the north and the east by the Himalayas. If India were to become a naval power of the first rank,
it would be in a position to impose naval supremacy on the entire Indian Ocean. It would then control
all the sea-lanes between Suez, Singapore, and the Cape of Good Hope; which together account for
half the world's sea-borne commerce and energy. It cannot achieve this without a surrender of US'
global naval primacy. On the other hand, India's only great power neighbour is China which is considerably
stronger than India, and therefore, India's biggest security concern. Geopolitical realism suggests
an alliance with the United States against China. However, bandwagoning with its more powerful neighbour
could also be a very attractive option, especially if it expects China to prevail against the United
States. If India were to become a revisionist power-a real possibility after Mr. Modi's election-it
could conceivably fight on the Chinese side, with the understanding that once the Americans are
kicked out, India and China would divvy up Asia into separate spheres of influence: China preponderant
in the Western Pacific and India preponderant west of Singapore.
Such strategic possibilities will only open up if Mr. Modi is successful in catapulting India
into great power status. India will not be a polar power-strong enough to decide the outcome of
a war between the two most powerful states-so it would be well advised to either sit it out or join
the winning coalition. Even so, it would be strong enough to affect the relative probabilities,
thereby making it an attractive partner. This means that Mr. Modi has significant leverage against
the Chinese and the Americans; leverage he ought to, and will, milk to secure advantageous trade
agreements, technology transfers, diplomatic support, and arms deals. As India's growth rates start
climbing, Mr. Modi's leverage will only increase.
The world is starting to look more and more like the late nineteenth century. That's great. The
policy tensor is bored of unipolarity
Compare argumentation with Sociología crítica To be a neoliberal
society and be free from US dominance is not very realistic until oil became at least twice more expensive
and neoliberal model of globalization start collapsing. While critique of the US policy is up to the
point, what is the alternative to the current situation? Russia is weaker then the USA neoliberal state
and so far it does not look like it decided to abandon neoliberalism. And if not, then what is the point
of confrontation ? Clearly the USA has geopolitical ambitions in Eastern Europe. And they want to exploit
their status as the pre-eminent neo-liberal state, like Moscow was for socialist camp, so to speak to
squeeze Russia, as a dissident state, which deviates from neoliberal agenda. Ukraine just fall victim
of this squeezing. Collateral damage so to speak. And the key problem with Ukraine neither the USA nor
EU want to compensate the damage their actions inflicted, to offer Marshall plan to Kiev.
...There is growing evidence of the contradiction between the need for collective, cooperative
efforts to provide adequate responses to challenges common to all, and the aspirations of a number
of countries for domination and the revival of archaic bloc thinking based on military drill discipline
and the erroneous logic of "friend or foe."
The US-led Western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy, rule of law and
human rights within individual countries,acts from a completely opposite position in the international
arena, rejecting the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states enshrined in the UN
Charter and tires to decide for everyone what is good or bad.
Washington has openly declared its right to the unilateral use of force anywhere to uphold its
own interests. Military interference has become common, even despite the dismal outcome of the use
of power that the US has carried out in recent years.
The sustainability of the international system has been severely shaken by NATO bombardment of
Yugoslavia, intervention in Iraq, the attack against Libya and the failure of the operation in Afghanistan.
Thanks only to intensive diplomatic efforts, an aggression against Syria was averted in 2013.
There is the involuntary impression that the goal of various "colour revolutions" and other
goals to change unsuitable regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.
Today, Ukraine has fallen victim to such an arrogant policy. The situation there has revealed
the remaining deep-rooted systemic flaws of the existing architecture in the Euro-Atlantic area.
The West has embarked upon a course towards "the vertical structuring of humanity" tailored
to its own hardly inoffensive standards. After they declared victory in the Cold War and the "end
of history," the US and the EU opted for expanding the geopolitical area under their control without
taking into account the balance of legitimate interests of all the people of Europe. Our Western
partners did not heed our numerous alerts on the unacceptability of the violation of the principles
of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, and time and again avoided serious cooperative work
to establish a common space of equal and indivisible security and cooperation from the Atlantic
to the Pacific. The Russian proposal to draft a European security treaty was rejected. We were told
directly that only the members of the North Atlantic Alliance could have the legally binding guarantees
of security, and NATO expansion to the East continued in spite of the promises to the contrary given
previously. NATO's change toward hostile rhetoric and to the drawdown of its cooperation with Russia
even to the detriment of the West's own interests, and the additional build-up of the military
infrastructure at Russian borders made the inability of the alliance to change its genetic code
embedded during the Cold War era obvious.
The US and the EU supported the coup in Ukraine and reverted to outright justification of any
act by the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities that used suppression by force on the part of the Ukrainian
people that had rejected the attempts to impose an anti-constitutional way of life to the entire
country and wanted to defend its rights to a native language, culture and history. It was precisely
the aggressive assault on these rights that compelled the population of Crimea to take destiny into
its own hands and make a choice in favor of self-determination. This was an absolutely free choice
no matter what has been invented by those who were, in the first place, responsible for the internal
conflict in Ukraine.
The attempts to distort the truth and to hide the facts behind blanket accusations have been
undertaken at all stages of the Ukrainian crisis. Nothing has been done to track down and prosecute
those responsible for February's bloody events at Maidan and the massive loss of human life in Odessa,
Mariupol and other regions in Ukraine. The scale of appalling humanitarian disaster provoked
by the acts of the Ukrainian army in southeastern Ukraine has been deliberately underscored. Recently,
new horrible facts have been brought to light as mass graves were discovered in the outskirts of
Donetsk. Despite UNSC Resolution 2166 a thorough and independent investigation of the circumstances
into the loss of the Malaysian airliner over the territory of Ukraine has been protracted. The culprits
of all these crimes must be identified and brought to justice. Otherwise it is unrealistic to expect
a national reconciliation in Ukraine.
... ... ...
Let me recall the not too distant past. As a condition for establishing diplomatic relations
with the Soviet Union in 1933 the U.S. government demanded of Moscow the guarantees of non-interference
in the domestic affairs of the US and obligations not to take any actions with a view to changing
political or social order in America. At that time Washington feared a revolutionary virus and the
above guarantees were put on record and were based on reciprocity. Perhaps, it makes sense to
return to this item and reproduce that demand of the US government on a universal scale. Shouldn't
the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the unacceptability of interference into the domestic
affairs of sovereign states and non-recognition of a coup as a method for changing power? The time
has come to exclude from international interaction the attempts of illegitimate pressure of some
states on others. The meaningless and counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions is obvious
if we review the US blockade of Cuba.
The policy of ultimatums and philosophy of supremacy and domination do not meet the requirements
of the 21st century and run counter to the objective process of development for a polycentric
and democratic world order.
Russia is promoting a positive and unifying agenda. We always were and will be open to discussion
of the most complex issues no matter how unsolvable they would seem in the beginning. We will be
prepared to search for compromises and the balancing of interests and go as far as to exchange concessions
provided only that the discussion is respectful and equal.
... ... ...
New dividing lines in Europe should not be allowed, even more so given that under globalization
these lines can turn into a watershed between the West and the rest of the world. It should be stated
honestly that no one has a monopoly on truth and that no one can tailor global and regional processes
to one's own needs. There is no alternative today to the development of consensus regarding the
rules of sustainable global governance under new historical circumstances - with full respect for
cultural and civilizational diversity in the world and the multiplicity of the models of development.
It will be a difficult and perhaps tiresome task to achieve such a consensus on every issue. Nevertheless
the recognition of the fact that democracy in every state is the "worst form of government, except
for all the others" also took time to break through, until Winston Churchill passed his verdict.
The time has come to realize the inevitability of this axiom including in international affairs
where today there is a huge deficit of democracy. Of course someone will have to break up centuries-old
stereotypes and abandon the claims to eternal uniqueness. But there is no other way. Consolidated
efforts can only be built on the principles of mutual respect and by taking into account the interests
of each other as is the case, for example, under the framework of BRICS and the SCO, the G20 and
the UN Security Council.
The theory of the advantages of cooperative action has been supported by practice: this includes
progress in the settlement of the situation around the Iranian nuclear program and the successful
conclusion of the chemical demilitarization of Syria. Also, regarding the issue of chemical weapons,
we would like to obtain authentic information on the condition of the chemical arsenals in Libya.
We understand that our NATO colleagues, after bombing this country in violation of a UNSC Resolution,
would not like to "stir up"" the mayhem they created. However, the problem of uncontrolled Libyan
chemical arsenals is too serious to turn a blind eye to. The UN Secretary General has an obligation
to show his responsibility on this issue as well.
What is important today is to see the global priorities and avoid making them hostages to a unilateral
agenda. There is an urgent need to refrain from double standards in the approaches to conflict settlement.
Everybody largely agrees that it is a key issue to resolutely counter the terrorists who are attempting
to control increasingly larger territo
ries in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and the Sahara-Sahel area.
If this is the case then this task should not be sacrificed to ideological schemes or a desire to
retaliate. Terrorists, no matter what their slogans, should remain outside the law.
Moreover, it goes without saying that the fight against terrorism should be based solidly on
international law. The unanimous adoption of a number of UNSC Resolutions including those on the
issue of foreign terrorist operatives became an important stage in this fight. And conversely, the
attempts to act against the Charter of our Organization do not contribute to the success of cooperative
efforts. The struggle against terrorists in Syria should be structured in cooperation with the Syrian
government, which has clearly stated its willingness to join it. Damascus has already proven its
ability to work with the international community by delivering on its obligations under the programme
to dispose of its chemical weapons.
Left-biased, but still very interesting assessment of the situation. Especially in the first part
(the first 14 questions) Quote: "All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based
on similar strategies (i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because
Russia does not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. "
Un amable lector de este blog ha realizado un resumen en inglés de nuestro artículo Las catedrales
del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar; es un resumen diferente al que nosotros hubiéramos hecho,
pero de interés sin duda alguna. Ha sido publicado como apoyo a una pregunta en un coloquio con
el economista ruso Mikhail Khazin organizado por The vineyard of the saker. Publicaremos aquí la
respuesta.
Question: Does Russia represent an alternative to the current western economic/social model?
Or is this view an illusion based only on the conflict between some traditional vs. post-modern
values? / Arturo
For context to the question I will provide a translation / paraphrase / summary of some key points
in the following article Las catedrales del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar
The article contains and numbers many more points (36 in total) but I have translated/summarized
only the first 14 (the rest is provided is a very raw translation --NNB)
Moscow cannot defeat the American plans – i.e. the Anglo Zionist world elite – without
contradicting the class interests of its own elites (Russian oligarchs): This is impossible
because the system of sanctions and the blocking of access to their accounts and assets in the
West generates such contradictions in the Russian power elites that, in practice, it prevents
them from reacting adequately; it puts them on their knees before the American plans.
Russia *could* resist those plans, since it possesses the strength, sense of identity,
historical memory and material resources to do so. But in order to do so, its ruling elites
would have to take measures that would affect their own class status within both the Russian
system and the international system. And we can see that these are measures they are not
willing to take. On the other hand, the Anglo Zionists suffer no such internal contradiction.
Quite the opposite, in fact: Their own interest as the supporting base of the globalist
hyperclass necessarily forces them to maintain the challenge to the end.
By the term Anglo Zionists, in this analysis, we mean the dominant power group whose territorial
and military base resides in the United States, and whose center originates in the historical
and social links of the Anglo-American oligarchies, branching off to other historical central
metropolis in Europe or other power centers in different parts of the world.
The concept is made up of two elements that must be explained: the first, the "anglo" reference,
has to do with the North American British connection [...] the second, the "zionist" reference,
has to do with the interconnection among the economic and financial power groups that maintain
various kinds of links with Israel. It is not so much a reference to ethnic origin, but rather
to orientations as groups or lobbies of political and economic interests. A good part of this
Zionist component consists of people who are neither Israelis nor Jews, but who feel identified
with the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, Britain and other countries. Thus the term "zionist"
referees here to an ideology, not to an ethnic origin.
The Anglo elites on both sides of the Atlantic have evolved from being national elites
to being the executive base of a world Hyperclass made up of individuals capable of exerting
a determining influence in the most powerful nation, the United States.
The result of the Anglo Zionist line of attack is that the contradiction and internal struggle
is now occurring in Moscow between those who have already chosen to sell out and those who have
not yet found the time to realize that a multipolar global capitalism is not viable.
In this context, recovering Crimea was a mirage, an illusion.
If we compare the implications of the Maidan coup in Kiev with the liberation of Crimea,
we see that the strategic defeat implicit in losing Ukraine as an ally is of such magnitude
that everything else pales by co s (all of them) in Kiev was so gigantic that its implications
are frightening. It was either a failure or something even worse. In any case, the Crimea affair
was merely a small episode in a confrontation that Russia is losing.
Russia arrived very late at modern capitalism, and that is why its current elite will
be unable to occupy a space among the globalist elite without paying the necessary toll, which
is none other than renouncing its territorial power base – its country and its access to
and control of its energy resources and raw materials.
Stubbornly maintaining the dispute in trying to obtain a multi-polar capitalism, leads necessarily
to a intra-capitalist confrontation, as it did in 1914-1918. And because of the nature of the
current actors, nuclear powers … it brings the conflict to 2.0 war versions (color revolutions)
All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based on similar strategies
(i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because Russia does
not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. It
can only elicit some empathy from those who reject the American domination, but here the class
contradictions come into play again, because it is not enough to oppose Washington merely on
political-military grounds, since the key to global power resides in the financial and military
structures that enable global control and plunder: World Trade Organization, IMF, Free Trade
agreements, World Bank, NATO… these are entities in relation to which Russia only shows
its displeasure at not being invited to the table as an equal, not accepting that because it
arrived late at modern capitalism, it must play a secondary role. On the other hand, Russia
is ignoring the deep contempt, bordering on racism, that things Slavic generate among Anglo
Zionist elites.
In order to be able to fight the 2.0 versions of war that are engineered today, an alternative
social model is needed. Alternative not only in regard to the postmodern vs. traditional
sets of values, but fundamentally in regard to the social model that stems from the modes of
production. In the postmodern vs. traditional conflict, Russia tends to align with the most
reactionary values. And in regard to the social struggle, they don't want to enter that fray
because they renounced it long ago. They renounced the entire Soviet Union, which they destroyed
from within.
The contradictions and the dialectical nature of reality have their own logic, however.
Thus, a coup in Kiev and the widespread appearance of Nazi symbols in the streets of Ukraine
was all that it took to induce a spontaneous reaction in the Slavic world. The popular resistance
in the Donbass took strong root thanks to the historic memory of the people's of the old USSR
and its war against fascism.
If Russia were to abandon Novorossia to the oligarchs and their mafias, the world's "left"
– or whatever remains of it - would come to scorn post-Soviet Russia even more than it already
does. In the months following the brave action in Crimea and the heroic resistance in the Donbass,
many people around the world looked to Moscow in search of some sign that it would support the
anti-fascist and anti-oligarchic resistance, even if only as an act of self-defense by Moscow
against the globalist challenge. If it finally abandons Novorossia, the price in terms of loss
of moral prestige will be absolute.
A support of the left has not been sought, but that is a collateral consequence of the character
of class struggle open that has been given in the Donbas, where Russia has been forced to provide
some assistance that would prevent the genocide at the hands of the fascist Ukrainian.
Cuando say left, we refer logically to the one who has expressed their support to the struggle
of people in the Donbas, as it is very difficult to consider the "left" to those who have preferred
to remain silent or to have directly been complicit in the assault, and the coup in Kiev.
The degradation of the left as politically active social force is very intense, their
structures are embroiled in the collapse, or in the confusion, when not literally corrupt. Then
related to both socialist parties since 1914 and the communists, at least from the time of fracture
of 1956. The social changes experienced in Europe with the systems of welfare state, based on
the elevation of the standard of living of the working population and the obtaining of social
peace by sharing the power with the trade unions are at the base of the post-industrial society
and the resulting profound changes of values.
The suicide of the USSR in 1989-93 marked a brutal global change , in which the balance which
was preserved during the cold war was broken. That led to the capitalist elite in the west,
which we are calling the Anglo-Zionists, to the suspension of the social pact (forced abandonment
of New Deal), that gave rise to the welfare state and the emergence stark reality of a global
power of capitalists without systemic opposition . Today the whole neoliberal globalization
system of capitalism is in danger by the depletion of the natural resources. And to sustain
this mode of production, they need to speed up territorial domination in the form of control
and access to resources of other countries. Now there no space in the global system for spaces,
which are managed autonomously even to a certain level.
The system of global domination, capitalism, ruling elites with a territorial basis in the
area of Anglo-American, global parasitic Hyperclass and depletion of resources, as well
as cannibalization of the other nations, in the midst of troika of crisis of climate change,
peak of the energy and raw materials shortages. those three factors that challenge the
current globalization framework ... And the crisis of Novorossia, been demonstrated both impotence
and the lack of real political autonomy of Russian elite with the respect to the dominant power
in neoliberal worlds order..
The new citizen movements in the western world are not so much resistance movements as samples
of the discontent of the middle classes in precarious position of marginalization and/or
social trance. This protest led to a "Maidans" which are not permanent and does not question
the basis of the system. The participants seems to believe that it is possible to restore the
old good world of the welfare state.
The western movements are brainwashed by messages emanating from the headquarters of Democratic
party of North America, the propaganda anarcho-capitalist and the various networks of ideological
interference, are managing to break the bonds of historical memory that unite the struggles
of the past with the present, de-ideologize the struggles and conflicts and to deny the tension
left and right, isolating the militants -- or simple citizens who feel identified with the values
of the left - of the masses who are suffering in the first place casualisation. At the heart
of this new "left" are leaders that are co-opted voices, pseudo-intellectuals who destroy the
words and empty of content of key concepts in a way that the alienation of the masses demonstrate
at the language itself, thus preventing putting a real name to social process and things, and
to identify the social phenomena.
Viva to Russia, which the only country which eve in a weak form decided to fight neoliberal
world order and position itself as an anti-imperialist force... It is interesting to observe
the current great moral confusion in political landscape of the societies in decay. Confusion
which have been stimulated by Moscow actions. As the result some the far-right groups that are
simultaneously anti-US that anti-Russian now support Moscow. Also some part of Russia
far-right political groups got the sympathy and support of factions of the anti EU far right
forces in France, the Nazis of the MSR in Spain, and from small groups of euro-asianists. This
line of political affiliation will allow them to simply join the Russia failure [to find alternative
to monopolar neoliberal capitalism] and might well discredit then more profoundly in the future.
The euro-asianists forces technically speaking are reactionary forces, neoliberal forces
which is comparable to the worst of the worst in the western world. Moreover, they do not have
any way to solve the main contradictions that arise in the current neoliberal model in the terms
of class and dominance of Anglo Zionist global elite.
Euro-Asianism is just a suitable ideology for the construction of Russian national idea
for those who seeks to achieve lease to life for Russia sovereignty on the world stage. It is
the actual proof that Russia has come too late to globalised capitalism and fascism...
Huttington and his war of civilizations cynically exploit this confrontation on Anglo Zionist
elite and newcomers, redefining it along the idea of the clash of civilizations which
avoid using the notion of class and thus is ideologically false. Alexander Duguin who
promote similar ideas quite seriously just shows the degree of degeneration of the Russian intelligentsia,
which oscillates between serving as comprador class to the global Anglo Zionist elite and the
repetition (as a farce, and with 75 years of delay ) of fascist reactionary revolutions
in Western Europe, which were phenomenon of the interwar period (rexistas in Belgium, Croix
de feu in France, CruzFlechados in Hungary, Requetés and Falangistas in Spain).
The globalist elite offered a solution formulated in class terms, as it could not be another
way: in the best cases, they proposes the co-optation to a handful of members of the Russian
elite as deserving members of the new global Hyperclass, but this path is opened only the very
very rich, and the pre-condition is the delivery of the country to plunder, where the global
elite certainly would have need of some compradors which will be more or less adequately compensated
depending on their achievements and sacrifices in the name of global neoliberal domination.
The part of the power elite of Russia, which managed to expel the western compradors of
the Yeltsin era, and rein in the oligarchs then, had tried with some success to regain control
of the territory of the country. The illusion of the members of this part of the power
elite -- basically the security services, both civil and military, and various synergies of
those with the military-industrial lobby -- is that it would be enough to neutralize the Russian
fifth column of the Anglo Zionists to take back control of their territorial base of power.
this idea is going to be shredded into pieces when it enter into contradiction with the reality
of the class struggle and interests of the elite at the global level. Russia is, for its size,
influence, and resources, so huge that a line of action based on the defense of its sovereignty
strategic enters in collision with the global power of neoliberalism. And that why it attracts
disproportional reaction of the Anglo Zionists
Supporters of Anglo Zionists that are ready to consent to a German-Russian alliance or Russia-EU
alliance that give the viability of a idea of mutually beneficial co-development of both Russia
and Europe are forgetting that such an action would require European sovereignty. Which is was
non-existent iether on the level of the EU, or on the level of member states. The penetration
of the Atlantism in Europe is already systemic. In the old European states there are still ancient
national traditions, which were based on the basis of cultural, industrial, economic,
and political identity. And they still run strong. But in the current situation for such states
there no space for the sovereignty as the dominant power bloc in the national elite as well
as in EU elite are Atlantists. Where this situation takes the Russian elite and the Russian
state without confrontation? A confrontation that they, on the other hand are not willing and
are not able to pursue.
The multi-polar capitalist world had its lifespan which come to an end (exploded) in 1914.
In 2014, the globalization of the elites and the capital is of such magnitude that no serious
resistance is possible on the basis of some capitalist model. In those conditions the idea of
Russian elite ability to enforce change to multipolar version of the currently monopolar neoliberal
world is doomed to be a failure.
Zbigniew Brezinsky has raised things crudely and openly, unlike the ("fake") supporters
of perestroika, and their current heirs in Russia. Brezinsky know how to think in terms of the
class contradiction and knows perfectly well that the Russian oligarchy has directed its
monetary flows abroad, moved families abroad, and moved their investments abroad. That
means that Anglo Zionistscan disrupt any claim of sovereignty over the territory and
resources by simply pressing the local neoliberal elite, giving them to choose between their
interests as a class and their illusionary desire for sovereignty. Because in a globalized world,
with its brutal fight for the natural resources there is no possibility of maintaining both,
except what can be achieved in terms of direct anti-imperialist struggle. There is no space
for the national bourgeoisies in the XXI century. You can only have sovereignty if it is posed
in terms of a rupture with the actually existing neoliberal order of global capitalism, which,
in its core is Anglo Zionistsglobalization. This break does not have to be forced,
but in terms of scientific analysis of the social processes is a logical consequence of
following this path one way or the other. To claim sovereignty over their own resources and
territory inevitably leads to confrontation, and logical needs a break up and confront the Anglo
Zionist empire. If you really want to achieve the goal. And that fact imposes the logic of the
relationships and balance of power in the world today.
The claims of the BRIC countries -- to the extent that you do not question them -- is that
they have an alternative model to the dominant neoliberal capitalism model (Ango Zionist globalization
with the center in the USA) are doomed to be a failure. The efforts of the BRIC countries can
generate a lot of noise and discomfort for the West, but they can not break the global neoliberal
system. Those countries are rightfully fearful of their budget balances -- which are very
fragile. It can be even said that they are on their way to implosion sooner or later,
due to the unbalanced structure of their internal classes, including first of all their own
elite.
The claim that it is possible to achieve the multipolar capitalist world (which Russia defends)
and which led to current Ukrainian crisis without confrontation is false. As soon as Russia
wanted to return to the global chessboard. as an independent player, they instantly saw opponents
attacking weak elements of their defense at the borders. Ukraine has been a defeat for Russia
and the Crimea is not a adequate compensation for loss of Ukraine. Now Novorossia is being sacrificed
precisely because the class contradictions that have emerged in Moscow and lack of desire of
Russian elite to go the bitter end.
The situation in the Donbas / Novorossia clearly shows the resignation of Moscow to the
victory, and their desire to avoid the clash with neoliberal world order. The fact is
that Royal Dutch Shell has already begun the fracking in the Donbas, the coup regime in Kiev
are already internationally accepted without reservations, the truce imposed in Novorossia has
brought to its knees the armed resistance to junta. All this leads way to deliver Novorossia
to the hands of mafias sponsored by the local oligarchs with friends in Kiev and Moscow.
Statement that the destiny of Russia was played in the Donbas is something more than a phrase,
It is a claim based on a reality, as the defeat of Novorossia would be the proof that Moscow
had not the will to struggle. The betrayal of the fighters and the hopes of Novorossia is the
acceptance of the defeat and might lead in the future to the victory to the Moscow Maidan, the
same alliance of compradors and nationalists using which as storm troopers the globalist
elite achieved their goal in Ukraine. If Novorossia is defeated, they can expect being able
to push a puppet into the Kremlin the same way. And not without reason. This summer, the
heroic struggle of the militia of the Donbas was the key element that forced the changes of
the script designed for Kiev as well as diminished chances of successful application of the
same methods in Moscow. The Minsk Agreements and the truce imposed by them are putting Novorossia
on its knees, allowing for its destruction, but this time at the hands of their allies. Sad
spectacle for the Russian security services, which were effective enough to organize the Donbas
resistance, but now are useless and powerless before the neofascist Kiev junta.
The struggle of the Donbas does not correspond to the strategic interests of the Russian
elite. They have been forced to intervene to prevent the horror of the mass murder of the population
of the Donbas at the hands of the extreme right. But the dream of a Donbas free of oligarchs
and with a sovereign state, committed to social justice for workers on this Slavic land are
completely incompatible with the post-soviet status quo. Only to the extent that there is a
significant faction of Russian elite aware of the contradictions of the global neoliberal game
and who put their sense of patriotism first can lead them to face the challenge that they face.
Only in this case there would be any possibility of resistance; I would say patriotic resistance,
because we already know no one at the top is able to think in terms of class.
While very unlikely - there can be a move from February to October in Novorossia. You would
say impossible. But he insurrection of the Donbas in March, logically was "February". In order
to achieve victory, to take full control over the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk needs creation
of the Revolutionary Military Council and suspension of the upcoming elections. which
looking to be a smokescreen for capitulation to junta. They need to declare that they are ready
to resist to the end. This output would be desperate move, without a doubt, and would represent
the equivalent of a new "October". The event which of it occurs would force Moscow to show their
cards to their own population. And perhaps it can help to generate a pulse necessary for the
organization of the fight with Anglo Zionists empire between the towers of the Kremlin. That
would move the fight toward more patriotic and popular goals, But this presuppose a lot of assumptions
and first of all that such a "Kremlin tower", which is capable of emitted such a pulse,
exists. Only in this case we can talk about achieving a real sovereignty. As Vasily Záitsev
in Stalingrad suggested: "Maybe we're doomed, but for the moment we are still the masters and
lords of our land." In Novorossia there are plenty of fighters who would agree with Záitsev,
but they certainly lack political direction and, now the lack the support of Kremlin.
The Russian objective is achieving a multipolar capitalism with a Russia united under a
nationalist ideology based on the manipulation of patriotic sentiment, Orthodoxy and various
Slavic myths. This objective is being challenged by the reality of the conflict, which should
be defined in terms of geopolitical goals. The reality is that the Russian elite would be
allowed to control their population as they wish, provided they renounce its sovereignty over
territory and resources, renounce their physical power base, i.e. homeland. This is the
nature of the challenge. Putin is mistaken if he thinks that the Grand Patriarch has the answer
in their holy books. There is not enough incense in the Kremlin cathedrals to mask that reality."
The Walking Dead reflect the darkening mood of this intensifying
Fourth Turning. I wrote one of my more pessimistic articles called Welcome to Terminus
in April regarding the season four finale of the Walking Dead series. I essentially argued we are
approaching the end of the line and the world is going to get real nasty.
In the six short months since I wrote that depressing article, we've seen men beheaded on Youtube
videos by terrorists no one had ever heard of at the beginning of this year. Somehow a ragtag band
of 30,000 Muslim terrorists, using American military equipment supplied to fight Assad in Syria
and taken from the Iraqi Army when they turned tail and ran away, have been able to defeat 600,000
Iraqi and Kurd fighters with air support from the vaunted U.S. Air Force. Syria, Iraq, Libya, and
Afghanistan descend into never ending religious based warfare. We've even had passenger planes mysteriously
disappear in Asia with no trace.
Crimea seceded from Ukraine and rejoined Russia, initiating a plan to punish Russia by the western
powers. America supported and planned the overthrow of a democratically elected government in the
Ukraine, with a predictable push back response by Russia, leading to a bloody civil war in the Eastern
Ukraine. We've had a false flag shooting down of an airliner over the Ukraine by the Ukrainian government,
blamed on Russia and Putin by Obama and his EU co-conspirators. The American corporate media mouthpieces
have ignored the cover-up of missing controller transmissions, black box recordings, and physical
evidence regarding the murder of hundreds of innocent people by western politicians. Israel and
Hamas resumed their endless religious war in Gaza, with thousands of casualties and destruction.
UK fear mongering and financial threats barely averted the secession of Scotland from the UK.
Cantalonia continues to push for a secession vote to leave Spain. Violent protests have broken out
in Spain, Italy, France and even Sweden. Turmoil, protests and riots in Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina
and Mexico have been driven by anger at political corruption, high inflation, and general economic
dysfunction. Saber rattling between China and Japan has increased and young people in Hong Kong
have been protesting the lack of democratic elections being permitted by China. The world economy,
undergoing central bank monetary stimulus withdraw, is headed back into recession as Germany, China
and the U.S. join the rest of the world in economic decline. And now the Western Africa outbreak
of ebola has gone worldwide, with predictions of an epidemic potentially causing worldwide economic
chaos.
What's happening in the real world makes the dystopian zombie world of
Walking Dead seem almost quaint. The writers of this show brilliant use of symbolism
and imagery captures the violent, chaotic, inhumane, darkening, brutal world we inhabit as the
Fourth Turning crisis period we entered in 2008 deepens on a daily basis. There is
a good reason why the first episode of their fifth season drew the biggest cable TV audience in
history. The show is clearly tapping into the mood of the masses. Early in the latest episode you
realize Terminus has become a processing center run by cannibals. The line between victim and criminal,
killer and prey, good and evil, madness and sanity, and moral and immoral is blurred. Everything
is relative in the post-pandemic world of the
Walking Dead.
Seeing Wall Street cannibals walk away unscathed after devouring the worldwide economic system
in 2008 with their fraudulent financial schemes, corrupt politicians enriched by throwing taxpayers
under the bus, militarized police forces trampling the Fourth Amendment, the NSA spying on every
American, a private central bank enriching their owners by funneling trillions into their bank vaults,
a president trampling on the Constitution by issuing executive orders to bypass the other branches
of government, and billions of welfare and tax fraud from the urban ghettos to the penthouse suites
in NYC, has convinced a large swath of Americans that everything is relative and nothing matters
in our warped dystopian world. Right and wrong no longer matter. Morality is an antiquated concept.
Adhering to the Constitution is an outmoded notion. Our society celebrates and condones our dog
eat dog economic paradigm. Or zombie eats anything world in the case of
Walking Dead.
The Terminus complex is reminiscent of the concentration camp in Schindler's List. It is complete
with railroad cars to hold the prisoners, gates with barbed wire, armed guards, and extermination
facilities to "process" the prisoners. Thick black smoke belches into the air. There is a room stacked
full of booty, teddy bears, watches, clothes – everything except the gold fillings. The Nazi like
precision and attention to detail is reflected in the almost business-like method in which the Terminus
administrators go about gutting their prey. The bone chilling efficiency and antiseptic processing
facility evoke memories of the holocaust gas chambers. The opening sequence when Rick, Daryl, Glenn
and Bob are among a group of men lined up to be gutted like pigs over a trough in place to collect
their spilled blood, might have been the most brutal scene ever put on non-premium cable TV.
The callous and dispassionate way in which the prisoners (cattle) are lined up in front of a
stainless steel trough is disconcerting and bone chilling. The victims are hit with a baseball bat
and then their throats are slit over the trough by men in protective suits. They have become nothing
but cattle to be butchered and consumed by the Terminus cannibals. You see another part of the processing
plant where human remains are hanging from hooks like sides of beef. Gareth, the leader of Terminus,
supervises the operation like a CEO, berating the butchers for not meeting quotas and following
standard operating procedures. Not much different than how our mega-corporations are run today.
The other fascinating similarity between the dystopian "nightmare of want" setting of Terminus
and our modern day dystopian "empire of excess" is the use of false advertising and propaganda to
lure "customers" into their web. Their version of billboard advertising has plywood with the hand
written messages of "Sanctuary for All", "Community for All", and "Those Who Arrive Survive". The
Terminus cannibals would have fit in well on Madison Avenue with the highly paid spin artists, propagandists,
and whores for the corporate oligarchs.
The signs along train tracks and radio transmissions from a call center like facility showed
the calculated business-like efficiency of the cannibals in systematically and methodically luring
victims to their slaughterhouse. It is the same techniques used by the apostles of
Edward Bernays to consciously and intelligently manipulate the habits, opinions, tastes,
ideas and actions of the masses, in order to control and influence their buying habits, voting decisions,
and support of their rulers. The unseen men who constitute the "invisible government" use these
techniques to keep the cattle docile, fed, and ignorant, as they are led to slaughter.
The government and lack thereof is always lurking in the murky background of how and why the
United States has devolved into an infected world of the walking dead. This episode provided some
clues about government labs producing viruses as weapons to be used against some unexplained enemy.
The insinuation is that the government somehow lost control of the virus and the ensuing pandemic
destroyed our modern world and left the survivors to battle the biters and each other for the remaining
scraps. The Federal government caused the societal collapse and is nowhere to be found in rebuilding
the nation.
It is unclear how the apocalypse went down, but you can assume it began with fear, which led
to panic, chaos, economic collapse, violent upheaval, war, and total breakdown of governmental authority
and control. It is ironic that today fear of a worldwide ebola pandemic is coinciding with an inevitable
economic implosion, wars raging in te Middle East, violent protests raging around the globe, and
trust in governmental authority plunging to all-time lows.
The Walking Dead has wittingly or unwittingly captured the ambiance of our turbulent
times.
When you are faced with desperate circumstances you can either do whatever you need to survive
or you can submissively accept your fate and die. Gareth and his cannibalistic cohorts had been
in the same situation as Rick and his posse, but they had somehow turned the tables on their captors.
Gareth's survival of the fittest creed was "either you're the butcher or you're the cattle". Human
beings react to intense pressure and life threatening situations in different ways. Some people
snap and turn into monsters, like Gareth. Some people snap and lose their minds. Others, like Rick
and Carol, summon an inner strength to do whatever it takes to survive while barely maintaining
their humanity. Others turn into blind followers of a strong forceful leader, not questioning the
morality, legality or humanity of what they are ordered to do. The line between right and wrong,
necessary versus unnecessary, vengeance versus justice, and butcher versus cattle is blurred in
a world without rules, government or accepted norms.
I believe the "butcher or cattle" analogy is sadly a valid meme for the world we currently inhabit.
In the
Walking Dead world, individuals must choose to be butcher or cattle. It's a Darwinian
world of kill or be killed. Like minded individuals with common values and goals form communities
to protect themselves, provide for themselves, and attempt to bring a semblance of order in a chaotic
world. The community of Westbury, led by the governor and the community of Terminus, led by Gareth,
are founded upon a foundation of evil and ultimately destroyed. Rick's community of liberty minded
freedom fighters do whatever is necessary to survive, but retain their humanity, decency and desire
to create a better world.
Our present day world may not be as brutish as the
Walking Deadworld, though the line between reality and fiction is often indistinguishable
when you turn on the news, but the distinction between butchers and cattle is clear. The elected
and non-elected rulers of the deep state are the butchers, sending young men off to die for oil
companies and arms dealers, impoverishing the masses through inflation and their control of the
currency, and enriching themselves through their complete control of the political, financial, judicial,
and economic systems. This establishment, or invisible government as Bernays described, is committed
to its own enrichment and perpetuation. Its scope, financial resources, and global reach put it
in a predator class all by itself.
The common people are the cattle being led to slaughter. We are kept docile with incessant propaganda
from the mainstream media; marketing messages to consume from Madison Avenue; filtered, adjusted,
manipulated economic data fed to us by government agencies; an endless supply of iGadgets and other
electronic distractions; government education designed to keep us ignorant; 24/7 reality TV on six
hundred stations to keep us entertained; corporate toxic processed food to keep us obese and tame;
and an endless supply of Wall Street supplied debt to keep us caged in our pens with no hope of
escape. The butchers of the deep state have maintained control for decades, but we're entering a
new era.
Fourth Turnings result in the tables being turned on the butchers. Some cattle are
awakening from their stupor. They can see the bloody writing on the slaughterhouse wall. Anyone
who isn't sensing a dramatic mood change in this country is either a mindless zombie or a functionary
of the deep state. The financial shenanigans of the ruling class are again being revealed as nothing
but a Ponzi scheme built on a foundation of debt and propped up by delusions and ignorance. When
the house of cards collapses in the near future, the tables will turn. When people have nothing
left to lose, they will lose it. The butchers will become the cattle. There will be no sanctuary
for these evil men. Their reign of terror will be swept away in a whirlwind of retribution, death
and destruction. It might even make the
Walking Dead look like a walk in the park.
It's hard not to feel a sense of deepening dread about what this country's doing in the world,
and the inevitable blowback.
I did not feel this way a year ago. Then it seemed that U.S. imperialism was in retreat. Not
that the leopard can change its spots; the system is, after all, what it is.
(All U.S. schoolchildren should be taught, as part of their basic civics education, by conscientious
elementary, middle school and high school teachers, that they live in animperialistcountry. The term itself ought to be popularized. This is
what politicians like Obama actually refer to, elliptically, when they call the U.S. "exceptional."
Most of the world's 196 nations are, after all, not imperialist countries.
Most aren't oligarchies controlled by a top 1%, who control 42% of the nation's wealth,
investing much of it in cheap foreign labor while the domestic standard of living declines.
Most do not have incarceration and criminal supervision rates of 1 in 32 citizens.
Most do not have police forces equipped with heavy military equipment sometimes savagely
used against their citizens. Most nations don't channel citizens' tax dollars to state "security"
forces that systematically collect their people's and others' electronic and telephone communications.
Most don't spend billions of dollars in order to overthrow other countries' governments.
Most don't maintain 860 military bases outside their borders; most don't every few years
attack other countries in declared or undeclared wars. Most don't back the Israelis in everything
they do, and nobody else blocks every UN vote that evenly mildly criticizes Israel. And
so on.)
Still-mindful of the horrible general situation-a year ago I was feeling guardedly optimistic
that U.S. imperialism was entering a less toxic stage. Obama's horrifying plan to assault Syria
had been stymied, by popular opposition, Congressional unease, and Vladimir Putin's timely chess
move (arranging for Damascus to give up its chemical weapons arsenal). Obama was suddenly speaking
with Iran's new president Hassan Rouhani, and talks on Iran's civilian nuclear program had begun.
Obama was ignoring Binyamin Netanyahu's familiar, barked demands for the U.S. to bomb Iran.
2014 has been much gloomier. We have for one thing been forcibly reminded that there has been
no real change in foreign policy between the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. The
grotesque figure of Victoria Nuland, a Dick Cheney aide who stayed on to assist Hillary Clinton,
heads the East Europe desk. She is one of those neocons (married to another distinguished, academic
neocon) who strongly supported the Iraq War based on what she knew was a campaign of lies and has
never felt any pangs of guilt about it. Her political ideology requires contempt for truth and morality.
It's all about manipulating public opinion to achieve the objectives of the tiny circle she loves
and represents. The fact that she was retained in the State Department into the Obama administration
speaks volumes about the president's own outlook on the world.
Obama postures as a centrist. In practice this means he places himself midway between the
neoconservatives serving the interests of the 1% and the "liberal interventionists" serving the
1% in their efforts to impose what Paul Wolfowitz terms "full-spectrum dominance" in the world.
He is the textbook example of how all in his position must (and naturally do) kiss the ass of the
ruling class. This is his job. His (increasingly weak) historical distinction is to be the first
African-American to do so. (Not that anyone paying attention needed persuasion that being a person
of color doesn't make you good, or progressive, or even a harbinger of "change." It might just make
you useful, like Colin Powell was for Cheney and his neocon bunch. Or Condoleezza Rice was to the
U.S. power structure throughout George W. Bush's criminal, racist war on Iraq.)
Nuland made it her mission to topple the elected government of Ukraine, promoting the concept
that the Ukrainian people (who are in fact sharply divided) possess "European aspirations" (code
word for a supposed longing for entry into the European Union-under a painful IMF-imposed austerity
program-and for admission into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance which will oblige them to
cough up 2% of their GNP in military expenditures).
On February 22 Nuland got her way, after what she has herself boasted was a five billion dollar
U.S. investment in supporting (or generating and encouraging) those "European aspirations." On that
day neo-fascist sniper fire and building seizures-a violent, lightning putsch-toppled the
elected Ukrainian president, brought Nuland's hand-picked candidate to power as unelected prime
minister, brought neo-fascists into a European government for the first time since 1945, and caused
the ethic Russian population in the east to rise up in (what ought to be) understandable rebellion.
Realizing the U.S. objective was to first draw Ukraine into the EU, then to incorporate it into
NATO, then to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula, Moscow (I will not say
Putin, because virtually any Russian leader watching the alarming power-play would have
acted similarly) promptly and bloodlessly reasserted its historical ownership of the peninsula,
to the very apparent relief of its inhabitants. But the U.S. corporate media-with stunning uniformity,
omitting if not forbidding any reference to NATO expansion as a cause for U.S. meddling in Ukraine,
or Svoboda Party and Right Sector actions in the Maidan triggering a bloody coup, or legitimate
grievances and valid agency of the "Russian secessionists" in the east-constructed an imaginary
narrative that most people in this country have swallowed.
Just like they once swallowed the mythology about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
and al-Qaeda ties. (And let us note again that the systematic dissemination of lies through the
Pentagon, State Department and White House showing utmost contempt for the people of this country-designed
to convince them that they were facing imminent Iraqi attack-has, while well documented, never been
punished! The scum responsible live comfortably as TV commentators, university academics,
and think-tank "fellows.")
Most people in this country, to the extent that they watch or read the mainstream news, believe
that the Ukrainian people rose in a peaceful mass movement, ousted a corrupt leader, and established
a popular government that just wants to escape Russia's oppressive control and join democratic,
prosperous Europe. They believe that evil power-hungry Putin, nostalgic for the past, wants to re-create
the USSR or maybe Tsarist Russia. This is sheer nonsense, but the success of the State Department-corporate
press partnership in foisting this perception on the people is amazing. It shows that, even
though the masses have largely come to understand that they were lied to, big-time, in the build
up to the Iraq War-not just by politicians but a corporate media that was entirely obedient
taking its talking-point cues from the regime-they are still willing dupes. Lambs led to the slaughter.
(I find this depressing. But what can you do, but continue to rage against the lies of the corporate
media, and try to expose them to any who will hear?)
... ... ...
In a nutshell: the United States-having caused a Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq by destroying
the secular Baathist regime and its institutions in 2003; having produced the conditions that allowed
al-Qaeda (in the form of al-Zarqawi's initial group that has morphed into ISIL) to root itself in
Iraq, then Syria; having backed (as its best bet) the government headed by al-Maliki that gradually
alienated the Sunnis of Iraq; and having, through its savagery, racism, disrespect, ignorance, arrogance,
and incompetence, made itself entirely unwelcome among the peoples of the region-cannot accomplish
anything good in the Middle East.
Citizens and residents in this declining imperialist country-those paying attention, not just
innocently imbibing the Big Lies imagining we live in a free country with a free press-should feel
dread about what's to come. Having announced that the U.S. will "degrade and destroy ISIL" (without
any clue about how to actually do that, having ruled out coordination with Syria and Iran,
and having earned the hatred of the Iraqi Shiite militias) the U.S. seems doomed to either putting
its own boots on the ground, enraging everyone in the region, or relying on proxies whom the Iraqi
Shiites will reject.
In the weeks after 9/11, witnessing the coordinated campaign of the media oligarchy (Time-Warner,
Viacom, Disney, GE, News Corp., CBS) that controls what most of us see and read, I felt truly frightened.
Not about nukes over New York City (although I did have some vivid dreams about such stuff). But
about the onset of fascism in this country. The constant syrupy patriotic music playing on the heart-strings
on cable TV, the omnipresence of the U.S. flag, the sudden ambiance of those insane terror-warning
colored level warnings deliberately promoting the sort of paranoia prescribed by Nazi specialists
on mass mind-control. The emergence of new fascist-sounding institutions and bizarre popularization
of unfamiliar terms (like "Homeland"), the stupidity of George W. Bush's pronouncements ("axis of
evil" etc.), Dick Cheney's calm prediction of a "War on Terror" to last forever. The warnings
to TV commentators that they could be fired for challenging the government line-and the actual
firings. The Patriot Act and Congress's bovine, universal endorsement of it, passed into law unread.
The clear indications that "my" government was manipulating powerful emotions of fear and hatred,
and inventing, Nazi-like, pretexts for ongoing war. Yes. I felt frightened by the manifest, staggering
power of the beast. And that was before Bush and his team began their sadistic destruction
of Iraq and that enterprise was still in its planning stage.
My anxiety level has risen and fallen in the years since, and was, as I said, lowered by some
events last fall. But it's back up there now as I switch between cable channels noting the total
merger of state power and the corporate media and total absence of moral clarity.
The egregious misrepresentation of events in Ukraine. The total lack of context of events in
Iraq and Syria, and the gracious reception (as astute commentators) of those most responsible for
the Iraq War based on lies. These are sickening things.
Those not feeling dread should feel it. My gut feeling is, if George W. Bush and his dad
opened the gates of hell, Obama has blown the gates off entirely. By attacking the Islamic State-solely
in alliance with the Muslim states whose governments are most regarded as U.S. lackeys-Obama has
merely enhanced the crazies' legitimacy. Isn't that obvious?
To save Baghdad from ISIL conquest-a feat that would outweigh the "fall" of Saigon in 1975 as
a geopolitical humiliation for the U.S.-Obama is trying to cobble together a collection of Turks,
Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs all of whom have complex contradictions with one another and
with the U.S. He claims to have assembled a "coalition" of over 60 nations (mostly western) in the
heroic anti-ISIL cause.
The majority in all categories (those providing air support and military equipment; those providing
"humanitarian assistance"; and those providing other, basically political legitimacy and support)
are NATO countries. 15 of the 21 in the first category are NATO members, plus Australia, while 6
are members of the Arab League. Aside from Iraq (whose fractious elite opposes any foreign troops
on the ground) and Lebanon (in which Hizbollah is a leading political-military force and which is
only "participating" by receiving arms to defend itself from ISIL) all these Arab countries are
repressive monarchies that promote Sunni Islam and have very bad relations with the Shiites of Iraq
and Iran.
The ISIL thugs can argue-not so inaccurately-that the force the U.S. has organized against them
is a force of Christian Crusaders and their corrupt not-really-Muslim allies (including the hated
NATO member Turkey), in a war to thwart the progress of the Caliphate versus the Alawite heretics
in Syria and the Shiite idolaters of Iraq and Iran. And they can also note that by excluding Syria's
Assad and the Iranian regime-who have actually fought ISIL on the battlefield, winning some victories--the
stupid infidels are miscalculating again, big time.
The "coalition" is not going to defeat ISIS any more than the earlier (now dissipated) "coalitions"
defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Sunni "insurgents" in Iraq. Its intervention is going
to exacerbate the misery of Syria, Iraq and the whole region and maybe trigger a real world war.
I have a modest proposal, to those dreading the likely results of more war against the generated
by recent U.S. imperialist wars-the crucifiers of children, beheaders of Shiites, destroyers of
priceless monuments. To those dreading the prospect that the failure of air strikes will inevitably
entail the dispatch of U.S. and allied ground troops in what former CIA chief Leon Panetta recently
predicted would be another Thirty Years War.
How about an anti-imperialist revolution in this country instead?
Seriously. How about, by toppling those responsible for the total destabilization of the
Middle East, we send a message to the peoples of the region that we don't want to dominate you anymore
(not that the ordinary person here ever did)?
How about--after the necessary revolution here-we say to those confronting the religious
crazies, craving secularism and democracy:
You have our political and moral support, and we now can (now having toppled the 1% who have
insanely determined U.S. policy forever), finally talk about aiding you (as internationalist
brothers and sisters-not the corporate scum, war profiteers, uniformed torturers, trigger-happy
bombers, Israel lackeys, and deceitful warmongering liars whom have earned your rightful hatred
in the past) to make your own revolutions.
Just a dream, maybe. But how else to end the dread?
Neoliberalism doesn't bring people together, but divides them, by destroying the bonds of solidarity.
People did feel solidarity with others throughout the United Kingdom in the past - but these bonds
have been loosened as our economic system has changed and we've been encouraged to become more individualistic.
A wise old 'One Nation' Tory, Sir Ian Gilmour, a consistent critic of Thatcherism, put it beautifully
in his book 'Inside Right':
"If people are not to be seduced by other attractions they must at least feel loyalty to
the State. This loyalty will not be deep unless they gain from the State protection and other
benefits…Economic liberalism because of its starkness and its failure to create a sense of community
is likely to repel people from the rest of liberalism."
Today, it's clear that many Scots believe that a return to the politics of solidarity will best
be achieved by voting 'Yes' and leaving the United Kingdom. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps they're
wrong. But it's important to understand why so many people in Scotland feel this way. It's a huge
mistake to believe that everyone who is planning to vote 'Yes' on Thursday is an SNP supporter,
or sees themselves as a Scottish nationalist.
Ukraine was
a typical neoliberal color revolution.
With standard set of players known from Iraq and Libya. And standard methods. But this time the goal was actually not Ukraine but Russia.
And this crisis has shown pretty well that the EU is not an independent player. It is a vassal of Washington.
Notable quotes:
"... by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change." ..."
"... Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. ..."
"... There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. ..."
"... Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change" in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential" necessity. ..."
"... "You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base. ..."
"... "When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.' ..."
Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what's the real motive for taking this
extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection of the U.S. dollar's dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism,
asks Robert Parry.
A senior U.S. diplomat told me recently that if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine and even neighboring Belarus that there would
be zero impact on U.S. national interests. The diplomat wasn't advocating that, of course, but was noting the curious reality that
Official Washington's current war hysteria over Ukraine doesn't connect to genuine security concerns.
So why has so much of the Washington Establishment – from prominent government officials to all the major media pundits – devoted
so much time this past year to pounding their chests over the need to confront Russia regarding Ukraine? Who is benefiting from this
eminently avoidable – yet extremely dangerous – crisis? What's driving the madness?
Of course, Washington's conventional wisdom is that America only wants "democracy" for the people of Ukraine and that Russian
President Vladimir Putin provoked this confrontation as part of an imperialist design to reclaim Russian territory lost during the
breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. But that "group think" doesn't withstand examination. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence
eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp
down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change."
Plus, if "democracy promotion" were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve it. Democratically elected President
Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and
hold early elections so he could be voted out of office if the people wanted.
However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych
and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly
endorsed the coup regime that emerged as "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting, for
instance, that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.
The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance to the putsch, was studiously
ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
So, it's hard for any rational person to swallow the official line that the U.S. interest in the spiraling catastrophe of Ukraine,
now including thousands of ethnic Russians killed by the coup regime's brutal "anti-terrorist operation," was either to stop Putin's
imperial designs or to bring "democracy" to the Ukrainians.
That skepticism – combined with the extraordinary danger of stoking a hot war on the border of nuclear-armed Russia – has caused
many observers to search for more strategic explanations behind the crisis, such as the West's desires to "frack" eastern Ukraine
for shale gas or the American determination to protect the dollar as the world's currency.
Thermo-Nuclear War Anyone?
The thinking is that when the potential cost of such an adventure, i.e. thermo-nuclear warfare that could end all life on the
planet, is so high, the motivation must be commensurate. And there is logic behind that thinking although it's hard to conceive what
financial payoff is big enough to risk wiping out all humanity including the people on Wall Street.
But sometimes gambles are made with the assumption that lots of money can be pocketed before cooler heads intervene to prevent
total devastation - or even the more immediate risk that the Ukraine crisis will pitch Europe into a triple-dip recession that could
destabilize the fragile U.S. economy, too.
In the Ukraine case, the temptation has been to think that Moscow – hit with escalating economic sanctions – will back down even
as the EU and U.S. energy interests seize control of eastern Ukraine's energy reserves. The fracking could mean both a financial
bonanza to investors and an end to Russia's dominance of the natural gas supplies feeding central and eastern Europe. So the economic
and geopolitical payoff could be substantial.
According
to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, an
inviting target especially since other European nations, such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria, have resisted fracking technology
because of environmental concerns. An economically supine Ukraine would presumably be less able to say no. [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Beneath the Ukraine
Crisis: Shale Gas."]
Further supporting the "natural gas motive" is the fact that it was Vice President Joe Biden who demanded that President Yanukovych
pull back his police on Feb. 21, a move that opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias and the U.S.-backed coup. Then, just three
months later, Ukraine's largest private gas firm, Burisma Holdings,
appointed Biden's son, Hunter
Biden, to its board of directors.
While that might strike some of you as a serious conflict of interest, even vocal advocates for ethics in government lost their
voices amid Washington's near-universal applause for the ouster of Yanukovych and warm affection for the coup regime in Kiev.
For instance, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,
dismissed
the idea that Hunter Biden's new job should raise eyebrows, telling Reuters: "It can't be that because your dad is the vice president,
you can't do anything,"
Who Is Behind Burisma?
Soon, Burisma – a shadowy Cyprus-based company – was lining up well-connected lobbyists, some with ties to Secretary of State
John Kerry, including Kerry's former Senate chief of staff David Leiter, according to lobbying disclosures.
As Time magazine reported,
"Leiter's involvement in the firm rounds out a power-packed team of politically-connected Americans that also includes a second new
board member, Devon Archer, a Democratic bundler and former adviser to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Both Archer and Hunter
Biden have worked as business partners with Kerry's son-in-law, Christopher Heinz, the founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a private-equity
company."
According to investigative journalism
in Ukraine, the ownership of Burisma has been traced to Privat Bank, which is controlled by the thuggish billionaire oligarch Ihor
Kolomoysky, who was appointed by the coup regime to be governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a south-central province of Ukraine. Kolomoysky
also has been associated with the financing of brutal paramilitary forces killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
Also, regarding this energy motive, it shouldn't be forgotten that on Dec. 13, 2013, when neocon Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Victoria Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their
"European aspirations," she was at a conference sponsored by Chevron. She even stood next to the company's logo.
So, clearly energy resources and the billions of dollars that go with them should be factored in when trying to solve the mystery
of why Official Washington has gone so berserk about a confrontation with Russia that boils down to whether ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine should be allowed some measure of autonomy or be put firmly under the thumb of U.S.-friendly authorities in Kiev.
There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping
the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. According to this
line of thinking, the U.S. and its close allies need to bring Moscow to its geopolitical knees – where it was under the late Boris
Yeltsin – to stop any experimentation with other currencies for global trade.
Again, the advocates for this theory have a point. Protecting the Mighty Dollar is of utmost importance to Wall Street. The financial
cataclysm of a potential ouster of the U.S. dollar as the world's benchmark currency might understandably prompt some powerful people
to play a dangerous game of chicken with nuclear-armed Russia.
Of course, there's also the budgetary interest of NATO and the U.S. "military-industrial complex" (which helps fund many of Washington's
"think tanks") to hype every propaganda opportunity to scare the American people about the "Russian threat."
And, it's a truism that every major international confrontation has multiple drivers. Think back on the motives behind the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among a variety of factors were Vice President Dick Cheney's lust for oil, President George W. Bush's psychological
rivalry with his father, and the neocons' interest in orchestrating "regime change" in countries considered hostile to Israel. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "The
Mysterious Why of the Iraq War."]
There are also other reasons to disdain Putin, from his bare-chested horseback riding to his retrograde policies on gay rights.
But he is no Stalin and surely no Hitler.
The Neocons' 'Samson Option'
So, while it's reasonable to see multiple motives behind the brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine, the sheer recklessness of
the confrontation has, to me, the feel of an ideology or an "ism," where people are ready to risk it all for some larger vision that
is central to their being.
That is why I have long considered the Ukraine crisis to be an outgrowth of the neoconservative obsession with Israel's interests
in the Middle East.
Not only did key neocons – the likes of Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. John McCain – put themselves at the center of the
coup plotting last winter but the neocons had an overriding motive: they wanted to destroy the behind-the-scenes collaboration between
President Obama and President Putin who had worked together to avert a U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government a year
ago and then advanced negotiations with Iran over limiting but not eliminating its nuclear program.
Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change"
in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential"
necessity.
Further, there was the possibility that an expansion of the Obama-Putin cooperation could have supplanted Israel's powerful position
as a key arbiter of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Thus, the Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up – and the Ukraine
crisis was the perfect explosive for the destruction. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
Though I'm told that Obama now understands how the neocons and other hardliners outmaneuvered him over Ukraine, he has felt compelled
to join in Official Washington's endless Putin-bashing, causing a furious Putin to make clear that he cannot be counted on to assist
Obama on tricky foreign policy predicaments like Syria and Iran.
As I wrote last
April, "There is a 'little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly' quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply
move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme. If the Palestinians and Lebanon's Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel,
you target their sponsors with 'regime change' – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your 'regime change' in Iraq goes badly, you escalate
the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.
"Just when you think you've cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on
war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to
agree to constraints on its nuclear program. So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim
at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia.
"You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the
actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of
eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.
"When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed
by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive
a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.'
"Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with a propaganda barrage that would
do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin 'group think' is near total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts
– is fine."
Yet, by risking a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia - the equivalent of the old lady swallowing a horse – the neocons
have moved beyond what can be described in a children's ditty. It has become more like a global version of Israel's "Samson Option,"
the readiness to use nuclear weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.
But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom – and across the mainstream media
spectrum – has bought into this madness.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to
various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
Ukraine was
a typical neoliberal color revolution.
With standard set of players known from Iraq and Libya. And standard methods. But this time the goal was actually not Ukraine but Russia.
And this crisis has shown pretty well that the EU is not an independent player. It is a vassal of Washington.
Notable quotes:
"... by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change." ..."
"... Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. ..."
"... There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. ..."
"... Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change" in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential" necessity. ..."
"... "You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base. ..."
"... "When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.' ..."
Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what's the real motive for taking this
extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection of the U.S. dollar's dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism,
asks Robert Parry.
A senior U.S. diplomat told me recently that if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine and even neighboring Belarus that there would
be zero impact on U.S. national interests. The diplomat wasn't advocating that, of course, but was noting the curious reality that
Official Washington's current war hysteria over Ukraine doesn't connect to genuine security concerns.
So why has so much of the Washington Establishment – from prominent government officials to all the major media pundits – devoted
so much time this past year to pounding their chests over the need to confront Russia regarding Ukraine? Who is benefiting from this
eminently avoidable – yet extremely dangerous – crisis? What's driving the madness?
Of course, Washington's conventional wisdom is that America only wants "democracy" for the people of Ukraine and that Russian
President Vladimir Putin provoked this confrontation as part of an imperialist design to reclaim Russian territory lost during the
breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. But that "group think" doesn't withstand examination. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence
eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp
down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change."
Plus, if "democracy promotion" were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve it. Democratically elected President
Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and
hold early elections so he could be voted out of office if the people wanted.
However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych
and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly
endorsed the coup regime that emerged as "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting, for
instance, that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.
The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance to the putsch, was studiously
ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
So, it's hard for any rational person to swallow the official line that the U.S. interest in the spiraling catastrophe of Ukraine,
now including thousands of ethnic Russians killed by the coup regime's brutal "anti-terrorist operation," was either to stop Putin's
imperial designs or to bring "democracy" to the Ukrainians.
That skepticism – combined with the extraordinary danger of stoking a hot war on the border of nuclear-armed Russia – has caused
many observers to search for more strategic explanations behind the crisis, such as the West's desires to "frack" eastern Ukraine
for shale gas or the American determination to protect the dollar as the world's currency.
Thermo-Nuclear War Anyone?
The thinking is that when the potential cost of such an adventure, i.e. thermo-nuclear warfare that could end all life on the
planet, is so high, the motivation must be commensurate. And there is logic behind that thinking although it's hard to conceive what
financial payoff is big enough to risk wiping out all humanity including the people on Wall Street.
But sometimes gambles are made with the assumption that lots of money can be pocketed before cooler heads intervene to prevent
total devastation - or even the more immediate risk that the Ukraine crisis will pitch Europe into a triple-dip recession that could
destabilize the fragile U.S. economy, too.
In the Ukraine case, the temptation has been to think that Moscow – hit with escalating economic sanctions – will back down even
as the EU and U.S. energy interests seize control of eastern Ukraine's energy reserves. The fracking could mean both a financial
bonanza to investors and an end to Russia's dominance of the natural gas supplies feeding central and eastern Europe. So the economic
and geopolitical payoff could be substantial.
According
to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, an
inviting target especially since other European nations, such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria, have resisted fracking technology
because of environmental concerns. An economically supine Ukraine would presumably be less able to say no. [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Beneath the Ukraine
Crisis: Shale Gas."]
Further supporting the "natural gas motive" is the fact that it was Vice President Joe Biden who demanded that President Yanukovych
pull back his police on Feb. 21, a move that opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias and the U.S.-backed coup. Then, just three
months later, Ukraine's largest private gas firm, Burisma Holdings,
appointed Biden's son, Hunter
Biden, to its board of directors.
While that might strike some of you as a serious conflict of interest, even vocal advocates for ethics in government lost their
voices amid Washington's near-universal applause for the ouster of Yanukovych and warm affection for the coup regime in Kiev.
For instance, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,
dismissed
the idea that Hunter Biden's new job should raise eyebrows, telling Reuters: "It can't be that because your dad is the vice president,
you can't do anything,"
Who Is Behind Burisma?
Soon, Burisma – a shadowy Cyprus-based company – was lining up well-connected lobbyists, some with ties to Secretary of State
John Kerry, including Kerry's former Senate chief of staff David Leiter, according to lobbying disclosures.
As Time magazine reported,
"Leiter's involvement in the firm rounds out a power-packed team of politically-connected Americans that also includes a second new
board member, Devon Archer, a Democratic bundler and former adviser to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Both Archer and Hunter
Biden have worked as business partners with Kerry's son-in-law, Christopher Heinz, the founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a private-equity
company."
According to investigative journalism
in Ukraine, the ownership of Burisma has been traced to Privat Bank, which is controlled by the thuggish billionaire oligarch Ihor
Kolomoysky, who was appointed by the coup regime to be governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a south-central province of Ukraine. Kolomoysky
also has been associated with the financing of brutal paramilitary forces killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
Also, regarding this energy motive, it shouldn't be forgotten that on Dec. 13, 2013, when neocon Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Victoria Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their
"European aspirations," she was at a conference sponsored by Chevron. She even stood next to the company's logo.
So, clearly energy resources and the billions of dollars that go with them should be factored in when trying to solve the mystery
of why Official Washington has gone so berserk about a confrontation with Russia that boils down to whether ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine should be allowed some measure of autonomy or be put firmly under the thumb of U.S.-friendly authorities in Kiev.
There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping
the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. According to this
line of thinking, the U.S. and its close allies need to bring Moscow to its geopolitical knees – where it was under the late Boris
Yeltsin – to stop any experimentation with other currencies for global trade.
Again, the advocates for this theory have a point. Protecting the Mighty Dollar is of utmost importance to Wall Street. The financial
cataclysm of a potential ouster of the U.S. dollar as the world's benchmark currency might understandably prompt some powerful people
to play a dangerous game of chicken with nuclear-armed Russia.
Of course, there's also the budgetary interest of NATO and the U.S. "military-industrial complex" (which helps fund many of Washington's
"think tanks") to hype every propaganda opportunity to scare the American people about the "Russian threat."
And, it's a truism that every major international confrontation has multiple drivers. Think back on the motives behind the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among a variety of factors were Vice President Dick Cheney's lust for oil, President George W. Bush's psychological
rivalry with his father, and the neocons' interest in orchestrating "regime change" in countries considered hostile to Israel. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "The
Mysterious Why of the Iraq War."]
There are also other reasons to disdain Putin, from his bare-chested horseback riding to his retrograde policies on gay rights.
But he is no Stalin and surely no Hitler.
The Neocons' 'Samson Option'
So, while it's reasonable to see multiple motives behind the brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine, the sheer recklessness of
the confrontation has, to me, the feel of an ideology or an "ism," where people are ready to risk it all for some larger vision that
is central to their being.
That is why I have long considered the Ukraine crisis to be an outgrowth of the neoconservative obsession with Israel's interests
in the Middle East.
Not only did key neocons – the likes of Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. John McCain – put themselves at the center of the
coup plotting last winter but the neocons had an overriding motive: they wanted to destroy the behind-the-scenes collaboration between
President Obama and President Putin who had worked together to avert a U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government a year
ago and then advanced negotiations with Iran over limiting but not eliminating its nuclear program.
Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change"
in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential"
necessity.
Further, there was the possibility that an expansion of the Obama-Putin cooperation could have supplanted Israel's powerful position
as a key arbiter of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Thus, the Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up – and the Ukraine
crisis was the perfect explosive for the destruction. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
Though I'm told that Obama now understands how the neocons and other hardliners outmaneuvered him over Ukraine, he has felt compelled
to join in Official Washington's endless Putin-bashing, causing a furious Putin to make clear that he cannot be counted on to assist
Obama on tricky foreign policy predicaments like Syria and Iran.
As I wrote last
April, "There is a 'little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly' quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply
move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme. If the Palestinians and Lebanon's Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel,
you target their sponsors with 'regime change' – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your 'regime change' in Iraq goes badly, you escalate
the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.
"Just when you think you've cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on
war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to
agree to constraints on its nuclear program. So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim
at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia.
"You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the
actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of
eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.
"When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed
by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive
a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.'
"Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with a propaganda barrage that would
do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin 'group think' is near total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts
– is fine."
Yet, by risking a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia - the equivalent of the old lady swallowing a horse – the neocons
have moved beyond what can be described in a children's ditty. It has become more like a global version of Israel's "Samson Option,"
the readiness to use nuclear weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.
But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom – and across the mainstream media
spectrum – has bought into this madness.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to
various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
Ukraine was
a typical neoliberal color revolution.
With standard set of players known from Iraq and Libya. And standard methods. But this time the goal was actually not Ukraine but Russia.
And this crisis has shown pretty well that the EU is not an independent player. It is a vassal of Washington.
Notable quotes:
"... by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change." ..."
"... Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. ..."
"... There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. ..."
"... Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change" in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential" necessity. ..."
"... "You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base. ..."
"... "When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.' ..."
Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what's the real motive for taking this
extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection of the U.S. dollar's dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism,
asks Robert Parry.
A senior U.S. diplomat told me recently that if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine and even neighboring Belarus that there would
be zero impact on U.S. national interests. The diplomat wasn't advocating that, of course, but was noting the curious reality that
Official Washington's current war hysteria over Ukraine doesn't connect to genuine security concerns.
So why has so much of the Washington Establishment – from prominent government officials to all the major media pundits – devoted
so much time this past year to pounding their chests over the need to confront Russia regarding Ukraine? Who is benefiting from this
eminently avoidable – yet extremely dangerous – crisis? What's driving the madness?
Of course, Washington's conventional wisdom is that America only wants "democracy" for the people of Ukraine and that Russian
President Vladimir Putin provoked this confrontation as part of an imperialist design to reclaim Russian territory lost during the
breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. But that "group think" doesn't withstand examination. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence
eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp
down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change."
Plus, if "democracy promotion" were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve it. Democratically elected President
Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and
hold early elections so he could be voted out of office if the people wanted.
However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych
and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly
endorsed the coup regime that emerged as "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting, for
instance, that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.
The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance to the putsch, was studiously
ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
So, it's hard for any rational person to swallow the official line that the U.S. interest in the spiraling catastrophe of Ukraine,
now including thousands of ethnic Russians killed by the coup regime's brutal "anti-terrorist operation," was either to stop Putin's
imperial designs or to bring "democracy" to the Ukrainians.
That skepticism – combined with the extraordinary danger of stoking a hot war on the border of nuclear-armed Russia – has caused
many observers to search for more strategic explanations behind the crisis, such as the West's desires to "frack" eastern Ukraine
for shale gas or the American determination to protect the dollar as the world's currency.
Thermo-Nuclear War Anyone?
The thinking is that when the potential cost of such an adventure, i.e. thermo-nuclear warfare that could end all life on the
planet, is so high, the motivation must be commensurate. And there is logic behind that thinking although it's hard to conceive what
financial payoff is big enough to risk wiping out all humanity including the people on Wall Street.
But sometimes gambles are made with the assumption that lots of money can be pocketed before cooler heads intervene to prevent
total devastation - or even the more immediate risk that the Ukraine crisis will pitch Europe into a triple-dip recession that could
destabilize the fragile U.S. economy, too.
In the Ukraine case, the temptation has been to think that Moscow – hit with escalating economic sanctions – will back down even
as the EU and U.S. energy interests seize control of eastern Ukraine's energy reserves. The fracking could mean both a financial
bonanza to investors and an end to Russia's dominance of the natural gas supplies feeding central and eastern Europe. So the economic
and geopolitical payoff could be substantial.
According
to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, an
inviting target especially since other European nations, such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria, have resisted fracking technology
because of environmental concerns. An economically supine Ukraine would presumably be less able to say no. [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Beneath the Ukraine
Crisis: Shale Gas."]
Further supporting the "natural gas motive" is the fact that it was Vice President Joe Biden who demanded that President Yanukovych
pull back his police on Feb. 21, a move that opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias and the U.S.-backed coup. Then, just three
months later, Ukraine's largest private gas firm, Burisma Holdings,
appointed Biden's son, Hunter
Biden, to its board of directors.
While that might strike some of you as a serious conflict of interest, even vocal advocates for ethics in government lost their
voices amid Washington's near-universal applause for the ouster of Yanukovych and warm affection for the coup regime in Kiev.
For instance, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,
dismissed
the idea that Hunter Biden's new job should raise eyebrows, telling Reuters: "It can't be that because your dad is the vice president,
you can't do anything,"
Who Is Behind Burisma?
Soon, Burisma – a shadowy Cyprus-based company – was lining up well-connected lobbyists, some with ties to Secretary of State
John Kerry, including Kerry's former Senate chief of staff David Leiter, according to lobbying disclosures.
As Time magazine reported,
"Leiter's involvement in the firm rounds out a power-packed team of politically-connected Americans that also includes a second new
board member, Devon Archer, a Democratic bundler and former adviser to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Both Archer and Hunter
Biden have worked as business partners with Kerry's son-in-law, Christopher Heinz, the founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a private-equity
company."
According to investigative journalism
in Ukraine, the ownership of Burisma has been traced to Privat Bank, which is controlled by the thuggish billionaire oligarch Ihor
Kolomoysky, who was appointed by the coup regime to be governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a south-central province of Ukraine. Kolomoysky
also has been associated with the financing of brutal paramilitary forces killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
Also, regarding this energy motive, it shouldn't be forgotten that on Dec. 13, 2013, when neocon Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Victoria Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their
"European aspirations," she was at a conference sponsored by Chevron. She even stood next to the company's logo.
So, clearly energy resources and the billions of dollars that go with them should be factored in when trying to solve the mystery
of why Official Washington has gone so berserk about a confrontation with Russia that boils down to whether ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine should be allowed some measure of autonomy or be put firmly under the thumb of U.S.-friendly authorities in Kiev.
There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping
the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. According to this
line of thinking, the U.S. and its close allies need to bring Moscow to its geopolitical knees – where it was under the late Boris
Yeltsin – to stop any experimentation with other currencies for global trade.
Again, the advocates for this theory have a point. Protecting the Mighty Dollar is of utmost importance to Wall Street. The financial
cataclysm of a potential ouster of the U.S. dollar as the world's benchmark currency might understandably prompt some powerful people
to play a dangerous game of chicken with nuclear-armed Russia.
Of course, there's also the budgetary interest of NATO and the U.S. "military-industrial complex" (which helps fund many of Washington's
"think tanks") to hype every propaganda opportunity to scare the American people about the "Russian threat."
And, it's a truism that every major international confrontation has multiple drivers. Think back on the motives behind the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among a variety of factors were Vice President Dick Cheney's lust for oil, President George W. Bush's psychological
rivalry with his father, and the neocons' interest in orchestrating "regime change" in countries considered hostile to Israel. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "The
Mysterious Why of the Iraq War."]
There are also other reasons to disdain Putin, from his bare-chested horseback riding to his retrograde policies on gay rights.
But he is no Stalin and surely no Hitler.
The Neocons' 'Samson Option'
So, while it's reasonable to see multiple motives behind the brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine, the sheer recklessness of
the confrontation has, to me, the feel of an ideology or an "ism," where people are ready to risk it all for some larger vision that
is central to their being.
That is why I have long considered the Ukraine crisis to be an outgrowth of the neoconservative obsession with Israel's interests
in the Middle East.
Not only did key neocons – the likes of Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. John McCain – put themselves at the center of the
coup plotting last winter but the neocons had an overriding motive: they wanted to destroy the behind-the-scenes collaboration between
President Obama and President Putin who had worked together to avert a U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government a year
ago and then advanced negotiations with Iran over limiting but not eliminating its nuclear program.
Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change"
in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential"
necessity.
Further, there was the possibility that an expansion of the Obama-Putin cooperation could have supplanted Israel's powerful position
as a key arbiter of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Thus, the Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up – and the Ukraine
crisis was the perfect explosive for the destruction. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
Though I'm told that Obama now understands how the neocons and other hardliners outmaneuvered him over Ukraine, he has felt compelled
to join in Official Washington's endless Putin-bashing, causing a furious Putin to make clear that he cannot be counted on to assist
Obama on tricky foreign policy predicaments like Syria and Iran.
As I wrote last
April, "There is a 'little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly' quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply
move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme. If the Palestinians and Lebanon's Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel,
you target their sponsors with 'regime change' – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your 'regime change' in Iraq goes badly, you escalate
the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.
"Just when you think you've cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on
war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to
agree to constraints on its nuclear program. So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim
at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia.
"You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the
actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of
eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.
"When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed
by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive
a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.'
"Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with a propaganda barrage that would
do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin 'group think' is near total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts
– is fine."
Yet, by risking a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia - the equivalent of the old lady swallowing a horse – the neocons
have moved beyond what can be described in a children's ditty. It has become more like a global version of Israel's "Samson Option,"
the readiness to use nuclear weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.
But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom – and across the mainstream media
spectrum – has bought into this madness.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to
various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
The second age
of imperialism: As we enter 2015, it is not useless to look backwards in order to try to
guess the trends of the future. I would argue that the age that we are, to some extent exiting
now, and which extended from the early 1980s, can be called the "second age of imperialism"--the
first one, in the modern history, having been the age of high imperialism 1870-1914. I will
focus here on some of its key manifestations in the ideological sphere, in the areas I know,
history and economics.
But it should be obvious that ideology is but a manifestation
of the underlying real forces, which were twofold:
i) the failure of most developing countries by 1980 to become economically successful
and self-sustaining after decolonization and the end of Communism as an alternative global
ideology, and |
(ii) the relatively solid economic record of Western countries (masked by the expansion
of borrowing for the lower classes), and regained self-confidence of the elites in the wake
of the Reagan-Thatcher (counter-) revolutions and the fall of Communism.
The violent manifestations of the second age of imperialism were invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq, brutal war in Libya...
anne
As we enter 2015, it is not useless to look backwards in order to try to guess the trends
of the future. I would argue that the age that we are, to some extent exiting now, and which
extended from the early 1980s, can be called the "second age of imperialism"--the first one,
in the modern history, having been the age of high imperialism 1870-1914....
-- Branko Milanovic
JohnH -> anne...
I would argue that the second age of colonialism started right after WWII. Starting then,
the US launched a three pronged effort: 1) containing communism, 2) prying British and French
colonies loose, and 3) installing American approved regimes in the former colonies and everywhere
else it could.
During that period, the mantra "freedom and democracy" had some legitimacy, since America
had just freed Europe from fascism and was now trying to free colonies from European tyranny
and from the threat of Stalinism. American approved regimes differed from European colonies
in that they were ostensibly ruled by locals, less brutal and racist, and operated under the
guise of "preventing communism," not American hegemony.
However, as the coups against Mohammad Mosaddegh, Patrice Lumumba, Kwami Nkrumah, Jacobo
Arbenz, and Salvador Allende show, the US was actively engaged in regime change throughout this
supposedly quiescent period. The war in Vietnam, where the US supplanted French colonialists,
was another manifestation.
I would agree that beginning in the 1980s, the US began a more aggressive period, focusing
on propping up brutal, military dictatorships in Latin American. With the collapse of the Soviet
Union, reasons for restraint disappeared as did the guise of "fighting communism."
Now the US pursues regime change along with it European junior partners wherever it sees
a regime that is not sufficiently subservient.
JohnH -> Lafayette...
Agreed that today we have a different kind of imperialism. Today foreign powers don't need
slave labor. Instead, they have oil to power extractive industries. The foot print is lighter.
All they need is a quisling regime in place to allow unregulated, tax-free extraction.
The other expectation is that the quisling leaders open their markets to foreign investments
and foreign goods. For Mexico, this meant getting flooded with subsidized American corn, destroying
livelihoods of Mexican farmers. For Haiti, that meant getting flooded with subsidized American
rice, again destroying the livelihood of Haitian farmers. In both cases, the farmers were too
marginalized and dispersed to block the destruction of their livelihoods.
No matter how strongly Fukuyamistas and Acemoglu-Robinson (FAR) either deny that China represents
an example showing that different institutions can deliver an even superior growth, or vociferously
call for the inevitable end to the Chinese miracle, the success of China stands singly as a
great refutation of the FAR view of economics and politics....
Ukraine was a typical
neoliberal color revolution. With standard set of players known from Iraw and Libya. And standard
methods. But this time the goal was actually not Ukraine but Russia. And this crisis has shown
pretty well that the EU is not an independent player. It is a vassal of Washington.
Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what's
the real motive for taking this extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection
of the U.S. dollar's dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism, asks Robert Parry.
A senior U.S. diplomat told me recently that if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine and even
neighboring Belarus that there would be zero impact on U.S. national interests. The diplomat wasn't
advocating that, of course, but was noting the curious reality that Official Washington's current
war hysteria over Ukraine doesn't connect to genuine security concerns.
So why has so much of the Washington Establishment – from prominent government officials to all
the major media pundits – devoted so much time this past year to pounding their chests over the
need to confront Russia regarding Ukraine? Who is benefiting from this eminently avoidable – yet
extremely dangerous – crisis? What's driving the madness?
Of course, Washington's conventional wisdom is that America only wants "democracy" for the people
of Ukraine and that Russian President Vladimir Putin provoked this confrontation as part of an imperialist
design to reclaim Russian territory lost during the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. But that
"group think" doesn't withstand examination. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union's
reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who
were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in
Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change."
Plus, if "democracy promotion" were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve
it. Democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed
by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and hold early elections so he could
be voted out of office if the people wanted.
However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential
buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand
behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly endorsed the coup regime that
emerged as "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting,
for instance, that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.
The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance
to the putsch, was studiously ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
So, it's hard for any rational person to swallow the official line that the U.S. interest in
the spiraling catastrophe of Ukraine, now including thousands of ethnic Russians killed by the coup
regime's brutal "anti-terrorist operation," was either to stop Putin's imperial designs or to bring
"democracy" to the Ukrainians.
That skepticism – combined with the extraordinary danger of stoking a hot war on the border of
nuclear-armed Russia – has caused many observers to search for more strategic explanations behind
the crisis, such as the West's desires to "frack" eastern Ukraine for shale gas or the American
determination to protect the dollar as the world's currency.
Thermo-Nuclear War Anyone?
The thinking is that when the potential cost of such an adventure, i.e. thermo-nuclear warfare
that could end all life on the planet, is so high, the motivation must be commensurate. And there
is logic behind that thinking although it's hard to conceive what financial payoff is big enough
to risk wiping out all humanity including the people on Wall Street.
But sometimes gambles are made with the assumption that lots of money can be pocketed before
cooler heads intervene to prevent total devastation - or even the more immediate risk that the Ukraine
crisis will pitch Europe into a triple-dip recession that could destabilize the fragile U.S. economy,
too.
In the Ukraine case, the temptation has been to think that Moscow – hit with escalating economic
sanctions – will back down even as the EU and U.S. energy interests seize control of eastern Ukraine's
energy reserves. The fracking could mean both a financial bonanza to investors and an end to Russia's
dominance of the natural gas supplies feeding central and eastern Europe. So the economic and geopolitical
payoff could be substantial.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has Europe's third-largest
shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, an inviting target especially since other European
nations, such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria, have resisted fracking technology because
of environmental concerns. An economically supine Ukraine would presumably be less able to say no.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "Beneath
the Ukraine Crisis: Shale Gas."]
Further supporting the "natural gas motive" is the fact that it was Vice President Joe Biden
who demanded that President Yanukovych pull back his police on Feb. 21, a move that opened the way
for the neo-Nazi militias and the U.S.-backed coup. Then, just three months later, Ukraine's largest
private gas firm, Burisma Holdings,
appointed Biden's son, Hunter Biden, to its board of directors.
While that might strike some of you as a serious conflict of interest, even vocal advocates for
ethics in government lost their voices amid Washington's near-universal applause for the ouster
of Yanukovych and warm affection for the coup regime in Kiev.
For instance, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington,
dismissed the idea that Hunter Biden's new job should raise eyebrows, telling Reuters: "It can't
be that because your dad is the vice president, you can't do anything,"
Who Is Behind Burisma?
Soon, Burisma – a shadowy Cyprus-based company – was lining up well-connected lobbyists, some
with ties to Secretary of State John Kerry, including Kerry's former Senate chief of staff David
Leiter, according to lobbying disclosures.
As Time magazine
reported,
"Leiter's involvement in the firm rounds out a power-packed team of politically-connected Americans
that also includes a second new board member, Devon Archer, a Democratic bundler and former adviser
to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Both Archer and Hunter Biden have worked as business
partners with Kerry's son-in-law, Christopher Heinz, the founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a
private-equity company."
According
to investigative
journalism in Ukraine, the ownership of Burisma has been traced to Privat Bank, which is controlled
by the thuggish billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, who was appointed by the coup regime to be
governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a south-central province of Ukraine. Kolomoysky also has been
associated with the financing of brutal paramilitary forces killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
Also, regarding this energy motive, it shouldn't be forgotten that on Dec. 13, 2013, when neocon
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders
that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European aspirations," she was at a conference
sponsored by Chevron. She even stood next to the company's logo.
So, clearly energy resources and the billions of dollars that go with them should be factored
in when trying to solve the mystery of why Official Washington has gone so berserk about a confrontation
with Russia that boils down to whether ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine should be allowed some
measure of autonomy or be put firmly under the thumb of U.S.-friendly authorities in Kiev.
There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies
the possibility of escaping the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously
threaten American economic dominance. According to this line of thinking, the U.S. and its
close allies need to bring Moscow to its geopolitical knees – where it was under the late Boris
Yeltsin – to stop any experimentation with other currencies for global trade.
Again, the advocates for this theory have a point. Protecting the Mighty Dollar is of utmost
importance to Wall Street. The financial cataclysm of a potential ouster of the U.S. dollar as the
world's benchmark currency might understandably prompt some powerful people to play a dangerous
game of chicken with nuclear-armed Russia.
Of course, there's also the budgetary interest of NATO and the U.S. "military-industrial complex"
(which helps fund many of Washington's "think tanks") to hype every propaganda opportunity to scare
the American people about the "Russian threat."
And, it's a truism that every major international confrontation has multiple drivers. Think back
on the motives behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among a variety of factors were Vice President
Dick Cheney's lust for oil, President George W. Bush's psychological rivalry with his father, and
the neocons' interest in orchestrating "regime change" in countries considered hostile to Israel.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "The
Mysterious Why of the Iraq War."]
There are also other reasons to disdain Putin, from his bare-chested horseback riding to his
retrograde policies on gay rights. But he is no Stalin and surely no Hitler.
The Neocons' 'Samson Option'
So, while it's reasonable to see multiple motives behind the brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine,
the sheer recklessness of the confrontation has, to me, the feel of an ideology or an "ism," where
people are ready to risk it all for some larger vision that is central to their being.
That is why I have long considered the Ukraine crisis to be an outgrowth of the neoconservative
obsession with Israel's interests in the Middle East.
Not only did key neocons – the likes of Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. John McCain – put
themselves at the center of the coup plotting last winter but the neocons had an overriding motive:
they wanted to destroy the behind-the-scenes collaboration between President Obama and President
Putin who had worked together to avert a U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government a year
ago and then advanced negotiations with Iran over limiting but not eliminating its nuclear program.
Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the
neocons to engineer "regime change" in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential" necessity.
Further, there was the possibility that an expansion of the Obama-Putin cooperation could have
supplanted Israel's powerful position as a key arbiter of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Thus, the Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up – and the Ukraine crisis was the perfect explosive
for the destruction. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
Though I'm told that Obama now understands how the neocons and other hardliners outmaneuvered
him over Ukraine, he has felt compelled to join in Official Washington's endless Putin-bashing,
causing a furious Putin to make clear that he cannot be counted on to assist Obama on tricky foreign
policy predicaments like Syria and Iran.
As I
wrote last April, "There is a 'little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly' quality to neocon thinking.
When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme. If the
Palestinians and Lebanon's Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel, you target their
sponsors with 'regime change' – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your 'regime change' in Iraq goes badly,
you escalate the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.
"Just when you think you've cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against
Syria – with a possible follow-on war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path
out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to agree to constraints on its nuclear
program. So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim
at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia.
"You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias
are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize
the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych
had his political base.
"When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports
the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your
target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin,
Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.'
"Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with
a propaganda barrage that would do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin 'group think' is near
total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts – is fine."
Yet, by risking a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia - the equivalent of the old lady
swallowing a horse – the neocons have moved beyond what can be described in a children's ditty.
It has become more like a global version of Israel's "Samson Option," the readiness to use nuclear
weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.
But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom
– and across the mainstream media spectrum – has bought into this madness.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here
or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush
Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's
Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
Does this global oligarchy constitute a social class in the theoretical sense of the term?
If so, it should (1) be in control of the means of production, (2) be bound together by class consciousness,
and in-group mentality, and (3) be party to a global class struggle over the distribution of the
social product. The second criterion, in particular, was answered affirmatively: "The GRC [Global
Ruling Class] will tend to see themselves, very much like feudal kings, as being of divine superiority
placing them far above all other human beings. Fascism is very likely to be a basic pillar of their
ideology, and war will be just one of the tools to increase their power and profits" (Hamm, 2010:1010;
see also Turley, J. 2014; Dolan, E.W. 2013). As the money elite generally tend to focus their social
contacts inside, groupthink is permanently reinforced. This might hold true even if it is not homogeneous
in other respects (Lofgren, M. 2013; Domhoff, G.W., Staples, C., Schneider, A. 2013).
For the first question, the extent that the financial sector has taken over control of productive
industries should be emphasized. Here, the enormous amount of freshly printed dollars injected in
the global economy since the abolishment of the gold standard in 1971 is decisive. The Federal Reserve
Bank under successive US administrations has followed this policy up to the present day. The amount
of money strolling around for profitable investment is not underpinned by production or services
but rather by printing fiat notes. It has allowed the financial industry to buy up real businesses
by shares and bonds and their respective derivatives inside and outside the US. Thus, the financial
industry acquired, in fact, control of large parts of the real economy including (via production
chains) small and medium-sized businesses, fertile lands, and raw materials. The financial industry
is also highly influential in the areas of science and technology, and through lobbying and campaign
donations, it influences political decision-making [3]. In fact, as US lawmakers tend to belong
to the upper strata of the financial hierarchy (thus to the third circle of our power model), they
also tend to widely identify with the interests of the inner rings (Money Choice 2013). Therefore,
it is correct to conclude that the financial industry is in control of the means of production.
Too often writers understand class struggle as action taken by workers for working class
interests, overlooking the equally significant (and in our times considerably more important) class
struggle organized and directed by the ruling class via the state: "The entire panoply of neo-liberal
policies, from so-called 'austerity measures' to mass firings of public and private employees, to
massive transfers of wealth to creditors are designed to enhance the power, wealth, and primacy
of diverse sectors of capital at the expense of labor. … Class struggle from above is directed at
enhancing the concentration of wealth in the ruling class, increasing regressive taxes on workers
and reducing taxes on corporations, selectively enforcing regulations, which facilitate financial
speculation and lowering social expenditures for pensions, health, and education for workers families"
(Petras, J., 2013a). Class struggle from above aims at maximizing the collective power
of capital via restrictive laws on labor organizations, social movements, and workers' collective
bargaining rights. State budgets over bailouts are sites of class struggle; banks are sites of class
struggle between mortgage holders and households, creditors, and debtors. "Trillions of dollars
are transferred from the public treasury to bailout bankers. Hundreds of billions in social cuts
are imposed on workers, cutting across all sectors of the economy" (ibid.). Governments
are instrumental in the extraction of money from the population via taxation and then transfer it
to the rich via the banking system. What they are doing, with help of the IMF, to Greece, Portugal,
Ireland, or to Cyprus, or Spain, and what they hope to do to Ukraine, Egypt, Thailand, Venezuela
or Lybia, they have been doing to developing countries yesterday with exactly the same medicine.
"They want it all – profit and power. Our world is dominated and being re-shaped by a tiny global
financial, corporate, political and intellectual elite. And all must suffer so that they can have
what anyone in their position would want to have: more – they want it all. And they want you to
just shut up and let them take it all. If you have a problem with that, well, that's what riot police,
prisons, and fascism are for" (Marshall, A.G., 2013; see also Drum, K. 2013).
We also find a global power hierarchy among nation-states. To paraphrase what was said above
of the attitudes of members of the ruling class: The most powerful nation will tend to see itself
as being of divine superiority, placing itself far above all other nations. Fascism is very likely
to be a basic pillar of its ideology, and war will be just one of the tools to increase its power
and profits. "According to this self-righteous doctrine [of US exceptionalism], America is the indispensable
country. What this means is that the US has been chosen by history to establish the hegemony of
secular 'democratic capitalism' over the world. The primacy of this goal places the US government
above traditional morality and above all law, both its own and international" (Roberts, P.C., 2013a).
"If we have to resort to violence", Madeleine Albright once said, "then it is because we are America,
the indispensable nation. We stand tall and look further into the future than other nations." "I
believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my life", President Obama said during his
West Point inauguration speech 2014 (see comments by Escobar, P. 2014; Moon of Alabama 2014; Roberts,
P.C. 2014a).
The claim to the role of world hegemon comes at a high price (Nader, R., 2014). Socio-economic
polarization has increased sharply in the U.S. as hundreds of thousands of families have been driven
out of their homes by foreclosures, with some twenty percent of all households on food stamps. Increasing
numbers of households can no longer pay their rents, let alone care for retirement, while thousands
live in shanty towns and tent cities. Some city governments have begun to drive the poor out of
the downtown areas so that they will become more and more invisible [4]. Women, children, and non-whites
are especially affected; as a result, reduced health care and increased mortality rates have been
reported [5]. Furthermore, a baby born today in the U.S., when it takes its first breath of air,
is $50.000 in debt (Ventura, J., 2013). Meanwhile, the prison industry profits from a policy of
incarceration, which even includes the handing out of lifelong sentences to children. The Department
of Homeland Security is being developed into a standing army, police forces are increasingly militarized
(Whitehead, J., no date).
The installment of the US Dollar as world reserve currency constituted the economic pillar of
the US as the global super power. As the US was able to export all newly printed money, it could
appropriate the products of other societies for the simple price of printing paper, and through
this measure, force other countries to pay for its luxury as well as for its overwhelming military
power and war mongering. Add to this the structural adjustment policy exerted by the US-controlled
World Bank and IMF, plus the CIA's covert actions around the globe, it would be analytically correct
to say that the US has become the adversary in the global class struggle, especially since the nucleus
of a global ruling class resides in the US. According to Galtung's structural theory of imperialism
(Galtung, J. 1980), the hegemon will rely on vassals in subordinate nations (i.e., in the form of
allied governments). Elites in subordinate nations are assigned to guarantee the unchallenged role
of the global hegemon, to allow its unrestrained access to local resources and control rights while
securing immunity to its representatives. Consequently, for the most part, the global ruling class
can be located in the power elite of the United States (see, e.g., the longitudinal studies of the
US power elite presented by G. William Domhoff and his group, Domhoff, G.W. 2014).
The litmus test of power is, on the individual as on the collective level, based on two criteria:
the possibility to avoid prosecution for crimes committed, or impunity, and the degree to which
appropriation of others' wealth is possible. An eminent example is given by the attacks of 9/11.
As Ruppert (2004) and others [6] have argued, those who succeed in preventing a new and thorough
investigation questioning the official narrative are obviously in a power position (case study below).
So are those who initiate war, are responsible for hundreds of thousands of people murdered, yet
are not brought to trial in the aftermath. Neither has anyone in the US government been held accountable
for torture (the 600 pages Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture has not yet been released,
Dick, A. 2014), targeted killings, and drone victims – all of which are prohibited crimes under
US law and the Geneva Conventions. Nor has any U.S. official been charged for violating constitutional
rights, that is, spying without warrants, warrantless searches, violations of habeas corpus,
murder of US citizens without due process, denial of legal representation, conviction through undisclosed
evidence. Who is to be held accountable for the long-term effects of the nuclear bombings on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki? or the spread of Agent Orange in Vietnam? or the use of depleted uranium ammunition
in Iraq? Who is being tried for the crimes again the Palestinian people committed by the Israeli
government? The problem is not whether the war criminals can be identified, no; rather, it is a
problem of charging them with the crime and then following through with the legal process. But when
are they ever charged and tried? And why not? It's not only that the US murdered one and a half
million people [7], mostly Iraqis and some Americans, ruined the country, and inflicted costs of
almost three trillion US$ on the taxpayer (the "supreme crime", according to the ruling of the Nuremberg
Trials), they also inflamed the Sunni-Shia conflict (Stone, O., Kuznick, P., 2013:521-34) and they
are responsible for the rise of IS, the Islamic State, presumably the most dangerous of all terrorist
groups and a new pretext to bomb Iraq [8]. "The Obama justice department, in particular the Chief
of its Criminal Division, […], never even tried to hold the high-level criminals accountable. What
Obama justice officials did instead is exactly what they did in the face of high-level Bush era
crimes of torture and warrantless eavesdropping: namely, acted to protect the most powerful factions
in the society in the face of overwhelming evidence of serious criminality" (Greenwald, G., 2013).
Moreover, who will bring to trial the banksters that plunder the middle class? (Whitney, M. 2014a;
Cantu, A. 2014) The silence following the crimes of the ruling powers is deafening.
Remarks presented at the No NATO/No War Counter-Summit in Lisbon, Portugal November 19, 2010.
I want to thank Reiner Braun and the planning committee for the privilege of being able to join
you here in Lisbon, long a geopolitical pivot of Europe, to challenge NATO, its nuclear policies
and Afghanistan war. I've been asked to speak about NATO's new nuclear doctrine. In sum, as The
Guardian in London reported, in the so-called "new strategic concept," "nuclear weapons remain at
the core of NATO doctrine, and an attempt to withdraw an estimated 200 American B-61 nuclear bombs
from Europe, a legacy of the cold war, is not mentioned."[1] So much for a new doctrine
or for "change that we can believe."
The disastrous recent US election resulted from the confluence of corruptions of our political
system and our economic crisis. The environment is reminiscent of the early 1930s, when the
Great Depression was fertile ground for the rise of fascism. More optimistic writers are thinking
in terms of the U.S. becoming a banana republic.
Because we can't understand NATO's nuclear doctrines – old and new – without understanding how
NATO fits into Washington's global strategies, I will begin by talking about U.S. geostrategic thinking
and will then turn to the history, roles and specifics of U.S.-NATO nuclear doctrines.
The foundations of US dominance carried with them the seeds of their undoing, and thus of the
current crisis. The Albright Report and its recommendation reflect efforts by US militarists and
elites to compensate militarily, and, to lesser extents, economically, for the relative decline
in US power and influence that was accelerated by the Bush-Cheney "romance of ruthlessness."
The Albright Report is a dreamscape envisioned to reinforce U.S.-European global dominance. Fortunately,
Europe, with problems enough of its own, is not rushing to embrace it.
NATO has always been about more than containing Moscow. George Kennan, the author of the containment
doctrine, wrote that, given the Red Army's sacrifices in driving Hitler's armies from Moscow to
Berlin, the post-war division of Europe was inevitable if not just. Eastern Europe would be its
buffer against future invasions from the West.[2]
Like the unequal treaties of European colonialism in Asia, NATO has been a fig leaf, providing
a degree of legitimacy for the continuing US military occupation and related US political influence
across western Eurasia.
The collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated NATO's Cold War raison d'etre and undermined rationales
for the foreign deployment of hundreds of thousands of US warriors. In response, elite figures,
led by Zbigniew Brzezinski, conceded the imperial nature of the US project. Brzezinski's "The
Grand Chessboard" was a primer explaining that the Empire's most essential geostrategic requirement
is dominance of the Eurasian heartland, and that the U.S. must have footholds on Eurasia's western,
southern and eastern peripheries. Witness Obama's recent travels and diplomacy, first to Japan,
then to Korea and Japan, and now Portugal. Brzezinski explained that first rank US allies are "vassal
states," whose elites share in imperial privilege. See, for example, NATO's Nuclear Planning Group.
Of course, NATO also serves as a rear base to reinforce US dominance of Eurasia's southern flank
- the oil-rich Middle East - and helps to make the Central Asian war possible.
This weekend, heads of state will kowtow to an updated version of the Albright report, with its
call to extend the war in Central Asia beyond 2014, its demands for greater alliance solidarity
and military spending, and its insistence on keeping US nuclear weapons in Europe. But European
leaders will commit to only the minimum needed to maintain the alliance.
None of this can reverse more powerful realpolitik dynamics. Russia's military power continues
to decline. As the Albright Report concedes, Europe faces no immediate threat of a foreign invasion.
With the economic crisis, there will be no appetite to implement Washington's demands for greater
European military spending.
Some NATO forces will continue to fight in Afghanistan as the U.S. pursues its doomed strategy
of deadly, Vietnam-style coercive diplomacy. But the ambition to transform NATO into a global alliance
committed to "out of area operations," in part to contain China, perished in the Afghan quagmire.
Unaware of the deadly connection between foreign military interventions and the preparations
for and threats to initiate nuclear war, most US people think of the US nuclear arsenal only in
terms of deterrence, an approach that some in the Pentagon have said "has never been our doctrine."
A classical example of this misconception is an early history of NATO's nuclear doctrines, published
by the Air RAND Corporation.[3] Written amidst the 1980s debates over deployment
of first strike Pershing II, cruise and SS-20 missiles in Europe, it celebrated the "flexible response"
doctrine formally blessed by NATO in 1967, but originating with Henry Kissinger's advocacy of fighting
and winning "limited nuclear wars."
The RAND history stresses NATO's inability to fulfill an agreement made here in Lisbon in 1954
to match the Soviet Union's conventional military deployments, as well as the anticipated end of
the US nuclear monopoly. In response, we had Eisenhower's "massive retaliation" doctrine. To "deter"
anticipated "Soviet Aggression," NATO's conventional forces were to be "trip wires" to contain a
possible Soviet attack until Washington's "nuclear sword … struck down the aggressor."
This illogic collapsed in 1957 with Moscow's launch of the sputnik satellite, which intimated
that Moscow's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) could soon deter US "massive retaliation"
strikes. It took a decade for the MAD policy of mutually assured destruction to prevail, but throughout
the 1960s, the U.S. and NATO deployed so-called tactical theater nuclear weapons – many with the
destructive capacity of the Hiroshima A-bomb and sea-based strategic hydrogen nuclear weapons twenty
to fifty times more powerful than the Nagasaki A-bomb.
By the mid-1960s, with more than 7,000 US nuclear weapons in Europe, Europeans rightly feared
that they would suffer the most in a nuclear war. It was widely understood that a so-called "limited
war" could easily escalate to total nuclear war, and, as Daniel Ellsberg learned, the U.S. Single
Integrated Operational Plan anticipated the deaths of more than five hundred million people across
Eurasia.
Then, as now, the challenge for US strategists was to prevent Western Europe's "decoupling"
from the United States. To prevent Europe from going its own way, the Nuclear Planning Group was
created, as were dual key launch controls.
Throughout this period, the U.S./NATO nuclear arsenal had objectives other than containment.
As President Carter's Secretary of War Harold Brown testified, with nuclear weapons as the core
of US security systems, its conventional forces became "meaningful instruments of military and political
power." As Noam Chomsky explained, this meant that "we have succeeded in sufficiently intimidating
anyone who might help protect people who we are determined to attack."[4]
Thus, as early as 1946, before the Soviet Union broke the US nuclear monopoly, President Truman
threatened Moscow with nuclear annihilation to reinforce US dominance of Iran. US nuclear weapons
in Europe were essential to US preparations for and threats to initiate nuclear war, not only during
the Berlin crises of 1948 and 61, but as the U.S. reinforced its hegemony over the oil-rich Middle
East, long the "geo-strategic center of the struggle for world power."[5] Such threats
were made during the Suez Crisis in 1956; the incursion into Lebanon and revolution in Iraq in 1958;
the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, in which the U.S. threatened human existence in order to enforce
the principle that we could deploy nuclear weapons along the Soviet Union's periphery, but they
could not do likewise; the Six Day Middle East War in 1967; the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003, and
the current "all options are on the table" threats against Iran.
US nuclear forces based in Europe were placed on the highest level of nuclear alert during President
Nixon's 1969 "madman" threats to intimidate Vietnam, and had any of the nine nuclear threats made
against North Korea, or one the four against China, escalated to general nuclear war, weapons based
in Europe would not have remained in their bunkers.
Throughout this sorry history, preventing European "vassal states" from decoupling has been a
constant. Now the European Union is besieged by centrifugal forces, with senior US analysts speaking
of the "Potential Twilight of the European Union"[6] at the same time China is rising
and that Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on Russian energy resources. With a growing number
of European political leaders calling for the withdrawal of all US "tactical" nuclear weapons based
in Europe, it is no wonder that Albright and her experts insist that "The North Atlantic Treaty
area cannot be treated in isolation from the rest of the world" and press the "requirement of Alliance
cohesion."
It is in these circumstances - with US footholds on the Eastern, southern and now Western peripheries
of Eurasia being challenged - that the panel of "experts" urged few substantive changes in NATO's
strategic concept.
This explains Secretary Clinton's insistence at the Tallinn NATO Ministerial conference that
"as long as nuclear weapons exist, we, the United States, will maintain a[n] … effective nuclear
arsenal … . And we will continue to guarantee the security of our NATO allies." [7]
Similarly, NATO Secretary General Rasmussen argues, "the alliance continues to need a credible nuclear
deterrent … ." He cited rogue states and terrorists, but who believes that nuclear threats deter
non-state terrorists or do anything but encourage non-nuclear states to emulate NATO by building
deterrent nuclear arsenals of their own?
Like Secretary Clinton, Albright and her experts insist that "NATO should continue to maintain
secure and reliable nuclear forces, with widely shared responsibility for deployment and operational
support … . Any change in this policy, including the geographic distribution of NATO nuclear deployments
in Europe, should be made … by the Alliance as a whole." The 180 or so genocidal nuclear weapons
currently based in Europe are to remain here indefinitely. The Albright Report makes the following
recommendations, among others:
"[T]he Alliance should retain a nuclear component to its [ostensibly] deterrent strategy."
"[R]etention of some U.S. forward-deployed systems on European soil reinforces the principle
of extended nuclear deterrence and collective defense."
"Broad participation of the non-nuclear Allies is an essential sign of transatlantic solidarity
and risk sharing." Despite opposition from Germany, Norway and other NATO allies, non-nuclear
states must share the culpability for preparations for omnicidal war.
And NATO "should make clear its full support for efforts to prevent the proliferation of
nuclear weapons … " which means maintaining the present omnicidal imbalance of nuclear terror.
While the US nuclear weapons based in Europe and the 9,000 other US nuclear weapons are to continue
to serve as a hedge against Russia, the new bogey-man, Iran, has been raised to frighten Europe
into acquiescence.
In reality, Iran's nuclear program is probably more like Japan's than Pakistan's. By becoming
a near-nuclear power, it has enhanced its regional influence. Should it produce nuclear weapons,
it would spark a regional nuclear arms race that would further undermine Iran's security. US nuclear
warheads based in Europe would not be needed if Washington, Paris or London opted for the annihilation
of Iran. And, as with the Nuclear Planning Group, collaboration on "missile defenses" will do more
to integrate US and European elites and militaries than to protect European people.
Times change. The structures on which our nations and lives are based are subject to political
physics, to changes demanded by popular forces and to entropy. Today, with the need for fossil fuels
and visions of triangulation to isolate China, entreaties from authoritarian Russia are actively
engaged by Berlin, Paris and even Washington. This will be impacted by the delay or failure of the
US Senate to ratify the New START treaty. As Europeans pursue their real interests - with pressures
from popular movements and recognition of existential interests - NATO will pass into history. If
we are proactive, NATO's end will come with a whimper and not with catastrophic nuclear or lesser
military bangs.
We have our work cut out for us. I look forward to our discussion about our future efforts -
including how we can get nuclear weapons out of Europe.
1 Uulian Borger. "Barack Obama's hopes for a nuclear-free world fading fast," The Guardian.
November 17, 2010
2 George F. Kennan. American Diplomacy 1900-1950, New York: Mentor Books, 1951
It is generally accepted that "politics is the art of the possible" and yet the EU leaders are
clearly engaged in the art of the absolutely impossible. The fact that they are all pretending like
this is going to have some useful impact is truly a sign of how much the EU leadership has degenerated
over the years. Can you imagine Helmut Schmidt, Charles de Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand
or Francisco Franco engaging in that kind of infantile nonsense? All these leaders had their bad
aspects, but at least none of them were clowns, whereas when I look at the current EU leadership,
especially Van Rumpey, Adners Fogh Rasmussen or José Manuel Barroso I get the feeling that I am
looking at some ugly kindergarten of intellectually challenged clowns and, frankly, I can understand
Mrs Nuland's feelings.
It is clear the the US neocons (which actually dominate State Department) want to use both
MH17 tragedy and
Ukrainian crisis as
a whole to bully Russia. This article is no exception. Jeffrey Stacey expresses his primitive liner
neocons views in other his articles too -- see
whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva
. John Herbst was United
States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006, period which includes Color revolution
which preceded EuroMaidan -- Orange revolution.
So he can be called the Godfather of Orange Revolution. Comments to article are really interesting,
which can't be said about the article itself. It is standard neocon view on Russia.
The international community is at long last beginning to take a strong stand against Moscow's
aggression in eastern Ukraine. There is solid evidence indicating not only that Malaysia Airlines
Flight 17 was shot down by Russian-aided rebels in eastern Ukraine, but that the Kremlin has bolstered
the rebels with heavy artillery despite toughened Western sanctions. Moreover, Russia has massed
over 45,000 soldiers near the eastern Ukrainian border, who are poised to undertake a "humanitarian
operation." The large convoy of trucks Russia is sending to aid rebel-held Lugansk could prove to
be a thinly disguised Trojan horse, setting off a major showdown once it arrives at the border.
President Vladimir Putin's double game has only ramped up since the downing of MH17, in response
to the recent gains Ukraine's military forces have been making against the rebels. After a turning-point
victory in liberating the strategic town of Slavyansk last month, the Ukrainian military has gone
on to retake three-fourths of its lost territory and is now pounding the last two major rebel strongholds,
Donetsk and Lugansk. Many of these rebels are not just pro-Russian sympathizers, they are full-fledged
Russian citizens -- including some notorious bad apples like Igor Strelkov and Vladimir Antyufeyev,
whom Russia previously used in not-so-subtle attempts to destabilize former members of the Warsaw
Pact. Now Moscow is also aiding them by firing artillery across the border at Ukrainian forces attempting
a final rout of the rebels.
The time has come for the West to make a decisive move to counter Putin's irregular war against
Ukraine. The Russian president has introduced a perilous new norm into the international system,
namely that it is legitimate to violate the borders of other countries in order to "protect" not
just ethnic Russians, but "Russian speakers" -- with military means if necessary. Putin has notoriously
threatened to annex Transnistria, the Russian-speaking territory of Moldova, inter alia. The Putin
Doctrine represents a serious transgression of the status quo that has guaranteed the continent's
security since the end of World War II; moreover, it violates the most essential tenet of the post-1945
international order.
The aim of Western actions must involve compelling Russia to end all support for the rebels in
eastern Ukraine and ensure complete respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity. In order to bring
about this result -- and ensure Moscow does not continue its dangerous double game -- a comprehensive
approach is needed. It should consist of three elements: even tougher economic sanctions; military
armaments to Ukraine; and an updated NATO strategy. The combined effect of this approach is to persuade
the Kremlin that the cost of its Ukraine adventure and aggressive pursuit of the Putin Doctrine
is too high.
The West has imposed economic sanctions on Russia for the past several months, but the results
thus far have been feeble. The problem is partly that the sanctions started small and were only
slowly ratcheted up. Moreover, European sanctions have been noticeably weaker than U.S. measures,
feeding Putin's calculation that he can continue to act as he chooses, while a reluctant Europe
hesitates to impose sufficiently punishing measures.
The sanctions that the United States and the European Union put in place on July 29, however,
are strong enough to get Moscow's attention. Indeed, despite Russia's counter-sanctions on European
and American food products, Putin is witnessing the failure of his efforts to split Europe from
the United States -- not to mention the larger failure of preventing Kiev's new government from
tilting to the West. But these measures have not been enough to actually deter Russia from continuing
to intervene in eastern Ukraine. The West needs to make clear that the latest sanctions will not
be the last if Moscow's aggression is not rapidly terminated.
The second part of a comprehensive strategy is to make it easier for Ukraine to re-establish
control in its restive east. Since his late-May election, President Petro Poroshenko has conducted
a successful counteroffensive against the rebels in eastern Ukraine. His forces have resealed a
significant part of its eastern border and taken back much of the territory seized by the rebel
forces. But as Poroshenko's troops have advanced, Moscow has increased the amount and sophistication
of military supplies to Ukraine, including the SA-11 surface-to-air missile system that shot down
MH17 and the SA-13 system. Thus far, his multiple requests for direct lethal aid have only met with
reluctance in Brussels and Washington.
The West has dithered under the assumption that providing lethal aid to Ukraine would escalate
the conflict. But a sanctions-dominant approach clearly has not prevented escalation. Indeed, with
France's determination to sell the Mistral ships to Russia, the West is in the peculiar position
of arming the aggressor and forbidding arms to the victim. If Russia does not cease firing missiles
at Ukrainian forces and supplying the rebels with arms and equipment, and does not pull troops back
from the border within two weeks, the West should begin supplying Ukraine proper with anti-tank
missiles, anti-aircraft missile batteries, and a variety of additional infantry weaponry. And it
should immediately threaten to do even more if Russia invades eastern Ukraine -- including inviting
Kiev to join NATO.
The third element of a comprehensive strategy against Moscow requires a clear-eyed understanding
of the Putin Doctrine. His stated right to "protect" Russian speakers is an invitation to intervene
along Russia's border in all directions, including in the territory of America's NATO allies in
the Baltics and elsewhere. For this reason, Washington's response must involve a new approach at
NATO for managing the Russian relationship. The NATO-Russia Joint Doctrine that concluded in the
late 1990s, which saw Russia as a partner, and which spoke of not building military infrastructure
in the new NATO members or permanently deploying major military equipment and forces, needs to be
reviewed. Publicly.
The small steps taken earlier this year to reassure NATO's eastern members -- Baltic air policing,
NATO maritime movements, several small-scale NATO exercises, placement of U.S. and Western European
aircraft around the Baltics and in Poland, and the deployment of a company of U.S. paratroopers
to Poland -- need substantial reinforcing. If Russia fails to respond to tougher sanctions, pointed
diplomacy, and lethal aid supplied to the Ukraine military, the allies must take further measures
at September's NATO summit in Wales.
It would be prudent to follow up NATO's suspension of cooperation with Russia with an official
review, with one of the options being maintaining the suspension and another being to end it and
all other forms of cooperation. Because Washington still needs Moscow's help with a handful of key
things (missile defense, Iran negotiations, Syria peace talks, and agreeing to rules governing cyberwarfare),
the aim would be to list ending the NATO-Russia Council as an option -- but with the unstated intention
of not actually following through. As NATO's Deputy Secretary-General Alexander Vershbow has been
arguing, Russia has begun treating the United States and the alliance as an adversary. This is why
we need to go beyond suspension and dangle complete cessation, even if for the time being we don't
plan to make good on this threat.
Regarding NATO's troop placement, however, the United States needs to use this as the major means
of reassuring our allies. It would be a good idea to bring the level of U.S. troops in Eastern Europe
up to 1,000 from the temporary placement of 600 paratroopers (this could include 100 to 150 "soft
forces," such as trainers). Washington also needs to do its best to get the Western Europeans to
add to this total. To entice the Europeans to match the U.S. commitment, Washington should propose
not permanent placement but a perpetual rotational arrangement. This way, the reddish line of permanent
placement would not be crossed, but NATO would nonetheless achieve upgraded deterrence capability,
while mollifying Poland and the Baltics.
Eastern European nations such as Poland are likely to welcome and add to increased capabilities
commitments; Western Europeans nations, however, are far more hesitant. Direct lethal aid and a
regularized rotational U.S.-Europe troop placement will go most of the way toward re-establishing
conventional deterrence against Moscow. But to go all the way, Western allies also need to conduct
a yearly exercise in Poland (and make announcements that in future years this new major exercise
will be taking place in the Baltic states). This should be a major ground-air exercise of the NATO
Response Force (NRF), with a military plan for defending an invasion from the east.
Regarding military capabilities, the United States should endorse both the German proposal to
organize clusters of allies that would increase their military capabilities and Britain's proposal
that would align Western allies to spearhead NATO military operations beyond what the current NRF
plans call for. It is worth remembering that crude measures like the level of overall defense spending
are far less important than the current state of military capabilities, which lately have been enhanced
even by Western allies that have reduced their defense spending (e.g. France, Britain, and Germany).
Furthermore, the alliance ought to augment its operational air force capabilities to be able to
conduct 30-day air operations like the one carried out in Libya in 2011 (with the necessary fighter
aircraft, flight crews, refueling aircraft, drones, and satellite surveillance). NATO needs to be
thinking of capabilities in the full spectrum of land, naval, air, and cyber-power, and air capability
is the biggest gap.
Indeed, the time has come for the West to take an even stronger stand against Russian aggression
and force Putin to back down and end this crisis. The West should proceed with a fuller slate of
toughened sanctions, targeting all major sectors of the Russian economy -- virtually all of their
products and services -- and a full-fledged embargo against transferring any arms or defense technology
to Russia. Tightening the economic screws is still a major element of a successful strategy to get
Russia to cease and desist. But this is not enough.
The Russian president needs to be deterred from annexing other contested territories, like Transnistria,
and reinforcing his ugly new international relations norm by deeply interfering in the internal
affairs of other national states, such as the Baltics. This will require a series of additional
and stronger military moves on the European chessboard. Let Crimea be the apogee of revanchist Russian
aggrandizement. It is time for global security and international law to push back strongly against
bellicose Russian dictates.
Selected Comments
poncejorge
Dear authors,
After reading the first paragraph of your paper one can realize the astounding lack of academic
analysis behind it. Without going into deep analysis it can be easily pointed out that what
you call as "international community" is mostly EU and affiliates - Norway as an example, the
US, Australia and someway somehow Japan. The rest of the world is not on board. By your surprise
the "rest" of the world comprises China (1.3 billion people), India (1.2 billion), LATAM (600
+ million), and so on. As you can see, what you call as the international community does not
even account for 1 billion people. Instead of instigating and advocating for war you should
realize that Eurocentric (and US centric views) (see Edward Said) are rapidly fading into the
past and like most US policies of the past century they may create a blowback effect (see Charles
Johnson). Secondly, if you want to accuse someone of doing something first of all you have to
present proofs of it. That is a basic principle that can be easily traced back to Roman times
(2,000 years ago). What you call as "strong evidences" (shooting down of the Malaysian plane)
are nothing else than bluff without proofs. "I believe" does not count as proof, nobody cares
about what you believe, we care about what evidence you have. Furthermore, if you have the audacity
to trash a country as big and powerful as Russia - and its leadership- (6th world biggest economy,
and...full of atomic bombs!) without solid proofs you should realize that instead of creating
an atmosphere for dialog you are fomenting bickering and misunderstanding to say the least.
My advice is to stop acting as if you have any moral ground (Vietnam, Irak, Afghanista, invasion
of Mexico, and so on proofs that you are not better than anyone, just like the rest, and accepting
that will maybe make you come to terms with yourself and clear up your analysis) and understand
that the world does not work under presumptions, nor is black or white. Stop advocating for
war and start understanding that each country acts on its on interest, and that the US or the
EU do not have the right to impose its mores on everyone else (no one has the right, nor china,
russia, brazil etc, but unfortunately the EU - Spain, France, Uk mostly, and the US has a long
history of meddling in everyone affairs, first under open colonial format (Spain, France, UK)
and later under disguised moralistic pretenses (US).
Best regards,
A Citizen of the world who is tired of watching fellow humans died without a reason and watching
how the media sells itself to that purpose.
Klopezdron
Jeffrey,
Russians/Putin are responsible for downing of the Malaysian airplane? Come again please.
Why don't you charge Putin with Kennedy assassination and the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa
while you're at it.
Oligan
You've chosen wrong Bully, dear authors.
I'm Russian married to a French, I live in France and don't watch russian TV. I never supported
Putin and in February was really glad for Ukranians. Since then me (as well as many of those
who can read in Russian and talk to people from the region) have changed my opinion dramatically
- the deeds of so called Ukranian army on the east are terrible!!!
They bomb civilians all the time, they use nazys, they punish those civilians who have
relatives in protestants army, and on top those bastards in Kiev lie all the time - it is obvious
for any person who has a brain, you don't have to listen to Putin's propaganda to see it.
Ukranian revolution has turned from the step to western civilization into the most barbarian
war since 1941, and it is not only Putin who is in charge of it.
But you are so stubborn, it is amazing. You believe any bullshit that proves your fears
(somebody said something on facebook - wow!), and ignore facts that does not fit the concept.
Frankly speaking, when I read articles like this I see no difference between Putin's propaganda
and yours. And I see no difference between Putin's support of separatists and yours support
of Ukranian army. If you think that people in Donets and Lugansk will happily live with Kiev
after what they've done to them - well, it says a lot about your competence as an experts.
So - go both to hell with your military calls.
Sergey Aleksandrychev
@Oligan, you see no difference between Putin's "propaganda" and Ukrainian/American lies?
The best propaganda is telling truth, that's why Putin's propaganda is gaining the upper
hand.
I have not seen in the Western media or at Psaki's meetins any evidence of Putin's military
support to the rebels. They are not separatists. They have always lived on this land, and they
defend it against the gang of murderers who came to power in Kiev and consider the people of
Eastern Ukrain "subhumans".
rosavo
I doubt western leaders schooled at the tradition of pol cor guilt will do help eastern allies
against Russian revisionism, it's up to us in the east to do this.
as about Transnistria things are more complex since Stalin after the war took big parts from
Romania, Poland and Russia and included them into Ukraine. to compensate Moldova for losing
southern regions and Bukovina to Ukraine it added Transnistria to Moldova, integrating a huge
Russian-speaking population of non-Russians (that nevertheless identify themselves with Russian
identity and culture) into Moldova. I honestly prefer Transnistria to be integrated in Russia,
otherwise they will act in Moldova as a fifth column, as we see now the pro-Russians doing in
eastern Ukraine.
oguv
When you say bully, do you mean the Russians or US/EU/Nato?
natrium
The reference to "solid evidence" means a shortage of proof. By the way, the US
introduced a perilous new norm into the international system - to make regimes inside the borders
of other countries crashed. The ukrainian civil war is the reaction to such US invading.
Ildus
Overly simplistic analysis.
musicmaster
Ukraine is refusing to release the conversation of the plane with the control tower and
the radar images of the control tower and the US is refusing to release its satellite and radar
images. Kiev clearly has something to hide and that makes them the primary suspect.
Yet the article starts with the claim that the rebels did it. This lie made me skip the rest
of the article.
Shingo
This article is another very thinly disguised piece of neocon propaganda. There
are so many assumptions and claims made in this article that have never been proven, but form
the basis for the piece.
There is solid evidence indicating not only that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down
by Russian-aided rebels in eastern Ukraine
Actually there isn't. The only thing that has been presented is a prima facie case, but the
US government, who was surely monitoring the area closely at the time the plane was attacked,
have refused to produce one iota of evidence. When challenged to produce evidence, the State
Department has pointed to social media, insisting that their evidence is too sensitive to share
with the public.
Robert Parry has reported that his sources at the CIA and NSA refute the claim that the rebels
were responsible.
Moreover, Russia has massed over 45,000 soldiersnear the eastern Ukrainian border, who are
poised to undertake a "humanitarian operation."
And what is the basis of this claim other than pure speculation? What is the evidence that
the aid intended for the rebel-held areas is a Trojan horse?
in response to the recent gains Ukraine's military forces have been making against the rebels.
The alleged gains made by the Ukraine's military forces have proven to be entirely fictional.
In fact, from all the reports I have seen, it is Kiev which at tremendous costs has achieved
exactly nothing. They suffered enormous losses in the Southern Cauldron. The re-taking of Saur
Mogila has been marketed as a turning point victory, along with all the other so called turning
point victories that amounted to nothing. Add to this the very persistent rumors and hints by
various commanders on the ground that a big counter-offensive is in the works and the Ukies
might well have reached a breaking point.
Putin has notoriously threatened to annex Transnistria, the Russian-speaking territory of
Moldova, inter alia.
This is a lie. Putin has not threatened anything of the kind. And how is it that the authors
insist this should be NATO's problem when the Ukraine is not part of NATO? This whole crisis
is the consequence of the US violating the promise not to extend NATO further eastward beyond
Germany. The US would not accept a foreign military power installing bases along it's borders
and nor should Russia.
Stacey and Herbst also trivially dismiss the EU's own concerns and argue the EU should put
it's own interests aside for the sake of giving Putting a bloody nose. But the fact is that
sanctions have backfired. The EU is now returning to recession while he Russian economy continues
to grow.
Putin's efforts to split Europe from the United States have not been a failure, they are
only 2 weeks old, so Stacey and Herbst's argument that his efforts have failed are premature.
The new economic agreements between Russia and the BRICS countries has exposed the limits of
Western power to isolate Russia without shooting itself in the foot.
As for the Poroshenko's forces, they are at breaking point and time is running out for them.
The longer this conflict continues, the less likely their chance of success.
If Russia does not cease firing missiles at Ukrainian forces
What evidence is there that Russia has fired missiles at Ukrainian forces? What's more, it's
odd that Stacey and Herbst suggest the West should begin supplying Ukraine proper with anti-tank
missiles, anti-aircraft missile batteries when they already have them. They have close to a
dozen SA-11 surface-to-air missile systems that allegedly shot down MH17. Indeed, the Ukrainian
military moved one launcher into the area the day before MH17 was shot down.
It's also grossly hypocritical that Stacey and Herbst object to Russia's stated right to
"protect" Russian speakers when the US has done the same in Iraq.
In the end, Stacey and Herbst are complaining about the lack of action taken by the West
against Putin while admitting that the West don't have many options short of going to war.
mkham11
KIEV: The one thing Ukraine needs that could quickly end this torture is HARM missiles. The
dozens of Russian Buks, Stelas, now Tunguska missile trucks in the Donbas that are crippling
Ukr air power could be destroyed in short order by the radar-targeting air to ground missiles.
Able to run full air ops again, Ukraine could stamp out these cockroaches and take back the
East in 2-3 weeks, IF they would close the border. There is still a significant threat from
all the shoulder mounted infrared AA missiles, but the long range ones are more significant.
There's some evidence that Russia has even shipped the S-300 AA rockets, which can reach planes
200km away!
@mkham11 The one thing Ukraine needs that could quickly end this torture is HARM missiles
Do you seriously the Russians don't have something to deal with radar-targeting air to ground
missiles? The Russians have managed to paralyze Western military radar systems effortlessly.
Able to run full air ops again, Ukraine could stamp out these cockroaches and take back
the East in 2-3 weeks, IF they would close the border.
If who would close the border? You have no idea what you are talking about. For decades,
ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine travelled to Russia to work. Those borders are purely artificial.
Boomerang83
I have never read such garbage. US/EU/NATO are the bullies constantly demonizing Russia through
a web of lies and deceit. Every recent event since the violent and brutal overthrow of the democratically
elected government in Kiev (by a group of far right neo nazi thugs funded by US) has been orchestrated
and choreographed to make Putin look like the aggressor. Western media outlets slavishly follow
a prepared narrative, irrespective of the truth, to further some political agenda....the expansion
of NATO in Europe.
The hypocrisy of the US is nauseating...sticking their nose in where they are not wanted,
masquerading as the world's guardian of morals while they turn to poison everything they touch..Iraq,
Libya, Egypt, US badly needs a war because they are bankrupt to the tune of trillions of dollars;
Putin meanwhile is looking eastwards with the BRICS initiative which will eventually bypass
the dollar as the world reserve currency....and Obama sees the writing on the wall!
Every ploy is being used to goad Russia into a military conflict...all the bare faced lies
emanating from Ukraine from the Malaysian air disaster (interesting how everybody in the West
has gone all quiet on this one...even though they were accusing Russia within hours of the event.
Moscow produced satellite images clearly showing presence of Ukrainian fighter jets close to
aircraft at time of 'accident'.
US with all their satellite technology weren't prepared to reveal what they saw....we all
know why! And latest attempt is the 'Russian invasion' of Ukraine. remind me again, how many
tanks where there! Please don't insult people's intelligence.
Even the dogs in the street know what Ukraine and their puppet masters in US/EU are up to!.
Meanwhile the Russian speaking thousands of people of eastern Ukraine are being obliterated
in a ferocious onslaught from it's own government...and the West remains silent. Enough said!
Shingo
@ellsid @Boomerang83
If anything the U.S. EU and NATO response to Russia's INVASION of a sovereign country
have been pathetically weak.
There was no invasion. Name the date the invasion took place.
The U.S. you love to hate gives more aid to the world than any other country
Most of which is military aid, which amounts to a boondoggle for US arms manufacturers. And
no, the US did not bail out Russia.
Yes, the same criminal who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers, whose 'family' and
friends ran one of the most corrupt regimes (next to Putin's) in Europe.
All that happened is that the control of the UKraine has passed from one group of oligarchs
who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers to another group who stole billions from Ukraine's
coffers. The Ukraine is as corrupt now as it was then.
Your really have no clear understanding of what Maidan was about. It had everything to
do with the citizens of Ukraine wanting to be rid of their corrupt thieving government.
If that were true, the demonstrations would have ended when Yanukovych was ousted, but they
continued. The only thing that changed is that the US media stopped reporting these demonstrations
and the neo Nazis who sabotaged the demonstrations and took power then outlawed subsequent demonstrations.
The demonstrators in Maidan were being paid $50 a day from Nuland's $5 billion dollar fund
to overthrow the Ukrainian government.
I guess that kind of backfired for when Putin next sets his sites on reconquering the
Baltic countries or Poland.
How can it have backfired when Putin has not tried to reconquering the Baltic countries or
Poland. The fact is that neo cone lovers and Russophobes like you have been predicting that
Russia was about to invade for months now, and you've been wrong.
That's why Poroshenko and the Kiev junta keep coming up with BS stories about cross borders
skirmishes, because he is desperately trying to convince the world that the Russians are about
to invade.
Those were indigenous revolts against tyrant leaders, which hopefully may one day
come to Russian soil
Indigenous revolts that were not only undemocratic, but illegal. What's more, they were sabotaged
by extremists with the original demonstrators being sidelined. Egypt has become a dictatorship
with even the supporters of the Morsi overthrow afraid of being imprisoned for criticizing the
junta. Libya had has been destroyed and taken over by Jihadists.
.the Kremlin has dropped this line when it was pointed out to them these were GROUND
ATTACK aircraft that could not fly at this attitude and could not carry air to air missiles.
False. Those aircraft could indeed fly at 30,000 feet and are designed to carry missiles.
They tend to operate at lower altitudes when bombing ground targets, but that doesn't mean they
are not capable of cruising at higher altitudes.
You're the moron for trying to argue from the position of such ignorance.
"Strelkov"/ Girkin, Borodai, and all the Russian citizens sent in to lead the insurgency
all lamented the lack of support the Russia sponsored mercenaries received from the local
population.
Rubbish, You have it completely backwards. It is the local population that is behind the
insurgency. In fact, they have lamented the lack of support from Russia, not the other way around.
Putin has no desire to recreate "Novorossiya", otherwise Moscow would never had given recognition
to the new regime in Kiev. Putin knows that the Ukraine is an economic basket case and whoever
wins it loses because it's a poisoned chalice.
Shingo
@ellsid @Boomerang83
Anyone who thinks Maidan ended crony capitalism and the reign of the oligarchs are delusional.
And just to prove that you haven't done any research but are simply parroting talking points
you read on some right wing web site, here is evidence the top cruising altitude of a Su-25
is 10km, the same as a passenger plane.
If anyone has been hibernating under a slimy rock it's you. You should also get over your
crush' on Neuland and the necons because they have a track record of lying, being wrong about
everything and creating chaos and destruction.
marty martel
Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan wrote in a secret review in 2009 that 'Pakistan's
Army and ISI are covertly SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani's HQN, Mullah Omar's QST
(Quetta Shura Taliban), Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money',
diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show. Amb. Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own
State Department or US government.
Admiral Mike Mullen told the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 22-Sept-2011 that: 'The
fact remains that the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network operate from Pakistan with impunity.
(These) Extremist organizations serving as PROXIES of the government of Pakistan are attacking
Afghan troops and civilians as well as U.S. soldiers.' Adm. Mullen had NO reason to mislead
US Senate.
In 'Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War' published in January, 2014, former defense secretary
Gates writes: "Although I would defend them (Pakistanis) in front of Congress and to the press
to keep the relationship from getting worse – and endangering our supply line from Karachi –
I knew they were really no ally at all." So Gates in effect, kept lying to US Congress and press
and thereby to the whole World that Pakistan was an ally when it was anything but.
However not just administration but most of the American foreign policy wonks and news media
have been deafeningly silent about Pakistani State waging Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan
that has been killing thousands of innocent Afghans since 2001.
marty martel
It has been interesting that while raising such a public hue and cry over Russia's support
of Ukrainian insurgents, US government, foreign policy wonks and news media have sought to varnish,
suppress and even reward similar behavior of Pakistani State that has been playing duplicitous
game of 'running with the Haqqani/Mullah Omar's Taliban insurgents while hunting with the American
hounds'.
There has been NO doubt in US establishment about from where the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan
is being waged that has been killing not just thousands of innocent Afghan civilians but US/NATO/Afghan
troops as well since 2001.
"For twenty years Pakistan's army - the real power broker in the country - has backed the
Afghan Taliban. It helped create the Taliban's Islamic Emirate in the 1990s and build the al-Qaeda
state within a state. The army has provided safe haven, arms, expertise and other help to Taliban.
It briefly pretended to abandon Taliban to avoid American anger in 2001 misleading George W
Bush", so said an ex-CIA official Bruce Riedel at an US Islamic World Forum organized in Qatar
on June 9-11, 2013.
I sometimes get very interesting emails in my inbox and this happened today when I found the
email below sent to me by "M". Having read it I immediately contacted "M" to ask for his permission
to post it here. I felt that this would be especially important since I posted the "Appeal"
of Egor Prosvirnin which some of you interpreted as anti-German and then accused me of also harboring
anti-German feelings. As
I explained
it later, my intention had been to make people aware that there is a growing anger against Germany
in Russia and that even though I personally did not feel that anger, I considered that anger legitimate,
if not necessarily deserved (I soon realized that the most vociferous and nasty protests against
this post did not come from Germans or even Germanophiles, but from the same old crowd of neo-Nazis
who strongly feel that defending anything German is part of their ethos). Still, I have to admit
that I felt bad about the whole thing (because, believe it or not, I am not only not anti-German,
I don't even believe in collective, nevermind inherited, guilt). For one thing, as an anti-Soviet
Russian myself, I know the very difficult situation of a person who opposes the regime in power
in his country, but still feels that his own people are also victims. There are quite a few countries
and nationalities who still are resentful and angry with Russians, especially for things which the
Soviet forces did during WWII, and I consider that this resentment and anger is legitimate even
if sometimes historically one-sided. It is always tough to be at the receiving end of somebody's
anger - whether fully deserved or not - and so when I saw "M" email I decided to share it with you
and I am grateful to "M" for giving me his permission.
The Saker
-------
Seeing the hatred and outright ill will some have towards Germans really brought me down.
It makes me wonder how we are ever going to manage to have some kind of stability in Europe
and the world...
Here are some of the dynamics in Germany, as I see them. Most likely
many will disagree and want to debate them, I don't claim they are how it is, just how I see
it. I don't claim to know and understand it all. But it's something I would like people to think
about, before they write off the German people as a whole.
Where do I start? Something that should be obvious is that Germany is not a free and sovereign
country. From the start, when the Federal Republic was conceived, the Allies had a great influence
on shaping the new Germany. Especially the Americans. It is somewhat subtle if you are used
to how things are, but once you start observing it becomes clear that the American political
circles have great influence on ours. Anyone interested can take a look at how many of our Politicians
in the various established parties are members in transatlantic clubs. So guess where their
allegiance lies? They are not even ashamed of it, it's normal to them. For decades we've
had what you can call US whores. Not long ago I complained about that on a page of young
transatlanticists and was quickly accused of being anti-American, they weren't interested in
any of my arguments. Being anti-American is hardly possible since I am an American citizen.
There is a divide between the common people, many of whom don't have anything against Americans
but are not too keen on having them involved in German affairs, and many of our leaders who
try to make us all believe that we need the United States as partner, come what may. One fact
that should make anyone pause is that there are currently still around 40.000 US troops on German
soil and various US bases. It may not sound like much, but in principle should any be here at
all? We have US nuclear warheads here, the maintenance of which is also paid for by German tax
payers money. If you asked the average German what he thought about that, you can be sure that
they would be against that. "Ami go home" is a more and more open sentiment here. "American
go home". But will the Americans go? I doubt it. It seems they do not have the slightest interest
in granting Germany full sovereignty and of letting go. So the question begs: how free are German
politicians to do what they want? And then, how "natural" is the influence Germany has on the
shaping of European affairs?
I can fully understand that many in Europe resent Germany, due to the dominating of EU
policies and the problems they cause. What many don't know though is that the current administration
and the previous ones have been equally harsh on Germans. German politicians don't just sell
Europeans out, but their own people. The climate here has changed drastically in past years.
People are having increasingly hard times to make a living and are in fear, fear of loosing
their jobs, fear of making ends meet, fear of loosing what they have. Fear is the perfect mechanism
of keeping people in check. The contempt and the lack of any shame on the part of our government
has never been this drastic before. Careful observers have seen it for years. Why people keep
voting for the same parties is beyond me. There are some who say voter fraud could be at play.
It would not surprise me. At the very least the media have been extremely pro Merkel for years,
even campaigning for her and her party, when they should have been neutral. Every once and a
while that has been criticized but nothing changes and many don't even notice. Merkel's
policies are always aimed at business elites, not the common people. I remember how years
ago she spoke of "market conformed democracy". There was no outcry, no outrage. No one seemed
to care. As in most places, the elites own the media as well. So honest and critical reporting
has become a thing of the past, unless one watches carefully and knows where to look. The average
person doesn't. So if people are angry with Germans, I wish they would know that Germans are
angry with our leaders as well and have been screwed over as well. Why Germans put up with that?
Good question. This is a subject of its own. My impression is that Germans have always been
people that are good at following and bowing to higher ups. They are terribly long suffering,
in a bad way. After the Second World War Germans have been pacified as a people, in my opinion.
Imagine having the mindset of being aware of things you dislike and that anger you, but thinking
that somehow it'll be alright, that life must go on. You go through the motions. And then add
a state of paralysis and helplessness. Perhaps that is what is going on with Germans. Of course
those that have the upper hand and benefit from the current status have a vested interest in
keeping things the way they are. It is unrealistic to expect Germans to magically snap out of
it and overthrow the status quo. And though it is not obvious we do have a police apparatus
in place that can quickly stomp out any uprising.
I will not deny that Germans can be arrogant in their views. But there is a constant stream
of medial manipulation feeding them that perspective. I know that deep down Germans want peace
and have no interest in dominating other Nations and people. Many are actually appalled and
shocked because our leaders are calling for more involvement in conflicts and taking on more
"responsibility". People see that as dangerous and hypocritical. The problem is that the (you
can only call it) "political cast" is so far gone and so far out of touch with the common people.
There is a complete disconnect. I see it on Facebook postings of Steinmeier, Gabriel and many
others. They live in their own world, facts and reality do not exist for them. And their personal
integrity and values are non existent. Calling them pathetic would still be a compliment. It
is not any different with our media. Regularly you get to see statistics that suggest people
to be skeptic of Putin and Russia. Every time many speak out and question these. Sometimes there
are polls in which readers can take part and they say the opposite, that people see through
the lies and are not in favor of sanctions and do not want a conflict with Russia, that they
do not want anything to do with the crimes committed in the Ukraine. There's a saying "don't
trust any statistic that you haven't forged yourself." There have been statistics for years,
that suggest Merkel having very high support among people.. To me it's a mystery how she has
been in power for so long. I guess there still are many idiots who believe in her, but there
are also very many who would like to see the worst happen to her.
Many people see that when the wall came down and the two Germanies were reunited, the
Soviets/Russians were fair. Just think about how much time has passed, when have the United
States and the British made an attempt at the same fairness? I'm afraid the US would rather
see Germany in ruins yet again, rather than leaving and giving the Germans freedom. I understand
the resentment that many have for Germans, but am also shocked by how much hatred there is.
Is it not the same principle in most places, that Governments do not act in accord with and
represent the will of the people? And to what degree can we count on the will of the people
when they are not given accurate information and facts, but are fed half truths at best and
outright manipulation most of the time? Ironically I see a lot of Americans accusing us of cowardice
for not taking a more aggressive stance against Russia. The same with the Polish. Merkel's behavior
in this crisis makes no sense to me at all. At times she is bullying Russia, like the perfect
US poodle, but then there are reports of her reaching out to Putin. Either she is completely
soul less without a personal sense of direction, or she is more devious than she appears. No
idea what her true aims are. They certainly don't seem to be what they should be. Part of her
vow when sworn into office is to avert harm from the German people. She is steadily doing the
opposite. She and her cronies along with her.
It seems that we are prisoners of a political apparatus gone insane, both on a German
level and a EU level. Then there's NATO on top of that. And lets be realistic, the cards are
stacked in favor of the higher ups. That is no excuse for giving up, which I am not suggesting,
but haters need to take a close look at reality. Finding solutions is not that easy, is it?
So, this is part of what I observe, I bet I forgot a lot. My health is not too well and my strength
limited.
But then all sorts of Khaganate of Nulands (as in Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs) derivatives started to spin out of control. One can imagine
the vain Fogh of War vainly trying to regain his composure.
That took some effort as he was presented with the spectacle of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko
- a certified oligarch dogged by dodgy practices - trying hard to
evict the Maidan originals from the square in the center of Kiev; these are the people who late
last year started the protests that were later hijacked by the Banderastan (as in Saudi Prince Bandar
bin Sultan)/Right Sector neo-Nazis, the US neo-con masters.
The original Maidan protests - a sort of Occupy Kiev - were against monstrous corruption and
for the end of the perennial Ukrainian oligarch dance. What the protesters got was even more corruption;
the usual oligarch dance; a failed state under civil war and avowed ethnic cleansing of at least
8 million citizens; and on top of it a failed state on its way to further impoverishment under International
Monetary Fund "structural adjustment". No wonder they won't leave Maidan.
So Maidan - the remix - has already started even before the arrival of General Winter. Chocolate
King Poroshenko must evict them as fast as he can because renewed Kiev protests simply don't fit
the hysterical Western corporate media narrative that "it's all Putin's fault". Most of all, corruption
is even nastier than before - now with plenty of neo-Nazi overtones.
With Fogh of War already fuming because "Russia won't invade", the pompously named "Secretary"
of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, neo-Nazi Andrey Parubiy - who is the most likely
candidate for having ordered the hit last month on the MH17 civilian aircraft - decided to step
out; a certified rat abandoning a sinking ship move mostly provoked by the fact he did not get an
extended ethnic cleansing overdrive in Eastern Ukraine, and had to endure a ceasefire. Poroshenko
is not an idiot; after loads of bad PR, he knows his nationwide "support" is evaporating by the
minute.
Compounding all this action, a US missile cruiser enters the Black Sea again "to promote peace".
The Kremlin and Russian intel easily see that for what it is.
And then there's the horrendous refugee crisis building up in eastern Ukraine. This past Tuesday,
Moscow during a UN Security Council meeting requested emergency humanitarian measures - predictably
in vain. Washington blocked it because Kiev had blocked it ("There is no humanitarian crisis to
end"). Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin dramatically described the situation in Donetsk and Luhansk
as "disastrous", stressing that Kiev is intensifying military operations.
According to the UN itself, at least 285,000 people have become refugees in eastern Ukraine.
Kiev insists the number of internal refugees is "only" 117,000; the UN doubts it. Moscow maintains
that a staggering 730,000 Ukrainians have fled into Russia; the UN High Commission for Refugees
agrees. Some of these refugees, fleeing Semenivka, in Sloviansk, have detailed Kiev's use of N-17,
an even deadlier version of white phosphorus.
When Ambassador Churkin mentioned Donetsk and Luhansk, he was referring to Kiev's goons gearing
up for a massive attack. They are already shelling the Petrovski neighborhood in Donetsk. Almost
half of Luhansk residents have fled, mostly to Russia. Those who stayed behind are mostly old-age
pensioners and families with small children.
Humanitarian crisis does not even begin to describe it; there's no water, electricity, communication,
fuel and medicine left in Luhansk. Kiev's heavy artillery partially destroyed four hospitals and
three clinics. Luhansk, in a nutshell, is the Ukrainian Gaza.
In a sinister symmetry, just as it gave a free pass to Israel in Gaza, the Obama administration
is giving a free pass to the butchers of Luhansk. And there's even a diversion. Obama was mulling
whether to bomb The Caliph's Islamic State goons in Iraq, or maybe drop some humanitarian aid. He
opted for (perhaps) "limited" bombing and arguably less limited
food and water airdrops.
So let's be clear. For the US government, "there might be a humanitarian catastrophe" in Mount
Sinjar in Iraq, involving 40,000 people. As for at least 730,000 eastern Ukrainians, they have the
solemn right to be shelled, bombed, air-stricken and turned into refugees.
The new Somalia
Moscow's red lines are quite explicit: NATO out of Ukraine. Crimea as part of Russia. No US troops
anywhere near Russia's borders. Full protection for the Russian cultural identity of southern and
eastern Ukraine.
Yet the - real - humanitarian crisis (which Washington dismisses) is another serious matter entirely.
Kiev's forces are not equipped for prolonged urban warfare. But assuming these forces - a compound
of regular military; oligarch-financed terror/death squads; the neo-Nazi-infested "voluntary" Ukrainian
national guard; US-trained foreign mercenaries - decide to go for mass carnage to take Donetsk and
Luhansk, arguably Moscow will have to consider what NATO types spin as a "limited ground intervention"
in Ukraine.
NATO spinsters are foolish enough to believe that if Putin can disguise the intervention as a
peacekeeping or humanitarian mission, he may be able to sell it to Russian public opinion. In fact
Putin has not "invaded" because Russian public opinion does not want it. His popularity is at a
staggering 87%. Only an - improbable
- Kiev-perpetrated mass carnage would change the equation, and sway Russian public opinion. Considering
this is exactly what NATO wants, Fogh of War will be working overtime to force his vassals to bring
about such carnage.
Still, considering the latest developments, what facts on the ground point to is the current
oligarch dance in Kiev already unraveling - as in this example
here. Moscow won't even have to bother to consider "invading". Meanwhile, Poroshenko's slow
motion genocide in Eastern Ukraine, as well as his crackdown of Maidan remix in Kiev, will keep
getting a free pass. All hail Ukraine as the new Somalia; a fitting Frankenstein created by the
exceptionalist Empire of Chaos.
Confusion in Kiev now as a "batallion" of former activists is now trying to clear Kiev of activists.
Victoria Nuland doesn't know who to give cookies to any more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-a8wMG8Dlk
The EU and the UK are getting the deserved blowback for being spineless and not standing up
to the US proxy war in europe. I expect it from Cameron, he's a stooge who is spineless and
has no real policies but the EU where against sanctions from day 1, especially Merkel, they
are spitting feathers now as this will likely send europe back into recession. The west and
specifically the US never understand Russian nature, they dont shout, they dont threaten they
just think carefully and then implement, these sanctions are targeted SO well, especially at
EUs weakest southern nations, spain, greece will be massively hit by bans on agriculture. Stupid
UK/EU to get involved in this, Putin isnt the enemy and he never was.
We are missing some kind of a blueprint for analysis of Ukrainian coup, so I'll try to take the
trouble to put some skeleton of such a blueprint:
1. Oligarchs of Ukraine politically much stronger than people (middle class and below),
as it is easily seen by looking at the hard brainwashing propaganda Ukrainian media. That is, when
we say "the people of Odessa or Kiev rebelled against someone there," one should always take into
account who helped to incite those people, arm and financed them
2. The West (EU and USA) is much stronger than Ukrainian oligarchs, it is their "roof", if
you use criminal jargon, and actually dictating their actions. Thus actions of oligarchs also
cannot be considered to be independent, and they themselves are not an independent political players.
That means, that when we say "oligarch Kolomoisky has taken such and such political step" we must
understand that he did not by himself, but was advised by curators from abroad.
3. Kiev junta represents the interests of the winning oligarchic cartel and , respectively,
is not independent in its actions.
4. EU is vassal of the United States, the vassal with a limited sovereignty, but not the slave.
Therefore, U.S. national interests, at least in the strategically important questions will always
dominate over the interests of the EU itself (exactly as Nuland's formula prescribes - f*ck the
EU). That is, when we say that Angela Merkel something there said, we must understand that Uncle
Sam also took part in it.
5. The links of all "internal" financing of any Ukrainian political processes will always
go West (right in the U.S. or in Europe and then in the US). The fact that someone may designate
any citizen "nezalezhnoy" is being decided there and then order on appointment down in the media.
The judicial functions of the West plus its extensive punitive apparatus does not leave local single
gram of independence. Armed gang, staged a massacre in the city centre, in the Western command to
be designated as the most dangerous terrorists and criminals, and revolutionary peaceful protesters,
democratically resolve lost the last remnants of legitimacy, bloody and criminal regime. Accordingly,
the revolutionaries laid diverse and very fat "cookies" until the military assistance "to the defenders
of Ukrainian democracy", and totalitarian regime put sanctions, arrest of accounts (robbery), generous
financing traitors and deserters, international prison and courts (remembering Milosevic), and sometimes
just a bunch of sadists with bayonets (remembering Gaddafi).
A coup d'état has occurred in Ukraine and all of the signs and even the actors behind it were
known to the world before it happened. Before the democratically elected president went into hiding
and the parliament was taken over by western puppets and neo-nazi [sic] thugs we all knew what the
western geopolitical architects were planning on their chessboard.
Warnings were repeatedly issued and broadcast and calls were made, before the situation spiraled
out of control, for those in power to maintain order and prevent what has happened in Ukraine. These
warning came from across the spectrum, from analysts to high level government officials and leaders,
yet those in power in Ukraine were either negligent in preventing the coup or were in fact totally
impotent to stop it. In either case the failure by President Yanukovich to keep order and protect
the Ukrainian people (all of the Ukrainian people) from the horror that has been unleashed on Ukraine
(a horror we are only seeing the beginning of) is a betrayal to his people and a failure on his
part in fulfilling his duties, no matter how Machiavellian the plots and the actors were, who successfully
overthrew the government and sent him into hiding.
Proof of Treason by the Opposition
It is not, and has not been for some time, a secret that the West was behind the previous color
revolution in Ukraine and it was not a secret that the same infrastructure was being used by the
US/NATO/CIA to destabilize Ukraine after Ukraine made a brave and independent sovereign decision
to say no to a European Union deal which in fact offered it nothing and say yes to the Russian led
Customs Union which offered it $100 billion over 7 years.
Yes dear reader in reality the EU deal offered nothing for Ukraine other than some tenuous abstract
idea spread by false propaganda that somehow life would be better for Ukrainians if they became
the stepchildren of the EU. What EU integration would have done, and what the goal is and what it
will do, is to cement plans for including Ukraine in NATO and placing NATO military infrastructure
in Ukraine. This is the crowning jewel of US/NATO expansion plans to move right up to Russian borders.
These plans are being aided and abetted by the so-called Ukrainian opposition, who in reality
have no interest in supporting the Ukrainian people and have now aided foreign forces in destroying
and taking over their own country. Not only have they now sold out their country to foreign forces
but they have allowed the worst elements of their population to achieve and unprecedented power
grab as the neo-nazi forces of Dmitry Yarosh have now through the use of terror, violence and murder
taken control of Kiev and are spreading their wave of terror and hate to other parts of Ukraine
taking region after region.
Not only does the now infamous conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt that was released on the internet show firsthand
the level of US meddling in Ukraine and even the collusion of the United Nations in bringing about
an illegal change of government in Ukraine, but e-mails released by the hacktivist group Anonymous
Ukraine and other evidence prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the leading opposition figures
are clearly just puppets for western forces.
The e-mails that were released by Anonymous Ukraine have been suppressed by the West and were
commented on by Anonymous Ukraine in an interview for the Voice of Russia. The fact that they are
genuine is backed up by the silence from all of the parties involved and the attempts by western
special services to have them permanently removed from the Internet.
The e-mails released by Anonymous between Laurynas Jonavicius an Advisor to the President of
Lithuania, a country that has been active in Nazi historical revisionism, and Vitaly Klitschko were
accidentally uncovered by Anonymous when they hacked the e-mails of the Lithuanian Administration
and show how Klitschko is controlled by the West through a Lithuanian intermediary.
The text of the first e-mail, rewritten verbatim below is apparently one of the first as he addresses
the advisor as "Mr. Jonavicius". In the e-mail Klitschko refers to plans for his future inferring
that he agrees to their terms. He also mentions the money him and his circle are to be paid, a visit
to the Lithuanian Embassy and his bank account in Germany where the said monies are to be transferred.
Klitschko's e-mail source IP information shows that his e-mails emanate from his own domain "k-mg.com"
which expires August 26th, 2014. His domain is registered to Klitschko Management Group GmbH, located
at Grosse Elbstr. Street 275 in Hamburg, Germany. Klitschko is known to have travelled to Germany
several times before the upheavals.
E-Mail #1
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:18:41 +0100 (CET)
Dear Mr. Jonavicius,
I am writing to thank you for your assistance. The meeting with Mrs. Grauziniene was very productive.
We exchanged views on current events and discussed our plans for the future. Mrs. Grauziniene made
some interesting proposals concerning my future. I need to give it some thought but in general I
am willing to accept your terms.
Special thanks to all Lithuanian friends for financial assistance. Today my assistant visited
your embassy where he met the Counselor. They discussed financial issues and plans for future cooperation.
My assistant also provided Valentina with the details of my bank account in Germany.
I look forward to a successful working relationship in the future.
Regards,
Vitali
The next e-mail is dated December 7th which is exactly 3 days before Victoria Nuland appeared
on Maidan Square to hand out doughnuts to protestors. Klitschko has obviously had a lot of phone
or other contact with the Lithuanian advisor at this point and refers to a phone conversation and
addresses him as simply Laurynas. He discusses officials from other countries visiting Maidan for
moral support, which shows that the entire charade has nothing to do with the Ukrainian people nor
with Ukraine. In the e-mail he even mentions Nuland directly and someone from the US Congress. Hence
John McCain showed up. This may not be illegal at this point but in light of the fact that they
were involved in the organizing of a coup and the overthrowing of a legitimate democratically elected
government, it is highly illegal.
Klitschko also requests information on President Yanukovich, in other words for intelligence
and for the President of Ukraine to be spied on by a foreign power. An egregious treasonous act
if there ever was one.
E-Mail #2
Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:48:32 +0100 (CET)
Laurynas,
Following up upon our telephone conversation I think it would be useful to schedule a visit of
some high-ranking officials from the EU. Maidan is in need of constant moral support. It would be
appropriate to invite someone from Berlin. I have some top-ranking friends there but for some reason
they hesitate.
Our American friends promised to pay a visit in the coming days, we may even see Nuland or someone
from the Congress.
Another concern I want to raise is that Yanukovych keeps a low profile. It looks very suspicious.
What's he up to? We would really appreciate some more information on this issue.
Sincerely yours,
Vitali
In the third e-mail Klitschko again says he is grateful for support (again we must underline
they are working on overthrowing a government) and promises to do a good job for his new masters.
These promises should be made to the Ukrainian people not a foreign power. He also shows knowledge
and intention to destabilize Ukraine and thanks the foreign power for intelligence it has provided
on his own president.
E-Mail #3
December 14, 2013
Laurynas,
I am very grateful to the President and all Lithuanian friends for such strong support. I will
do everything possible to meet the expectations of my European partners.
Your colleague has arrived and started working with my team. He's a real pro and I think his
services may be required even after the country is destabilized.
I've also met your people from the Embassy. The information about Yanukovych's plans they handed
me is very important for our common cause. I would like to receive this kind of information on a
permanent basis.
Sincerely yours,
Vitali
In the final and fourth e-mail Klitschko seems impatient to start real violence and calls for
a "radical escalation". He also asks for more money for the "services of supporters" removing all
possible doubt about the nature of the "opposition" which are nothing but paid thugs and killers.
E-Mail #4
Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:43:35 +0200
Laurynas,
I think we've paved the way for more radical escalation of the situation. Isn't it time to proceed
with more decisive actions?
I also want you to consider the possibility of increasing funding to pay for the services of
our supporters.
Sincerely,
Vitali
Proof of US Meddling
A conversation released on the Internet on about February 6th (timed for the Olympics) between
US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
is even more damning. It is important to underline that under international law planning and carrying
out the overthrow of the government of a foreign country is completely illegal. This is especially
odious when you consider that Ukraine had a democratically elected government and was not ruled
by some tyrannical dictator or monarch but a democratically elected president.
Pyatt believes that everything is going according to plan and discussed matter of factly plans
to install the opposition in Ukraine in government posts and where they would be most effective.
He also mentions an apparent conversation between Nuland and Arseniy Yatseniuk in which she apparently
put him in his place and he submitted to their plans. The hint is to a threat of some sort, or pressure
of some kind which Pyatt says needs to be applied to Klitschko.
During the conversation they also mention Oleh Tyahnybok another opposition leader apparently
under their control and perhaps most damning is United Nations collusion, which goes against the
United Natios Charter and all international laws and conventions regarding the respect for sovereignty
and the integrity of nations and the right of the people for self-determination.
The arrogance of Nuland and Pyatt to use pet names with their puppets, typical of American government
officials but nonetheless shocking: Klitschko is Klitsch and Arseniy Yatseniuk is Yats. The admission
that Ban Ki Moon is part of the plot is something that should be causing an outcry worldwide but
no one seems to have noticed.
Pyatt: I think we're in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here.
Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on
the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is
on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next
phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats. And I'm glad you sort of put
him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in
response.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary,
I don't think it's a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out
and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving
ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and
his guys and I'm sure that's part of what is calculating on all this.
Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience.
He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them
four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working
for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's
been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever
meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching
out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also
a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains
why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before
or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only
told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman (United Nations Under-Secretary-General
for Political Affairs) this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you
that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday
or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue
it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
The Goal
The goal in Ukraine is clear, install a western puppet government and base US/NATO military infrastructure
in the country. Yanukovich attempted to achieve closer ties with Russia and almost immediately the
paid western backed protestors appeared on Maidan Square and instantly the West was calling for
early elections. Why didn't they call for early elections in the US when several thousand protestors
appeared in Washington and in front of the White House last November? Again hypocrisy.
The goal was removing the leader, as has been the goal in Syria, in Venezuela, in Libya, in Iraq,
and anywhere else the government or the leader has maintained a modicum of independence from the
US or attempted to have ties with Russia. Even in Russia attempts were made at removing President
Putin which failed.
The leader is now gone but the armed neo-nazi thugs have not disappeared from Maidan, they demand
spots in the government and at the head of the security services and they demand that their policies
are passed into law as we saw with the immediate outlawing of the Russian language. This is not
something wanted by the Ukrainian people, over 50% of whom speak Russian as their native language.
They are there for another reason, the final goal has not yet been met, and that is the integration
of Ukraine into NATO, whether the people of Ukraine want it or not. The Maidan will not be cleared
until all goals and infrastructure are in place to expel Russia and end any chance of Ukraine being
in the sphere of influence of Russia. There must also be mechanisms installed to make sure that
NATO is allowed to enter the sovereign territory of Ukraine and station their war machine in Ukraine.
The West will not have another chance at Ukraine so the bandera nazis will stay and occupy Kiev
until the end
The NATO war machine and the neo-conservatives architects are still living in a Cold War fantasy
and cannot see the world in any other way. They are blind to the realities of the modern world and
are attempting and in fact are changing the world to fit their fantasy. This anti-Russian psychosis
is what NATO was founded on and what it continues to exist for to this very day.
Any Means to an End
Thepeople of Ukraine mean nothing to the far right forces that have toppled the government. They
mean even less to the western architects and pay masters of the coup in Ukraine. Ukraine has a long
history of problems with extremist nazi groups and they have been organizing and training, by some
estimates for 10 years, to bring them to level of readiness that we saw on Maidan. These are lunatics
that are calling for the killing of Jews and Russians and for anyone else who does not share their
views.
These are groups who are armed and trained and openly murder police and are engaged in a campaign
of terror against the people and the government of Ukraine. They are using violence and threats
and terrorist tactics to force officials to resign and to take over the houses and building of government.
They have succeeded in Kiev and now they are pretending to be a legitimate power.
It is these neo-nazi groups that Victoria Nuland and Klitschko are supporting because they think
they will help them to obtain and maintain power, but both of them are wrong. These groups hate
Jews and as they are both Jewish (Nuland and Klitschko) it is highly unlikely that the likes of
Dmitry Yarosh and his minions will support the opposition for long. Once the Right Sector, controls
the security and the police structures they will be able to do whatever they want in Ukraine. And
that includes mass arrests of anyone who opposes them, namely Russians and Jews.
In their blind ambition to bring Ukraine into NATO and expel Russia, the US has supported the
worst ultra-nationalist nazi elements in Ukraine and the death and destruction ahead are nothing
compared to what we have already seen them do.
The US supported the opposition led by Klitschko and supported those who were gathered to bring
death and destruction to Ukraine, and US ignorance of the forces in the countries where they unleash
mayhem and what they will do continues to call into question the sanity of those who are behind
these revolutions.
What is happening in Ukraine is the same thing that happened in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
In those country there were murderous Islamists and terrorists that were supported, funded and armed.
They were the worst elements of those countries.
In Ukraine it is murderous nationalist terrorists and neo-nazis, but it does not matter, as long
as the government is overthrown. If the country is destroyed that is even better because then the
country will be easier to control. And again the people mean nothing. Democracy means nothing. If
Democracy meant something the Ukrainian people would have been offered a referendum to change their
president and constitution, not seeing people come into power backed by thugs who murder police
in front of cameras.
US Threats Against Peace
Since the very start of the troubles in Ukraine the United States has been issuing threats to
all parties who might put an end to the mayhem. Yanhukovich was immediately warned not to interfere.
He was warned not to crack down and he heeded these warnings. He did nothing until it was too late.
He was caught in the classic catch 22. If he did something he would be demonized and if he did not
he would be seen as weak. He was seen as weak and this only compounded his problems. The US has
also made thinly veiled threats to Russia not to interfere: let the killers kill, that is the plan.
The End of the Ukraine
There is now no government in Ukraine US/NATO/CIA have made sure that the country is completely
destroyed. It does not matter to them if the country spirals into anarchy or is divided into East
and West. Which is something that is being suggested as the only solution. What is important is
that it is pliable and NATO is allowed in.
As for the masses, the Russian population of Ukraine is almost 50% and getting rid of them would
require genocide, so dividing the country into a Russian part and a Ukrainian part is the only possible
solution and one that they nationalists are bringing about.
Outlawing the Russian language, threatening Jews and Russians with death and threatening the
Orthodox Church leave only one option and actually give the Russian/Jewish/Orthodox population a
legal basis for that option, which is to secede from Ukraine and take half of the country with them
which is what will probably happen. Can these right wing fascist groups that have been training
for decades be brought under control? Not likely, and such a solution will not be supported.
Why is the West going to support these groups? Because they are anti-Russian and their rabid
Russo-phobia has driven them mad.
Many leading foreign policy advisers to Putin say that Ukraine is merely an excuse for US-led
sanctions, and that Washington is bent on 'regime change' in Russia.
One school,
tactically embraced by President Vladimir Putin himself yesterday, is that conciliatory rhetoric,
signals of non-aggression toward
Ukraine,
and massaging the divergent economic interests between European countries and the US, may succeed
in blunting further sanctions, if not rolling back the ones already imposed.
But another point of view, held by many leading foreign policy advisers, is far more pessimistic,
and even fatalistic. This perspective argues that Russia's schism with the US will keep on widening
no matter what happens in Ukraine.
The US, they say, is pursuing a "containment 2.0" strategy that, like the successful
US cold war policy
that toppled the former Soviet Union, is aimed at weakening and ultimately defeating Russia as a
geopolitical foe.
'The ultimate goal is regime change'
Several waves of sanctions have hit banks and individuals considered close to President Putin
or heavily involved in Russia's Ukraine policy-making. Last week the US imposed
the toughest measures yet, curbing the access of leading Russian banks and oil companies to
Western capital markets. The European Union followed up with somewhat milder sanctions, which they
have
threatened to bolster again in the wake of the MH17 disaster.
But while
Moscow's March
annexation of Crimea may have been the trigger that unleashed
successive waves of sanctions from the US and
Europe, the
"containment 2.0" theory's adherents say that it was merely the spark that set off a conflict that
had been brewing for a long time.
"It's an illusion to believe that there are some specific steps we could take in connection with
Ukraine to mollify the US, and they would lift this blockade and return to normal," says Sergei
Markov, a Kremlin-connected political analyst. "No, just watch, they will keep moving the goal posts."
The real reasons that
US-Russia acrimony has been inexorably building, they say, is that Russia is at the leading
edge of emerging countries that are challenging the US-run global financial and political order.
The US plan, Mr. Markov says, "is to continue tightening the screws over the long term, aiming
to increase discontent among Russia's middle class, and to turn people against Putin. The ultimate
goal is regime change, and we would be fools not to see that."
Although the Kremlin has claimed that sanctions against Russia will "boomerang"
against Western economic interests, few analysts believe Russia can win against the overwhelming
financial and economic firepower of the US and its allies in any extended showdown. As such, some
argue that Russia has no choice but to accept a measure of isolation as its lot.
Embracing isolation
But there are ways Russia can turn the situation to its advantage, they say.
First, they argue, the Kremlin could adopt policies that might compensate for the loss of foreign
investment by encouraging domestic capital to mobilize.
Indeed, they say, something just like that appears to have happened by accident. After the first
wave of US sanctions caused an exodus of foreign investors in March, a remarkable
Russian stock market rebound occurred in the weeks after, as Russians came rushing in to snap
up the bargains.
Similarly, they argue, the Russian government can use its nearly half-a-trillion dollars in foreign
currency reserves to bolster the ruble and back investments in domestic industries. That could make
up for the coming loss of virtually
all Ukrainian imports and redirect Russia's economy from raw materials exports to modern manufacturing
and services.
"There is a lot of domestic capital and energy that could be unlocked, but our elites need to
embrace reforms," says Sergei Karaganov, honorary chair of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policies,
a leading Moscow think tank. "The sanctions so far imposed are doing very little harm, but our economy
was stagnating even before," due to over reliance on raw materials exports and an unwelcoming environment
for small and medium-sized businesses in Russia.
"The sanctions can be an impetus, a wake-up call," he says, "but only if we make the right policy
choices."
A wall of BRICS?
The other major thing Russia can do, say those who see a US campaign against it, is grow its
ties
with like-thinking countries who are also at odds with the US-dominated world order.
Unlike the former Soviet Union, whose string of client states were a crippling economic drain,
Russia's
potential allies are some of the world's fastest-growing economies. Two months ago Putin
closed a huge gas deal with China, signalling that Moscow has alternatives if its main customer,
the EU, decides to stop buying Russian energy. Last week, at a summit of the BRICS [Brazil, Russia,
India, China, South Africa] countries, the emerging five-nation group
resoundingly condemned US-led sanctions against Russia. They also
established a development bank which could eventually rival US-dominated institutions such as
the World Bank.
The evolution of the BRICS over the past 14 years from an idea
suggested by a Goldman Sachs analyst to an actual bloc of countries that holds summits, coordinates
foreign policies, and designs its own supra-national institutions obviously has deeply-rooted causes.
But Russian experts say the current sanctions campaign against Russia by the US is probably
doing more than anything else to spur the determination of BRICS states to develop their own parallel
institutions – and, incidentally, give refuge to Russia.
"A couple of years ago the idea of a BRICS development bank seemed completely fanciful," says
Georgi Toloraya, director of the Russian National Committee for BRICS Research, a semi-official
think tank in Moscow. "But now we have this confrontation between Russia and the West. Tensions
are growing between China and the US in the political-military sphere. This is changing minds rapidly.
Now the idea of creating a separate institution doesn't seem so exotic at all."
The United States are working hard to identify the perpetrators of the attack against the plane
of the Malaysian Airlines and were very quick to point the finger at pro-Russian rebels.
Atlantico: The United States put a lot of efforts for blaming those who they consider to be
the perpetrators of the attack against the plane of the Malaysian Airlines and were very quick to
point the finger at pro-Russian. What interest do they have to point finger at Russia?
Jean-Bernard Pinatel: Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, policy makers
and American politicians perceived a major threat: that a reconciliation and an alliance between
Europe and Russia would challenge the supremacy of the United States, which is allowing them with
impunity to interfere in the internal affairs of any country, or invade them, and interpret international
law in their private interests as most recently demonstrated the case of the BNP bank.
To understand this undeniable reality requires that we consider a historical context of those
events.
In 1997, former National Security Adviser of the United States, Zbigniew Brzezinski, published
under the title "The Grand Chessboard" a book adopting the two concepts, coined by Mackinder, Eurasia
and "Heartland." He repeated his account his famous maxim: "who governs the Eastern Europe dominates
the Heartland; who governs the Heartland dominates Eurasia; which governs the Eurasia dominates
the World World. "
He makes the following conclusion: "For America, the chief geopolitical issue is Eurasia." In
another publication (1), he make this though more explicit: "If Ukraine fell, he wrote, it would
greatly reduce the geopolitical options for Russia. Even without the Baltic states and Poland, Russia,
which would retain control of Ukraine could always aspire with confidence to the direction of a
Eurasian empire. But without Ukraine and its 52 million Slav brothers and sisters, any attempt to
Moscow to rebuild the Eurasian empire threatens to lead Russia in lengthy disputes with non-Slavic
national and difference religious groups. ".
Between 2002 and 2004, to implement this strategy, the United States has spent hundreds of millions
of dollars to help the pro-Western Ukrainian opposition to gain power. Millions of dollars also
cooperation came from private institutes such as the Soros Foundation and European governments.
This money does not go directly to political parties. He passed by including foundations and non-governmental
organizations who advised the opposition, allowing it to be equipped with the technical resources
and the latest advertising tools. An American cable from January 5, 2010, published on the WikiLeaks
website (ref. 10WARSAW7) shows the involvement of Poland in color revolutions of former Eastern
European countries. The role of NGOs is particularly exposed (2). The Wikileaks cables demonstrate
continuous efforts and the continued commitment of the United States to extend their sphere of influence
in Eastern Europe, and first of all in Ukraine.
Ukraine is undergoing a civil war. Yet nobody in the West denounced the ardor with which the
Ukrainian government is trying to subdue the separatists. What is the real interest of Americans
to ignore this reality and support the Ukrainian government? What did they gain?
The Ukrainian state is a construction of Stalin and exists independently only since 1991, after
the breakup of the Soviet bloc. He previously existed between 1917 and 1921 between the fall of
Tsarism in 1917 and the victory of the Bolsheviks that dismembered this new state into 4 parts.
Ex-Russian part of Ukraine, with Kiev as its capital, the birthplace of civilization and Russian
culture was integrated with the USSR while the former Austrian part, with Lviv's as the local capital
was absorbed by the Poland.
Little Ukraine "Transcarpathia" voted for unification with Czechoslovakia and in Bukovina Ukrainian
minority resigned himself to unification with Romania.
But Ukraine does not mean a nation. Ukrainians have no common history. Quite the contrary. During
the second world war, when in the summer of 1941, Ukraine was invaded by the armies of the Reich,
the Germans were received as liberators by the Western part of Ukraine. In contrast in the Easten
Ukraine, they met strong resistance from the local population which continued until 1944
In retaliation, the Germans track down supporters and burned hundreds of villages. In April 1943,
an SS division Galicia is made from Ukrainian volunteers whose descendants formed the storm troops
of the EuroMaidan. This SS division was also used by the Germans in Slovakia to suppress the Slovak
national movement. But Ukrainian and American pro-Western did everything at the end of the war,
to throw a veil over the atrocities committed by this division and retain only the anti-Soviet struggle.
However, historians estimate more than 220,000 Ukrainians enlisted alongside the German forces during
the Second World War to fight the Soviet regime.
This history helps explain why civil war is possible and why the part of Ukrainian forces consisting
of troops from the West can use tanks and planes against separatists from the East.
Ukrainian President with the complicity of silence of the majority of politicians and Western
media launched a war against part of the population of the country with the same cruelty that is
attributed to Syrian dictator. In addition, the Ukrainian armed forces are advised by American special
forces and mercenaries.
The USA and Obama was provoke Russia into invasion of Ukraine in order to revive the cold war
between the West and the East. Putin has understood the trap "Nobel Peace Winner" Obama created
for him. First he advised the Ukrainian separatists not to hold the referendum; then he did not
recognize its result and showed a moderation which surprised all independent observers while tanks
and planes indiscriminately attack a Russian-speaking population.
How Ukraine can prevent the creation of a Europe-Russia alliance? Why the United States so
actively try to prevent it?
The Americans continued to put pressure on Europe in order to integrate Ukraine and Georgia into
NATO, which would constitute an unacceptable provocation to Russia.
Fortunately, European leaders have not bent to the will of Washington, which in this case acts
solely in its own interests. Similarly, if Putin gave in to pressure from ultra-nationalist and
openly intervened in Ukraine, the United States would achieved their strategic goal and the Cold
War in Europe would be restarted damaging our fundamental interests.
Why Europe acts as vassal of the USA? Does it really interested to follow the American strategy?
Many European leaders got their education in the United States. They are members of American
"Think-Tanks" or "transatlantic foundations" such as the "American Foundation" which largely finance
their benefits and travel. The Atlanticism is certainly manufactured not only by the awareness that
we share the same democratic values with the American people but also by the multitude of personal
interests of many European leaders whose standard of living depends on their submission to the will
of the USA.
Nevertheless, more and more Europeans are beginning to tell the difference between the American
state which is, in fact, run by lobbies, the most important of which is the military-industrial
lobby and the American nation whose values and economic and cultural dynamism possess an undeniable
attractiveness and remains for young European wonderful school.
Angela Merkel and the Germans are at the forefront of this awareness because they have not accepted
the permanent industrial espionage which the NSA use against this country. Furthermore, the revelation
of the laptop plays Angela Merkel strongly shocked the country. Spiegel of November 3, 2013 claiming
that now even political asylum for Edward Snowden in on the agenda. In the article "Asil Für Snowden"
Europe's biggest daily published extensive excerpts of his revelations.
On 10 July 2014, the German government announced the expulsion of the head of the American secret
services in Germany, as part of a spy case against German officials who provided intelligence information
to Washington, a move unprecedented among allies within NATO. "The representative of the United
States Intelligence Agency at the Embassy of the United States of America was asked to leave Germany,"
said the government spokesman Steffen Seibert said in a statement. The expulsion comes "in response
to a lack of cooperation that was long in efforts to clarify" the activity of American intelligence
agents in Germany, told a German MEP, Clemens Binninger, President of the Parliamentary Oversight
Committee on intelligence, which met in Berlin on Thursday.
In France, the former Prime Minister Michel Rocard, a sociologist Edgar Morin, former ministers
Luc Ferry and Jack Lang and former European MP Daniel Cohn-Bendit, launched a petition calling on
President Francois Hollande, his Prime Minister Manuel Valse and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius
"promptly grant Edward Snowden political asylum.
Unfortunately for France and Europe, Francois Hollande, as part of the French intelligentsia,
still admires Barack Obama, and Laurent Fabius for a long time received funds from U.S. foundations.
Neither of them realize that their policies pose a threat to the strategic interests of France and
Europe.
Jean-Bernard Pinatel, General, recognized expert on economic and geopolitical matters.
The Verkhovna Rada Deputy from the Party of regions Mykola Levchenko specifically for Pravda.Ru
commented resignation of Arseniy 'Yatsenuyk.
"After the Maidan coup d'état the group of extremists
which came to power people were totally unprepared for it. They are members of opposition by nature.
They are good only for destruction and unable to anything constructive. After then got power, they
remained members of opposition, they fight in Parliament, criticized everybody and everything, no
matter what you did or not did.
They are organically unable to compromise, unable to negotiate which is necessary to do so, for
anybody in power. This all led to such full-scale combat operations on South East. Today, they still
cannot learn to work, to be responsible for the entire country.
In addition, they proved to be 100% pure Jacobins. After the revolution with their coming to
power they rely on terror and started repression and persecution of dissidents. That was during
the French bourgeois revolution. Unfortunately, all this happened again here in aggravated form.
As for the resignation of Yatsenyuk I can state that clearly he was not ready for the position
he got. Shoes proved to be too big for him. "
Vicky Nuland will be SO disappointed: who is she going to parachute in now to take the reins
of U.S.-diplomacy-once-removed? Make a note of that, Geoffrey – when we pick the Prime Minister
of a country we're trying to bring under our thumb, always pick a backup, too.
I pick Parubiy. Ukraine is the only place crazy enough to elevate a psychopath like him to
Prime Minister.
Yatseniuk quits as he berates parliament for failing to pass law to increase army financing
and regulate country's energy situation
Arseny Yatseniuk's impassioned speech underlined the frustration of many in Ukraine that change
is taking too long. Photograph: Andrew Kravchenko/Government press service/EPA.
Ukraine's prime minister has resigned
after the governing coalition collapsed, in a sign that five months after the Maidan protests led
to a change of government, the country's political system is still beset by discord.
The government is struggling to defeat an insurgency by pro-Russian separatists in the east of
the country, where a Malaysia Airlines jet was downed last Thursday.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, one of the leaders of the Maidan protests, was seen by many Ukrainians as
a safe pair of hands, with his mild manner and intellectual demeanour. But he grew angry during
Ukraine's parliamentary session as it failed to pass legislation to increase army financing and
regulate the country's energy situation.
"History will not forgive us," he told parliament. "Our government now has no answer to the questions
– how are we to pay wages, how are we tomorrow morning going to send fuel for armoured vehicles,
how will we pay those families who have lost soldiers, to look after the army?"
The president, Petro Poroshenko, welcomed the move, which will lead to new elections, saying:
"Society wants a full reset of state authorities."
Although Ukrainians elected Poroshenko in May, there have yet to be new parliamentary elections
since the former president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled. Yatsenyuk is likely to stay on in a caretaker
role before a new poll.
Rumours are that Poroshenko wants to end the insurgency in the east before 24 August – Ukrainian
independence day. The army has made significant gains in driving the rebels out of a number
of towns, including the former stronghold of Slavyansk, but the separatists still control Donetsk,
a city of 1 million, and much of the region around it.
The neocon wife of Polish foreign minister is right about one thing: This is official end of EuroMaidan,
so to speak. Now we can talk only about civil war with it irrationality and cruelty...
Without the fairy-tale pretense, some things are about to become clear. For one, we are about
to learn whether the West in 2014 is as united, and as determined to stop terrorism as it was 26
years ago. When the Libyan government brought down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988,
the West closed ranks and isolated the Libyan regime. Can we do the same now-or will too many be
tempted to describe this as a "tragic accident," and to dismiss what will inevitably be a controversial
investigation as "inconclusive?" It is insufficient to state, as President Obama has now done, that
there must be a "cease-fire" in Ukraine. What is needed is a withdrawal of Russian mercenaries,
weapons, and support. The West-and the world-must push for Ukrainian state sovereignty to be reestablished
in eastern Ukraine, not for the perpetuation of another frozen conflict.
We will also learn something interesting about the Russian president. So far there is no sign of
shock or shame in Russia. But in truth, this tragedy offers Vladimir Putin an opportunity to get
out of the messy disaster he has created in eastern Ukraine. He now has the perfect excuse to denounce
the separatist movement and to cut its supplies. If he refuses, then we know that he remains profoundly
dedicated to the chaos and nihilism he created in Donetsk. We can assume he intends to perpetuate
it elsewhere. And if we are not prepared to fight it, we should be braced for it to spread.
The essence of the problem: the Bolivar can't carry two. In order to extend the life of the American
economy, there is an urgent need to "feed" her a new market, but all the places on the planet are
already occupied, and the effect of digesting the remnants of the Soviet bloc is already over.
there is a huge need to find new, available markets, but does not work: attempt to return Russia
to the early Yeltsin state failed, China snarls and resists, Africa and Latin America - are too
poor and already plundered.
By process of elimination, the Americans came to the conclusion that it is time to finish your
closest allies", i.e. to deal with them in the same way as it was experienced by the prisoners who
escaped from the Northern camps together with the "hogtie" prisoners which was to become the food.
The European Union, despite the declarative commitment to liberal values and principles of free
trade, is actually a rather closed market. Germany and France are the main beneficiaries of the
existing system, in which they "digest" the weaker economies, turning them into "consumer Appendix",
deprived of of own production facilities. As an example you can look at Bulgaria or the Baltic States.
In order for Germans and French to prevent other players enter Europian markets, was created brilliant
in its complexity and cynicism system "non-tariff" protectionism, which makes any attempt to export
to the EU something between Kafka and Stephen King. Standards about admissible curvature of cucumbers,
the number of toys for pigs and environmentally friendly plastic bags is not evidence that the Euro
bureaucrats are crazy. They are just the elements of a complex and masterly done bureaucratic maze,
which formally observes the rules of free trade, but in fact severely infringes upon the American
and Asian companies that are trying to enter the European market. Moreover, the EU is arranged so
that France and Germany have the right to legally violate the European principles of market economy
and large-scale subsidize its key producers at public expense.
The essence TTIP is that the U.S. need to destroy all these technical barriers to American goods
and services, to destroy European technical and environmental standards, cut subsidies and fully
open markets for American companies, which will have a huge advantage due to the fact that American
banks will be able to easily pump them up the newly created dollars. Roughly speaking, Europeans
proposed to lie down and die in order Washington to live and prospere. The European elite has split
into two camps: those who were willing to be "boys" and which most likely were on the American hook,
entered into a hard struggle with representatives of the "Old Europe" - bankers, Industrialists,
farmers and all those who in this new scheme was to simply fill the ranks of the poor. As always,
the "core" of these groups is relatively small and they are struggling to win over a huge amorphous
swamp of officials, politicians and other mambers of elite who have only one goal - to join the
winner. It is in this context Ukrainian crisis becomes important: he gave US (and will give, if
Moscow will do something stupid) the perfect pretex to "cut" the EU from Russia, thereby making
a strong hit against the positions of "Old Europe", which is due to the rupture of economic ties
will lose a lot of money and influence.
Judging by the latest events, the future of old" Europe can be viewed with cautious optimism.
Old Europe has decided to fight.
As promised, we will analyze the actions of the French side in this transatlantic conflict.
First, Hollande suddenly refuses to terminate the contract on delivery of Mistrale in Russia,
despite enormous pressure from the United States. Then there was a demarche of the same Hollande
during Putin's visit to Normandy - private dinner with Putin, participation in an attempt to "break"
Poroshenko together with the leaders of Germany and Russia.
Washington pressed on Paris via the Bank, which is very close to the party of the President of
France - BNP Paribas. It should be noted that the price of "breaking" of the contract for Mistrals
is likely to be about 4 billion euros (price of ships + forfeit), while the French Bank slapped
a fine on almost 9 billion dollars. Both the French press and diplomatic circles said that Hollande
was offered to change "Mistral on the Bank". Even Putin voiced his views about the political background
of the case.
It is indicative that despite the fact that the penalty BNP was more than 4 billion euros and
that he was under incredible pressure, Hollande not only broke down but started to snarl. European
politician can afford such actions if and only if behind his back stood up big and very big business.
French counter-attack was aimed at the most important at the most vulnerable advantage of the
US - dollar, rather on petrodollar.
The President of the Bank of France, Christian Noise publicly stated that U.S. actions will accelerate
the global process of replacement of dollar other currencies and expressed support for a speedy
transition trade of France and China in Euro and yuan. In order to assess the seriousness of the
demarche, we should recall that the French Central Bank (as well as Russian) is not subordinated
to the government (the laws on the Central Bank wrote the same American "Chubais advisors ") so
here it's not important the action of French Central Bank by itself, but the fact that the French
political elite was nationalized by the French Central Bank. Even the burning of the American Embassy
in Paris could not be more serious indication of the seriousness of French elite intentions. In
support of Noise (which immediately began to defame the Anglo-Saxon media) Finance Minister of France,
Michel Sapins stated that "the role of the Euro must increase and ironically added that "we are
not talking about the fight against the dollar imperialism". The French subtly mocking me and get
paid the same coin American authorities, who argued that prosecution BNP Paribas has no geopolitical
implications.
Then, came on the scene "speaker" from the European business, the millionaire, the old aristocrat
and the President of the French oil giant Total, Christophe-Gabriel-Jean-Marie Akin de Margerie.
Tirade turned out to be brief but tasty: "Fr us completly get rid of the dollar is not realistic,
but it would be good to use euro more. In general there is no reason to pay for oil in dollars.
The fact that oil is traded in dollars does not mean that you should pay for it in this currency."
Let's remonf ourself that the fundamental, the most important element of the status of the dollar
as the dominant international currency is precisely in oil is sold in dollars. and if we weaken
this this Foundation of a dollar pyramid, it might collapse, burying the remains of American economic
and military empire.
In the war, and now we observer an obvious war political elites, there is no guarantees of success.
However, France and in other European countries, embarked on the road of national liberation, has
all chances for success. Now, European aristocracy is fighting not for money, not for the ideals
and not for freedom, but for the continuation of its existence. Even a rat, driven into a corner
becomes very dangerous. If somewhat decided to corner European oligarchs, who are hardened by centuries-long
experience of political and economic struggles and intrigues, be ready for unpleasant surprises.
That should be obvious even for Washington.
The article is a typical for guardian peace of propaganda, and as such has no value whatsoever,
but comments illustrate Nulandgate and the USA foreign policy under neocon dominance pretty well.
Russia is completely correct: IF Russia and Ukraine were left alone to resolve the crisis
- they would have (probably without blood shed).
Instead the US as always tried to influence (to say it mildly as it performed a government
coup) Ukraine and bring it under its tentacles.
The issue with the US is that it has become the capitalist controller growing its tentacles
wherever it can trying specifically to encircle Russia to gain influence and power.
Should russia allow US to encircle it, removing governments and instilling troops and missiles
on its back yard? US was very naive to assume Russia would have allowed it.
HerbmanHusstlin, 28 June 2014 12:51pm
The US don't understand the concept of diplomacy, they try to bully and when that fails they
are at a loss for ideas.
knuckles66, 28 June 2014 12:52pm
Lavrov is such a hypocrite. His daughter, Ekaterina, attends Columbia University and lives
in New York and has applied for residency here. You don't think she wants to live in Russia,
do you?
Hopefully, her application will be turned down, and she will be sent packing back to Moscow.
ROFLMFAO, 28 June 2014 12:55pm
The US certainly seems to have been the most antagonistic of all the parties in recent days.
The Russians and even the new Ukranian government, which sounded quite bellicose previously,
have both been reining their necks in. Europe has gone fairly quiet, only the US is ramping
up tensions.
MericaRuleYurpGrovel ROFLMFAO, 28 June 2014 2:24pm
Reckon theres one thing that really terrifies Merica and thats the thought of Europe and
Russia becoming friends or horror of horrors allies --now that really would be powerful competitor
and real worry for Number one self proclaimed ruler of the world.
So till then its divide and rule (an old trick of all empires): encourage EU against Russia,
Shia against Sunni and Japan against China and just sell em all arms from the good old USA,
miles away from any of the shit but close enough to send drones, Nuland, Kerry to stir things
up. Its a piece of cake and you little yurp people just eat it up.
aberinkula, 28 June 2014 1:05pm
Was it not Bush 1 that promised Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards? Look at that
expansion since. Add to that Bush 2's promise to put missile defence in Poland.
You have to remember that Russia acted in Crimea after the US sponsored a coup in Ukraine
- consequently the EU is now offering membership and NATO has already signed pacts with the
new government. You can understand Russia's scepticism. You can understand too why China described
itself as behind encircled and penned in by the US- military base expansion in the last 15 years
in all surrounding countries, and stepping up military exercises with Japan and South Korea.
In the context of all this military expansionism and proxy-colonialism, who was the aggressor?
Who benefits from Ukraine's new, and neo-nazi government joining NATO and the EU? Who has the
biggest network of overseas military assets?
BoLiting aberinkula, 28 June 2014 1:07pm
Shh, you're threatening American cognitive dissonance.
U! S! A!
U! S! A!!
Captain_Smartypants, 28 June 2014 1:09pm
The chance of settling crisis would probably be even higher if Ukraine could deal with it
themselves. No McCain's on the Maidan, no Russian annexations or "little green men", and no
association agreement before it's all sorted out. The US is hardly the only party here sticking
its nose where it doesn't belong...
Beckow Captain_Smartypants, 29 June 2014 1:58am
True. But how realistic is that? Ukraine is in a semi-permanent crisis because it is a divided
country, roughly half pro-EU, half pro-Russian (or at least sympathetic to Russia). People in
a fight will use outside help whenever they can. You will get Nuland, EU, Russia,....
The way to solve it is to address the divisions. One side could win completely, but that
would be so bloody and ugly that nobody could watch it and the victory wouldn't be worth it.
Or they can compromise. But that is seen as a loss in US. That's what Lavrov means by saying
that US is not helpful. US has a hard time admitting defeat, they always have....
Jeremn Ivan Petrov, 28 June 2014 3:00pm
A peaceful outcome? Is Kyiv interested in a peaceful outcome? They sent the Azov Battalion
eastwards this week. You know that this is a paramilitary unit which uses SS symbols and half
the members of the unit have criminal records (according to the Radical MP Lyashko), don't you?
The east doesn't want to fight, the Ukrainian Army doesn't want to fight. But the government
in Kyiv is doing its best to create a war so that ordinary Ukrainians won't blame them for the
mega crisis. And it is using right-wing thugs and criminals.
BobToronto, 28 June 2014 1:10pm
Settling the crisis would have even easier if it depended on just Russia and Ukraine. Russian
tanks would be in Kiev by now!
The crisis would not have happened if only Ukraine was left alone
BoLiting BobToronto, 28 June 2014 1:26pm
Yeah, what a shame the United States had to hijack the Maidan movement and stage a coup behind
the backs of EU negotiators. This is why you don't muck about in someone else's backyard.
triantafillos BoLiting, 28 June 2014 1:36pm
Yeah, what a shame the United States had to hijack the Maidan movement and stage a
coup behind the backs of EU negotiators
I think Nulan said: F**k the EU.
So much for EU and US relations.
annette83 BobToronto, 28 June 2014 2:57pm
not only in Kiev, but in Alaska and Canada ;-)
And yeah, if the bloody gringos did not buy the Ukrainians, which resulted in an armed coup,
nothing of this would have ever happened.
Clementt, 28 June 2014 1:12pm
The simple truth:
"..... chances for settling the Ukrainian crisis would have been higher if it only depended
on Russia and Europe."
Why have so many journalists and commentators missed it?
JosephXY Clementt, 28 June 2014 1:40pm
An article in the Huffington Post showed that in the case of
Iraq only those are invited by the media to speak who were
for the Iraq war in the first place. Like Cheney.
Whereas those who opposed it are locked out.
"Sergei Lavrov accuses US of fuelling Ukraine crisis" that putting mildly
Dear Sergei, you need to realise you are at war with the USA they only want yes answers from
"Sovereign" states ... they want oral sex for free according the polish FM.
Cameron and the UK do the best sexual favour for the USA, get some advice from the captain
of USA main landing graft - Captain oral Cameron of the USS Britain.
e UK
'International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our
people, our homeland or our way of life.'
Imagine the furor if Putin had said:
'International opinion matters, but Russia should never ask permission to protect Russians,
our homeland or our way of life.'
Yet Obama gets away with it and there's hardly a comment. Oh, it is OK, America is above
the law. Now what's for tea ....
Danie Nortje, 28 June 2014 1:28pm
"In November, under pressure from Moscow, a former Ukrainian president dumped the EU pact,
fuelling huge protests that eventually drove him from power. Moscow responded by annexing the
mainly Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula in March, and pro-Russian separatists soon rose up
in Ukraine's eastern provinces."
Maybe the Guardian should explore the contents of the deal more, before implying this was
due to Russian pressure, i.e. the EU terms/deal were crap.
Here's an analysis by someone with some expertise in economics:
http://www.kyklosproductions.com/posts/index.php?p=222
The larger question should be what the deal means and who will benefit from the IMF template,
i.e. what national assets will be privatised and who will gain control of these.
Also, as I understand it, a large part of the problem with Ukraine stems from the control
of oligarchs (from both sides) on the economy, tax rules, etc.
Will the new government reign this in? Will the new oligarchs agree to reform the tax and
regulatory frameworks to reduce their wealth and power?
MurkyFogsFutureLogs Danie Nortje, 28 June 2014 1:43pm
Correct.
Russia offered the Russian friendly Yanukovich government a far better deal than the EU did..
This would have arguably been a decision that benefited Ukraine the most.
However, the EU were not willing to assist Ukraine as a nation meaningfully while a Russian
friendly government was in power. They would need a EU/US friendly government in power before
they would offer any substantial assistance to the Ukrainian nation.
This alone proves that the West and NATO do not give a toss about the Ukrainian people.
The West and NATO only "care" about Ukrainians when a pro-West oligarch brought to power by
Western engineered dissent and manipulation of the far right groups in Ukraine has been sworn
in to power.
Jeremn MurkyFogsFutureLogs, 28 June 2014 2:52pm
Russia was offering a three-way deal back in October 2013, with negotiators from the EU,
Russia and Ukraine. Sensible given that Russia needs a stable Ukraine so it can pipe gas to
Europe, its biggest customer .....
Somnambulist777 MurkyFogsFutureLogs, 28 June 2014 3:05pm
Yes. And one day after Yanukovich agreed to reduced power and early elections they staged
the coup. But it's all "Russian interference".
siesta, 28 June 2014 1:31pm
USA is strategically opposed to, an German led EU, increasing ties with Russia.
The opposition to the North Stream pipeline a few years back is one example, and also the US
hard work to sabotage the South Stream pipeline, long before any Ukraine conflict, is another.
Lets face it, much of the German economic success is due to the increasing economic ties
with Russia. Energy, raw materials in abundance, the Germans have slowly been acquiring "lebensraum"
eastwards and increasingly so, much to USAs annoyance.
The animosity towards Russia must also been seen in this perspective. The USA has sought to
undermine EU(read German)/ Russia cooperation for a long, long time. Ukraine is part of this
strategic power play. The USA don't want to lesson tension, quite the opposite.
SocalAlex siesta, 28 June 2014 6:39pm
You're broadly correct but please, please don't say rubbish like this:
the Germans have slowly been acquiring "lebensraum" eastwards and increasingly so,
much to USAs annoyance.
The Germans have less than zero interest in territorial expansion, colonialism or even "dictating"
what other countries should do! The Germans simply are happy to have economic and cultural influence
and good relations with their neighbours, which is perfectly understandable.
Except to the Americans and British who still resent the fact that they benefited far less
from the post-Communist gold rush than those Western countries with the long-standing cultural
and historic ties to do business there! Austria is another one - we actually have more investment
in Russia than any other EU country, despite its small size.
Indeed, Putin was in Vienna the other day to sign a deal with our national oil company to
ensure continued cooperation and deliveries no matter what happens. Notably, the rest of the
EU silently tutted for half a second, but their hearts weren't in it. Everyone knows that deal
is not just in our but in all of Europe's interests and the kind of sanctions the U.S. wants
would be economic suicide.
Which is, of course, precisely what the U.S. hopes for, now that it's obvious their campaign
to sabotage the Euro wasn't as successful as planned.
The U.S. wants a weak and divided Europe and always has - anyone who thinks otherwise is
genuinely deluded!
Thankfully, we aren't in NATO, so the U.S. couldn't say anything at all!
triantafillos, 28 June 2014 1:32pm
Sergei Lavrov accuses US of fuelling Ukraine crisis
Sounds about right.
The US "invested" $5 billion for the country to descend into anarchy.
If they fail, it will be seen as another foreign failure.
In the mean time they will bestow $0.5 billion to the moderate ISIS chaps, so the campaign
to topple the leader of a sovereign state can continue.
Stoletov, 28 June 2014 1:38pm
'Ukraine on Friday signed a free-trade pact with the EU, the very deal that angered Russia
and triggered the bloodshed and political convulsions of the past seven months that brought
Russia-west relations to their lowest point since the Cold war era'.
Is the author ignorant or just very simple? The deal did not anger the Russians. They offered
a better deal. The rejection of the deal angered some Ukrainians, but most of all, angered the
EU/USA so much, that we had Hague, swedish, French and polish ministers stirring trouble, feeding
tea and biscuits, turning on the propaganda, while at the same time saying the Russia is guilty
for all the trouble. Yes in a sense Russia played a part by offering a better deal to the Ukrainians,
and is now paying the price for it, sanctions and all.
Still, I would leave it the Ukrainians and the Russians to sort it out for it is odious to
fan and encourage yet again another civil war. Have we not had our fill by now? Yugoslavia,
Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, now Ukraine and this only in the last 20 years! .
What kind of people are we the British? Why is it easier for us to kill foreigners rather
than fight against zero-hours contracts, police corruption, NHS privatisation etc?
Corrections Stoletov, 28 June 2014 1:50pm
As I recall, the problem with the earlier deal was that it forced Ukraine to NOT be part
of Russia's trade group if they were part of the EU's trade group. It was an either-or choice.
Question for EU and Russia: Explain, in simple terms, why Ukraine, as a buffer nation with
borders on each "side", can't be part of both trade groups? Please note: trade is NOT like a
football game, in which only two teams can play in a game.
neomarxist, 28 June 2014 1:47pm
Europeans cannot do anything without asking Americans. They can hardly go to toilet without
permission of Obama and you all expect Europe to solve problems. The operation in Kiev was taken
over by Americans as the thought it is taking too long.
It is all about punishing Russia for protecting Snowden and we all agree that the Americans
created a mess which is costing lives.
chevres, 28 June 2014 2:00pm
Arguably what's going to happen is Ukraine will join up to the EU with it's freedoms of trade
, movement and work etc. . The ordinary people of Ukraine will exercise those freedoms to find
a better life only to find that they are treated as unwanted immigrants taking up someone else's
job or considered as being an extra a burden the the state . They will fail .Meanwhile Western
big businesses will invest into Ukraine in order to exploit cheap labor costs and increase their
margins . They will succeed . The conditions of financial aid and Union membership will lock
Ukraine and it's resources into the western political mix with no easy exit . Voila --
It's a rat trap Ukraine . And you've been caught .
MrRussels chevres, 28 June 2014 2:10pm
More likely is that the fighting in the east will continue and grow and eventually spread
across Europe, that's how these things normally play out.
truthpleasestoplies chevres, 28 June 2014 2:23pm
Do you suggest Ukraine should not join the European Economic Misery?
(formerly European Economic Community)
But Europe needs it.
Any new annexion to Europe will bring great business and monies to a limited number of investors
and businessmen, friends of the political leaders, for a few years.
Just to leave the new State worse and more desolated than before afterwards.
RuStand MrRussels, 28 June 2014 2:24pm
Yeah, and Jun 28th is a good starting date for this too. Ukraine is not some small entity
(yet) its problems may hit EU so that even more of its members will get annoyed by this whole
Ukraine business. And you should also note, most of those jumping on Maidan are not hard working
people, they dream of som esort of paradise pour on them freely after they join EU Assoc -- (sic,
not even EU).
Sarah7591Wilson chevres, 28 June 2014 2:56pm
There is no chance whatsoever of Ukrainians being given entry into the EU schengen area within
the next 10-20 years -- none whatsoever.
Romania and Bulgaria had to wait for 7 years following their full accession to be given that
right of free movement, and the economic situation in the EU has grown progressively worse since
then, resulting in high rates of unemployment and increased xenophobia in many member states.
Nobul Sarah7591Wilson, 28 June 2014 6:19pm
Welcome Ukraine, you are now officially third class citizens of Europe (not the EU, you will
need the civilising influence of the proper Europeans for another 20 years to get in, if we
still need plumbers and brick layers);))
C4H8AuClS, 28 June 2014 2:00pm
Russia's foreign minister says chances of settling crisis would have been higher if it
only depended on Russia and Europe
Of course. Peace anywhere is more likely to happen when the US is not involved.
RubberDucky C4H8AuClS, 28 June 2014 2:28pm
Russia that great peace loving country.
C4H8AuClS RubberDucky, 28 June 2014 2:46pm
Definitely more peaceful that the US, which has been involved in or started so many wars,
it is literally true they have never been at peace for one day since the 1940s...
RuStand, 28 June 2014 2:12pm
>Lavrov spoke after Friday's European Union summit, which decided not to immediately impose
new sanctions on Russia
First of all, there can be no "sanctions" on Russia neither from EU nor from US. Russia is
not part of EU/US. EU is free to impose sanctions on its members. UN has the right to impose
legitimate sanctions on a country if this is approved by SC. Who do they think they are, US
and EU, and who gave them the right to impose any sanctions ? Everyone should take it for what
it is - US has declared a trade/economic and political war against Russia and tries to drag
Europe into it. Tthis is a war and it started long before the unrest in Ukraine. US are loosing
their importance, influence, economic might, relevance ... And among the reasons are emerging
an developing nations such as Russia and China.
>Ukraine on Friday signed a free-trade pact with the EU, the very deal that angered Russia
and triggered the bloodshed
Cheap methods, AP - "free-EU, anger-Russia-bloodshed", Goebbels style. Russia was not angered
but dissapointed and openly layed out the perspectives to Ukraine, offering it its own attractive
terms.
>In November, under pressure from Moscow.
After examining the terms of EU Assoc Yanukovich said it's the way to Ukraine's grave ..
>Moscow responded by annexing the mainly Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula
Most of Ukraine are mainly Russian-speaking. Crimea reunited with Russia through an open and
free referendum. Crimea's reassignment to Ukraine in 1954 was illegal did not take into account
people's will and was an internal affair of one country, USSR. It's interesting to see how westerners
accuse USSR for Gulags and approve Crimea's reassignment. The reason is clear - whatever is
damaging Russian is good.
Nazi in Kiev ? Who cares, if they're against Russia, they're "good Nazi", "our Nazi".
>if the Kremlin fails to de-escalate the crisis.
And what should the international community do to US if it fails to deescalate the crisis in
Iraq by Monday, a much more bloody and totaly US created mess ?
The US oil and gas industry is making big stakes in Ukraine. Joe Biden's son, Hunter has
been appointed in May as director at Burisma (one of the biggest Ukrainian oil and gas compaines).
The big guys are just waiting for go-ahead to develop the oil shale in Ukraine, which has
massive reserves, but no technology to extract it. The plan, I suppose, is to replace Russian
gas imports to EU (at least in part) with new sources in Ukraine. Development of European shale
gas is hampered by European legislation and gas lobby. On the other hand, development of Ukrainian
reserves will go ahead with no reservations, particularly in the context of "saving Ukraine".
A large portion of these reserves is in the East, hence if the East leaves Ukraine the whole
affair becomes pointless altogether. The US will do everything possible including inspiring
Ukraine to wage war on Russia to keep Ukraine undivided. They are prepared to wipe out all the
5 million of the East Ukrainian population if they stand in the way of the oil lobby.
Caroline Louise, 28 June 2014 2:23pm
In November, under pressure from Moscow, a former Ukrainian president dumped the EU pact,
fuelling huge protests that eventually drove him from power. Moscow responded by annexing the
mainly Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula in March, and pro-Russian separatists soon rose up
in Ukraine's eastern provinces.
Not so. Yanukovych didn't "dump" the EU pact, he simply asked for more time to consider before
signing. Moscow didn't pressure him to reject it either. In fact Moscow suggested a joint deal
between Russia and the EU. It was the EU that refused compromise and demanded an either/or from
Ukraine. Even John Kerry has said this was a mistake.
Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine as a response to the anti-Russian rhetoric and actions
from the extremists in the "new" Kiev government. Russia did what it did out of a fear - possibly
misplaced, possibly not - that Ukraine was planning a confrontation over its Black Sea fleet
in Sevastopol, which could have ignited a much wider war.
On this idealistic background, like a thunder in a clear sky, sounded quotes from private interview
of the Minister of foreign Affairs of Poland Radoslaw Sikorski with former Minister of Finance Jacek
Rostov, the recording of which was published in one of the public-political magazines of Poland.
"That's bullshit, we will get into the conflict with the Germans and the French, as we do blowjob
to Americans, as call girls. The problem of Poland to the fact that we have cheap national pride
and low self-esteem. This is kind of negro mentality", - in such strong expressions Radoslaw Sikorski
evaluated the geopolitical cooperation between Poland and the USA.
"Polish-American Alliance is not worth a damn; moreover, it hurts us because it gives a false
sense of security", - continued the head of the foreign Ministry of Poland.
Poland is the main ally of the USA on the European continent, and that this country is based
"global policeman", as opposed to signs of excessive independence from Germany and France. Given
the enormous interest politicians of Poland to the so-called "revolution of dignity" in Kiev, and
also that it Radoslaw Sikorski was one of the European politicians, who were supposed to guarantee
the observance of the agreement on the settlement of the political crisis of February 21, signed
between President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders, we can conclude that all is not so,
as they say, clearly on this issue.
Guarantors quite consciously could no guarantee. But it's not important. There is a General course
and the political will of Peter Poroshenko, which will be signed on 27 June in Brussels economic
part of the Association agreement. That this event will bring to torn by civil war country with
truncated territory? Guess soon we all will see.
Last weekend in the black sea there were two events that could determine the fate of the macro-region
in the years ahead.
On Saturday, after a closed meeting of the three of us senators, including John McCain, with
the Bulgarian Prime Minister Mr. Oresharski last agreed to freeze the construction of the gas pipeline
"South stream". Bulgaria was the point of the land of entering the EU for this pipe with a capacity
of 63 billion cubic meters of gas a year, envelope Ukraine. Thus, if the project is cancelled
or permanently suspended, the dependence of Russia and the EU from the Ukrainian gas transportation
system in the coming years will continue. And, considering Ukraine's negotiations with the
U.S. on the selling part of its GTS to American companies, Washington becomes a "dictator", defining
relations of Brussels, Kiev and Moscow.
A bit less loud, but an important event was the visit of US assistant Secretary of state for
Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland to Odessa. According to the press service of the Odessa regional
state administration, there Nuland met with the Chairman of Dnipropetrovsk regional state administration
Igor Kolomoiskiy, its Odessa colleague Igor Palitsa (on photo) and mayor of Odessa Gennady Trukhanov.
By the way, Mr. Mace is a personal emanation of Mr. Kolomoisky.
The parties discussed the current situation in Ukraine and the Odessa region, according to CAA.
According to Victoria Nuland, she visited Odessa because of the importance of this city for Ukraine.
Mr. Mace has assured guest, that the situation in Odessa "calm and controlled", "separatist moods
are practically no" and made it clear that the city would not hurt investment. Nuland said that
in the autumn in Ukraine expect a large landing of American investors, but said that its results
will depend on the success of the antiterrorist operation. Recall that in ATU took the most active
part Mr. Kolomoisky.
It is noteworthy that at the Odessa meeting was not politicians from Kiev. This diplomatic nonsense
shows that the oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who oversees not only the Dnipropetrovsk and Odessa, built
in direct connection with the state Department, says the former Deputy of the Odessa city Council,
a political scientist Alexander Vasiliev. According to the expert, there is a substitution of the
administrative vertical feudal, in which the Governor of the Odessa region are not accountable to
Kiev, and Mr. Kolomoisky. "Vertical closed on US directly. Probably this is the very "decentralization"of
which we are told in Kyiv," - ironically, Mr. Vasilyev.
Why Victoria Nuland chose the place of his visit to Odessa? This city is extremely important
in geopolitical terms, experts say. "No other regional center of Ukraine cannot boast of such a
high attention of Washington: to Nuland we visited the Ambassador of the USA", - says Alexander
Vasiliev. "Our city is definitely the focus of attention of the USA", - agrees Odessa political
observer Yuri Tkachev.
Recall that after the annexation of Crimea to Russia, namely in Odessa relocated the headquarters
and the main forces of the Navy of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian government began to establish beach
"hedgehogs" in the Odessa beaches, believing that Russia intends to go to Transnistria by joining
the "new Russia". This was repeatedly stated by the ex-President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili
and former adviser to Vladimir Putin, Mr. Illarionov. In their opinion, the capture of Odessa would
allow Russia to cut off the most "diomidovsky" part of Ukraine from the sea, depriving the area
of strategic importance.
Realize Moscow ascribed to her plans, Ukraine would cease to be part of the so-called "Baltic-black
sea axis and important buffer between Russia and the European Union. Moreover, would be disrupted
the plans of construction in Odessa terminal for receiving LNG as one of the alternatives to Russian
gas. If Odessa will remain one of the pillars of the new Ukrainian state, the control of Donbass
for the Russian Federation is no longer so important.
Geopolitical considerations, political analyst from the IISS Samuel Charap explains the absence
in the American media regrets about the burning of 40 activists of Antimiani" in Odessa House of
trade unions. And the very fact of this unprecedented massacre, the organizers of which are also
associated with Mr. Kolomoisky, talks about the importance of the city.
Events in Odessa closely connected with the events in the neighboring Sofia, experts say. Immediately
after the "capture" of the Crimea in the media are talking about the fact that now you can significantly
reduce the cost of the project South stream, having its not in depth, and in the Crimea in the shallows.
Thus, the blockade of the Bulgarian section devalues for Russia joining the Crimea to the gas transportation
point of view. And strengthening of positions of the Ukrainian authorities in Odessa complicates
Moscow hypothetical creation of "new Russia", through which could duplicate the Ukrainian GTS.
All this is likely to spur and military activity of Washington in the region.
On the background of today's gas talks with Russia, Ukraine and the EU in Moscow say about U.S.
intentions to withdraw from the Montreux Convention of 1936, which limits the tonnage and time of
stay in the Black sea warships from nachimovsky States...
Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United
States Department of State, traveled to Odesa on Sunday, June 8, where she met with Dnipropetrovsk
Oblast Governor Ihor Kolomoysky and the Odesa Oblast Governor Ihor Palytsia, reports Ukrinform.
The situation in Ukraine and especially in the oblasts was discussed during the meetings.
Ihor Kolomoyskiy noted that the fight against corruption must begin with the country's government.
"In order to combat corruption on the local level, we need to change the system. We need to create
conditions for normal work, to pay decent wages, to provide social support and protection for the
most vulnerable of our citizens. All this, along with other transparent steps and measures, will
negate the corruption component," he said.
Nuland, in turn, reaffirmed US support for positive changes in Ukraine and efforts toward further
stabilization, especially in the east of the country. She also said that an economic mission of
American investors will arrive in the fall.
As previously reported, Kolomoysky has taken steps to fight corruption in his oblast. On June
3, the press service of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Administration reported on a new program to combat
corruption with the help of experts at the international auditing and consulting company PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC).
According to the press release, a trilateral memorandum of cooperation and coordination between
the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast State Administration, the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Council, and PricewaterhouseCoopers
was signed on May 29.
"The document provides for the creation and implementation of effective tools to combat corruption
as part of a comprehensive strategy of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, primarily through a comprehensive
audit of the budgetary process," the release states.
The press service reports that priority initiatives will include the creation of a platform for
public discussion of critical issues in the anti-corruption fight, the coordination of interaction
among the different departments and organizations, and the improvement of phone helplines. The memorandum,
will be in effect for one year.
Ukraine has been suffering a profound internal schism for some time now, one that is threatening
to become one of those ugly civil wars that are occurring in more and more countries. The boundaries
of present-day Ukraine include an east-west cleavage that is linguistic, religious, economic, and
cultural, each side being close to 50 percent of the total.
The present government (said to be dominated by the eastern half) is accused in public demonstrations
by the other side of corruption and authoritarian rule. No doubt this is true, at least in part.
It is not however clear that a government dominated by the western half would be less corrupt and
less authoritarian. In any case, the issue is posed internally in geopolitical terms: Should Ukraine
be part of the European Union, or should it knit strong ties with Russia?
It is therefore perhaps unexpected that YouTube is now featuring a tape in which the U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, is shown discussing U.S.
political strategy vis-à-vis Ukraine with the U.S. Ambassador. In this tape, Ms. Nuland poses
the issue as a geopolitical struggle between the United States and Europe (and more particularly
Germany). She is caught in a diatribe, in which she says "Fuck the Europeans" - the Europeans, not
the Russians.
Before we proceed with the analysis, let us take a moment to offer generic sympathy to all important
people these days. In the last few years, there has been much discussion about the loss of privacy
in communications. But this discussion has always been about little people subject to spying by
governments, in particular by the U.S. National Security Agency. It seems however that this loss
of privacy now extends to people like Ms. Nuland. There is much speculation about exactly who bugged
her conversation and made it go viral on YouTube. The point is that poor Ms. Nuland is no longer
safe in saying anything - or at least anything that she wouldn't want the whole world to know.
Let us take a look at who is Victoria Nuland. She is a surviving member of the neocon clique
that surrounded George W. Bush, in whose government she served. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is one
of the best-known ideologues of the neocon group. It is an interesting question what she is doing
in such a key position in the Department of State of an Obama presidency. The least he and U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry were supposed to do was to remove the neocons from such a role.
Geopolitical choices may be tweaked by the individuals in power, but the pressure of long-term national
interests remains strong.
Now, let us recall what exactly was the neocon line on Europe during
the Bush days. The then U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously talked of France and
Germany as the "old Europe" in contrast to what he saw as the "new Europe" - that is, countries
who shared Rumsfeld's views on the then imminent invasion of Iraq. The new Europe was for Rumsfeld
Great Britain especially and east-central Europe, the countries formerly part of the Soviet bloc.
Ms. Nuland seems to have the same perception of Europe.
Let me therefore propose that Ukraine is merely a convenient excuse or proxy for a larger geopolitical
division that has nothing whatsoever to do with its internal schism. What haunts the Nulands of
this world is not a putative "absorption" of Ukraine by Russia - an eventuality with which she could
live. What haunts her and those who share her views is a geopolitical alliance of Germany/France
and Russia. The nightmare of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis has receded a little bit since its acme
in 2003, when U.S. efforts to have the U.N. Security Council endorse the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003 were defeated by France and Germany.
The nightmare has receded a bit but lurks there just beneath the surface, and for good reason.
Such an alliance makes geopolitical sense for Germany/France and Russia. And in geopolitics, what
makes sense is a constraint that insisting on ideological differences can affect very little. Geopolitical
choices may be tweaked by the individuals in power, but the pressure of long-term national interests
remains strong.
Why does a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis make sense? There are good reasons. One is the U.S. turn
towards a Pacific-centrism replacing its long history of Atlantic-centrism. Russia's nightmare,
and Germany's as well, is not a U.S.-China war but a U.S.-China alliance (one that would include
Japan and Korea as well). Germany's only way of diminishing this threat to its own prosperity and
power is an alliance with Russia. And her policy towards Ukraine shows precisely the priority she
gives to resolving European issues by including rather than excluding Russia.
As for France, Hollande has been trying to woo the United States by acting as though France were
part of the "new Europe." But Gaullism has been since 1945 the basic geopolitical stance of France.
Such supposedly non-Gaullist presidents like Mitterrand and Sarkozy in fact pursued Gaullist policies.
And Hollande will soon find he has little choice but to be a Gaullist. Gaullism is not "leftism"
but rather the sense that it is the United States that threatens a continuing geopolitical role
for France, and France has to defend its interests by an opening to Russia in order to counterbalance
the power of the United States.
Who will win in this game? It remains to be seen. But Victoria Nuland seems a little like King
Canute commanding the seas to recede. And the poor Ukrainians may find that they are forced to bind
up their internal wounds whether they want to or not.
Immanuel Wallerstein is a senior research scholar in the department of sociology at Yale University
and director emeritus of the Fernand Braudel Center at Binghamton University. He is also a resident
researcher at the Maison des Sciences de l'Homme in Paris. His many books include "The Modern World-System
and Historical Capitalism." He lives in New Haven, Conn., and Paris.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera
America's editorial policy.
Parubiy is a bird from Nuland's nest, former Yuschchenko honcho, one of the founders of the Social
National Party of Ukraine (later renamed Svoboda), a neo-fascist party, with membership restricted to
ethnic Ukrainians. He was instrumental in bringing Yushchenko to power as well as bringing to power
the current junta.
Protest was help in front of the building of the General Prosecutor's in Kiev. Protesters demanded
the prompt investigation of resonant criminal cases. A group of residents of the capital required
impartially to investigate the massacre on the Maidan and the burning of people in Odessa.
About three dozen of people participate.. According to them, the law enforcement covers those
who ordered those horrible crimes - Igor Kolomoisky and Andrew Parubiy.
"An objective investigation no, although involvement in Odessa tragedy Kolomoisky said the former
Governor of Odessa Vladimir Nemirovskiy," says Darya, the organizer of the rally.
Earlier, ex-Chairman of the Odessa police Dmitry Fuchedzhi accused of involvement in Odessa tragedy
the current head of the NSDC Andrew Parubiy.
"...insofar as Nuland working as an assistant to Cheney, it bears noting she had been at the center
of this world class criminal's epoch of invasion,
destruction, kidnap and murder. And let us not forget Nuland's buddy 'Condi' has worn many hats, including
authorizing CIA rendition
to torture:
"Nicolo Pollari, former head of the Italian military intelligence service SISMI, asks for former
US national security adviser and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify in his defense
in a kidnap case. The case concerns the 2003 rendition from Italy to Egypt of Islamist extremist Hassan
Mustafa Osama Nasr (see
Noon February 17, 2003).
SISMI and the CIA worked together on the abduction and several operatives of both organizations are
now on trial for it. Rice approved the operation shortly before it was carried out"
In this case, it should be no stretch of the imagination to arrive at hypothesis of who is actually
behind what was certainly a 'false flag' sniper attack
murdering both police and protestors in Kiev…
…considering the photo of close Bush buddy, erstwhile CIA director Robert Gates, pinning a medal
on Victoria Nuland taken together with the aggregate facts, recalling CIA and the Department of State
are Siamese twins, I think it is a safe presumption to say Nuland profiles as having been the senior
CIA coordinator/operative running operations to take Ukraine over for the Christian domionists who run
CHEVRON. Particularly when she'd been leaked giving
instruction to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine on who to put in the post of Prime Minister.
This is a philosophical query, without any clear answer, into how it is necrotic social phenomena
can cross-dress or socialize with natural enemies in a world that makes little sense at first glance.
Or, this is a post about unconscious faith in amorality and associated moral inversion. It is about
a weaponized Gospel of Jesus Christ. And finally it is about where malignant social phenomena converge
with lust for power and associated greed. All in all, it is a story of a sociopath, institutionalized
murder and power politics. And why these things transcend any sense of sane or sensible relationships.
Donald Rumsfeld sits with Victoria Nuland
Insofar as Nuland sitting with Don Rumfeld, she is in attendance with one of the great promoters
of extremist Christian hate responsible for
putting utter evil in charge of our military's most lethal assignments:
"Boykin would appear onstage in churches and other locations around the nation in his full
Army uniform, pointing to posters of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and
stating that "Satan
wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as
a Christian army… [they] will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus." It
was around this time that then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld successfully nominated Boykin
for a third star, placing the dominionist fascist Boykin only one rank/grade below the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff"
Yes, this preceding is about the very same General Boykin who, just the other day had stated
"Jews
are the problem"
Victoria Nuland begins her employ with Dick Cheney
Other than wondering whether the book Nuland is swearing her allegiance to Cheney on (perhaps
a Bible, Brzezinski's 'Grand Chessboard'
or the Encyclopedia Britannica, a Torah is in the form of a scroll), insofar as Nuland working as
an assistant to Cheney, it bears noting she had been at the center of this
world class criminal's epoch of invasion, destruction,
kidnap and murder:
"Without fear of prosecution, Cheney persists in lying about the reasons he took America
into two wars and how he cherry-picked information to forge fictitious links between Iraq's former
leader Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, alleging they both plotted together the 9-11 attacks.
"He even has the audacity to blame his lies about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction
on others while still justifying an Iraq war that cost over a trillion dollars, thousands of American
lives, and an untold number of dead Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi death toll has been estimated at
anything between 100,000 and 1 million. The true figure may never be known.
"Also, Cheney masterminded the official U.S. program that involved kidnapping foreign nationals
for the purpose of sending them to CIA black sites, where they would then be transferred to friendly
intelligence services in countries like Egypt, Jordan and Syria to be tortured. There is also his
unabashed claim he advocated the use of interrogation techniques banned by the Geneva Conventions,
and had plans to mercilessly bomb other nations"
But without fear of prosecution, Cheney persists in lying about the reasons he took America into
two wars and how he cherry-picked information to forge fictitious links between Iraq's former leader
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, alleging they both plotted together the 9-11 attacks.
He even has the audacity to blame his lies about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction on
others while still justifying an Iraq war that cost over a trillion dollars, thousands of American
lives, and an untold number of dead Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi death toll has been estimated at
anything between 100,000 and 1 million. The true figure may never be known
Insofar as Nuland chumming with 'dubya' .. here's a few 'dubya' associated members from the international
criminal dominionist 'Family' that sponsors
the National Prayer Breakfast:
"Men under the Family's religio-political counsel include, in addition to Ensign, Coburn
and Pickering, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, both R-S.C.; James
Inhofe, R-Okla., John Thune, R-S.D., and recent senators and high officials such as John Ashcroft,
Ed Meese, Pete Domenici and Don Nickles. Over in the House there's Joe Pitts, R-Penn., Frank Wolf,
R-Va., Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan.,
Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and John R. Carter, R-Texas. Historically, the
Family has been strongly Republican, but it includes Democrats, too. There's Mike McIntyre of North
Carolina, for instance, a vocal defender of putting the Ten Commandments in public places, and Sen.
Mark Pryor, the pro-war Arkansas Democrat responsible for scuttling Obama's labor agenda. Sen. Pryor
explained to me the meaning of bipartisanship he'd learned through the Family: "Jesus didn't
come to take sides. He came to take over." And by Jesus, the Family means the Family"
"I really am so honored that Dr. Condoleezza Rice is going to share some comments with you.
It is fitting that we have a National Prayer Breakfast. It is the right thing to do, because this
is a nation of prayer" -George W Bush
Ok, so maybe this immediate preceding doesn't seem all that vile (other than the personalities
Nuland associates with.)
Victoria Nuland with 'Condi'
Now, is when things get really interesting. Digging into Condi's past with Nuland is like stepping
into the La Brea tar pit together with the CIA, CHEVRON and Christian fundamentalism. Only last
month, the patriarch of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk,
a rival of the Russian Orthodox church in Ukraine, is quoted at the most recent National Prayer
Breakfast by the CIA's
Voice
of America:
"The patriarch, who was attending his first prayer breakfast, said it was a good opportunity
to meet other leaders. "It was a great possibility, not only to represent Ukraine, but also make
connections, meet people and transmit truth about Ukraine and the situation in Ukraine""
The VOA (CIA) article concludes with:
"While the U.S. president hosts the National Prayer Breakfast, the event is sponsored by
members of Congress and organized by a conservative Christian organization often known as "The
Family"
The CIA most certainly would know. So now, let's back up a moment. What has Nuland's buddy Condi
been up to since she (mostly) dropped out of sight after 2008? It's safe to say Leopards don't change
their spots, as 'Dr Rice'
pairs CHEVRON up with The Center for Strategic and International Studies:
"Development can help avoid the next Afghanistan or the next Somalia, she said, by building
responsible sovereigns who can provide for their people. In doing so, the public and private sectors
have complimentary, overlapping roles, Dr. Rice argued, with governments taking
responsibility for creating the environment for trade, job creation, and foreign investment"
Huh. I wonder what "governments taking responsibility for creating the environment" might have
to do with 'Chevron Ukraine' and Victoria Nuland reporting
back to CHEVRON this past December the fact 5 billion dollars had been invested in (one presumes
through CIA fronts such as USAID) what not long after became the putsch
bringing neo-nazi rule (and wide open territory for CHEVRON fracking) to Kiev:
And let us not forget Nuland's buddy 'Condi' has worn many hats, including
authorizing CIA rendition
to torture:
"Nicolo Pollari, former head of the Italian military intelligence service SISMI, asks for
former US national security adviser and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify in
his defense in a kidnap case. The case concerns the 2003 rendition from Italy to Egypt of Islamist
extremist Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (see
Noon February 17,
2003). SISMI and the CIA worked together on the abduction and several operatives of both organizations
are now on trial for it. Rice approved the operation shortly before it was carried out"
In this case, it should be no stretch of the imagination to arrive at hypothesis of who is actually
behind what was certainly a 'false flag' sniper attack
murdering both police and protestors in
Kiev…
Victoria Nuland and Robert Gates
…considering the photo of close Bush buddy, erstwhile CIA director Robert Gates, pinning a medal
on Victoria Nuland taken together with the aggregate facts, recalling CIA and the Department of
State are Siamese twins, I think it is a safe presumption to say Nuland profiles as having been
the senior CIA coordinator/operative running operations to take Ukraine over for the Christian domionists
who run CHEVRON. Particularly when she'd been
leaked giving instruction to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine on who to put in the post of Prime
Minister.
Generals John Abizaid & James Jones with Nuland
Considering the photo of Nuland with Pentagon Christian extremists
John Abizaid and
James Jones, both avid 'Prayer
Breakast' speakers, and furthermore, General Jones having retired to
service with CHEVRON, here is an
interesting article 'Forbidden Love: Anti-Semites Who Loved Jews…And the Jews Who (Sometimes)
Loved Them Back' interested people might be well advised to read. Especially considering the company
Nuland keeps
embraces the following:
"Will Unsaved Jews Enter the "Future" Promised Land? No, absolutely not. No unsaved Jew will
ever enjoy the splendors of the future Promised Land .. "Clearly, the Word of God teaches that "Jew"
in the Bible, as regards all the future promises to Israel, refers ONLY to born-again Christian
Jews. It is the circumcision of the inward heart, and not the outward flesh, that makes one a Jew
in God's eyes. No unconverted Jew can ever claim the promise of God concerning Palestine, unless
he first BELIEVES on Jesus Christ as his personal Messiah. You Need HIS Righteousness! .. "The Bible
teaches that God's promises were not made to all Jews; but only to saved Jews…
"How tragic that most Jews today have been blinded by sinful pride and false religion, that
they reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Only by faith in Jesus Christ can any Jew claim the promise
of the future Promised Land. All unbelievers, whether Gentile or Jew, will be cast into the Lake
of Fire (Revelation 20:11-15) .."Romans 11:19-23 plainly teaches that unbelieving Jews are already
cut off. Only Christian Jews have been grafted back into the tree of God's people. All else are
branches broken off and cast into the fire""
I have little patience with 'World Jewish Conspiracy' freaks, if only because there are corrupt
people in every ethnicity on this planet and the fact that a handful of the world's most powerful
or corrupt people happen to be Jewish, only argues to establish the fact the Jews are no different
to the rest of us as peoples in this regard. By far more interesting to me is how it is a person
of Jewish heritage, such as Victoria Nuland, can become devoted to the cause of people who are in
turn devoted to the literal extinction of Jews.
Now, this is to point out Victoria Nuland is in the service of some of the world's most powerful
anti-Semitic personalities. These personalities may not all have been individually labeled as anti-Semites
perhaps, but each and every one of them is 'Christian
Dominionist', in effect they believe not only 'God's Law' trumps the constitutions and laws
of all secular democracies, they also believe
in literal Armageddon and the utter and total destruction of all Jewish people as a matter of
religious belief. That is, all Jews who do not 'convert.'
Victoria Nuland would likely meet Bibi Netanyhu's definition of a "Self-Hating
Jew" simply for the fact she works in the Obama administration and Obama seems to have arrived
at a cold, political calculation; Netanyahu's determination to use the USA to crush any Palestinian
right of self-determination via AIPAC, simply cannot hold up and keep pulling in the neo-liberal
vote in today's America. And mid-term elections are on the close horizon.
But in regards to establishing the new, neo-nazi regime in Kiev, one must question Netanyahu's
perception of what actually constitutes a 'self-hating Jew.' In Netanyahu's perception, this pejorative
term is largely limited to Jews who believe Palestinians are living, sentient beings. Conversely,
Victoria Nuland seems to believe neo-nazis are generous, law-abiding, tolerant people, capable of
being outstanding citizens worthy of running a nation (Ukraine) on behalf of CHEVRON, as well on
behalf of Kiev's new natural gas personalities closely
connected to Joe Biden & John
Kerry. Makes perfect sense, eh?
I think that we can all agree that the situation in the Ukraine is one of total chaos.
Renat Akhmetov, the local oligarch-mobster, had declared that his companies will go on a
"warning strike" for 3 hours per day because Akhmetov was angered that the authorities of the
Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) had taken over the control of the railways which resulted in
losses for his company.
One of the officials of the DRP reacted to Akhmetov's threat by declaring that the DRP authorities
have begun the process of nationalization of the companies located on the territory of the DRP,
in other words, Akhmetov's holdings.
The military forces of the neo-Nazi junta have begun shelling several cities in the eastern
Ukraine destroying several buildings
The military commander of the DRP forces, Igor Strelkov, has made a
poignant and blunt appeal for a much bigger mobilization of men, especially officers, in
the volunteer forces defending the DRP against the junta's military.
Ukrainian death-squads have, yet again, kidnapped a team of Russian reporters, this time
of the TV station LifeNews, accusing them of being the "information-component" of a terrorist
movement.
The Russian government has indicated that the military forces which had been on maneuvers
had returned to their bases. NATO denied that.
The Russian military has completed the building a network of pipelines which are now fully
supplying Crimea with fresh water.
The leader of the Ukie Nazis, Iarosh, has announced that if he is elected he would launched
a guerrilla war in Crimea.
So what is really going on?
I think that while it is premature to make grand conclusions and predictions,
we can begin by agreeing on a number of basic facts.
First, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the junta in Kiev is clearly provoking
Moscow in every possible way. If one could maybe see some marginal and far-fetched military
rationale for the kind of random artillery strikes the Ukies are unleashing on Slavianks, Kramatorsk
and other cities, the arrest of the LifeNews news-crew makes no sense at all. They were put on their
knees, beat up, held with their faces to the ground - all on video which was then "leaked" to Youtube
as if the death squads were provoking the Kremlin with a "what are you gonna do about it?" message.
Second, I believe that the appointment of Biden's son to the board of directors of the main Ukie
energy company whose concessions are all in the eastern Ukraine is also a way of further provoking
the Kremlin.
So why would the junta do all this?
First, I think that it is reasonable to accept as an axiom that the freaks in Kiev don't
"decide" anything at all. They just take orders from the USA and execute them. We saw that
clearly during Biden's recent trip to Kiev when he had a meeting with the junta's "government" which
he - Biden - "chaired" sitting at the head of the table (yet another deliberate in-your-face provocation).
Second, the US knows that the eastern Ukraine is lost, and they are absolutely correct. Even
if we fully believe what Strelkov says (more about that later), there is no doubt that the vast
majority of the folks in the Donbass hate the neo-Nazi freaks in Kiev and that they do not want
a common future with the rabid Galicians from the western Ukraine.
So if plan 'A' was to seize all of the Ukraine, put a pro-US neo-Nazi and hysterically russophobic
regime in power, and take over Crimea for the US/NATO, plan 'B' is simpler: provoke Russia into
a military intervention in the eastern Ukraine. While the Russian military could easily take under
control all of the Donbass and even all the lands to the Dniepr river as the proverbial hot knife
through butter, the political benefits for the AngloZionist Empire would be immense:
1) A new Cold War with Russia justifying the existence of NATO.
2) Cutting-off Russia from the EU market (including energy).
3) Blaming Russia for the Ukie economic collapse.
4) Justifying a major surge in US/EU military budgets to "protect Europe".
5) Isolating Russia internationally, especially at the UN.
6) Declare Putin a "new Hitler" (what else?) and allocate billions for regime change in Russia.
7) Use the crisis to bring Europe to heel to the AngloZionist "master"
8) Impose Iran-like sanctions on Russia to try to hurt it economically
9) Justify a US/NATO move into western Ukraine and the creation of a new Korean-style demarcation
line along the Dniepr with the free and civilized "West" on one side, and the "freedom hating and
imperialist dictatorial Russian Asiatic hordes" on the other.
10)Blame the EU economic collapse on the 'Russian threat'
I would argue that for the AngloZionists plan 'B' is almost better than plan 'A'. For one thing,
plan 'B' makes it possible to blame Russia for anything and everything conceivable on Russia. We
have already seen this tendency in the absolutely ludicrous warning that should the Presidential
elections next Sunday in the Ukraine fail - Russia would be sanctioned for it. Next I propose to
slap some major sanctions on Russia if there is an earthquake in San Fransisco or if there are riots
in Paraguay...
Also, while plan 'A' was really a very long shot, plan 'B' is already working. Let me give you
an example: the Russian media.
For those who cannot follow the Russian media, especially the Russian TV, it is hard to image
the degree of openly expressed *rage* at the developments in the Ukraine. Some folks who are naturally
inclined to see the "hand of CIA" in everything are even arguing that the "US-controlled" Russian
media has been tasked by Langley to stir up Russian public opinion to such a degree as to force
Putin to agree to an intervention in the Ukraine. According to this thesis, if Putin does not order
a Russian military intervention, he will face a major crisis and his popularity will crumble under
the waves of outrage from the Russian population. This is a neat and elegant theory. It is also
wrong (thank God!). The fact is that Putin's popularity has soared over his handling over the Ukrainian
crisis as shown by the screenshot of a recent TV report.
Here we are dealing with a huge cultural difference between Russians and western people, especially
Anglos: Russians are *very* weary of war. They will accept it and they will even accept to die in
a war, but only one in which the moral issue is really clear-cut like during the 2nd Chechen war,
08.08.08 or the Russian intervention in Crimea. In all three of these cases the first and foremost
consideration to support or oppose the Russian military intervention was a *moral* one. While public
opinion is gradually shifting towards a support for a Russian military intervention in the Ukraine
(most public opinion polls suggest that Russian would back one), the military itself and even the
Kremlin are weary of falling into the AngloZionist trap of plan 'B'.
Emotions are strong, but emotions should not decide of war and peace issues. In the 2nd Chechen
war, in 08.08.08 and in Crimea emotions were sky-high, but the decision to use military force was
taken on pragmatic, rational and carefully measured reasons, not just an surge of outrage. As I
said it many times, when threatened, Russians to not get angry, they concentrate. This is what is
happening now.
Coming back to the media, another very interesting phenomenon is taking place: high visibility
Russian Jews are clearly in the lead of the movement to take action (though not necessarily a military
one) against the Junta. Very well-known Jewish personalities like Vladimir Soloviev, Alexander Gordon,
Roman Ratner (current head of the Alia battalion, an Israeli
special forces battalion compose of Russian Jews), Avigdor Eskin and many others. While rabid Jew-haters
will dismiss this under the usual list of pretexts having to do with Jewish hypocrisy, playing both
sides, etc. I personally believe that this is truly an expression of the loathing that Russian Jews
have for Ukrainian neo-Nazis. I would add that it is pretty clear to me that most Russian nationalists
also believe in the sincerity of these Jews and welcome them in a struggle against a common enemy.
Does that mean that from now on there will be a long and uninterrupted "love fest" between Russian
and Jewish patriots? Most definitely not. The list of outstanding issues of very strong disagreement
and even opposition is huge, but this is an interesting "temporary cease-fire" if you want, a typically
Russian (and Jewish!) way of keeping priorities straight and agreeing to a temporary tactical alliance
against a common foe. Furthermore, there are a lot of Russian Jews who have always felt a sincere
and strong love for Russia and the Russian people (if only because a lot of them came from mixed
marriages) and who welcome the opportunity to not have to chose between both sides and to
be both patriotic Jews and patriotic Russians. I know, to some this sill sound extremely naive.
But I personally have known many such Russian Jews, in Israel, Europe and Russia, who really
did have a double-loyalty, but one which openly *added* two sincerely loyalties. Of course, some
felt more Jewish than Russian, but others felt more Russian than Jewish. These matters are subtle
and complex, not as black and white as some kneejerk Jew-haters would want them to be. As the Russian
expressions goes "the East is a subtle realm" and both Russians and Jews are first and foremost
folks of the East, not of the West.
Coming back to what I call the AngoZionist plan 'B', we now can understand the Russian stance:
not to be pulled in or, if that is impossible, to be pulled in as last as possible. Why? For a few
basic reasons:
1) To have as clear-cut a moral case as possible.
2) To give time to world public opinion to realize that it is being lied to by the western corporate
media (that already seems to be taking place, if slowly).
3) To maximize the support for such an intervention in the eastern Ukraine.
4) Because time is very much on the Russian side, to give every opportunity to the junta freaks
to further commit blunders.
5) Because a victory of the DRP forces is still possible
At this point I want to get the the military balance on the ground in the Donbass. To sum things
up.
A very large Ukrainian force is currently deployed in the eastern Ukraine. It is opposed by a
very small force of volunteers. There are two reasons why this conflict has not been settled in
24 hours. First, the vast majority of the Ukrainian military personnel does not want to fight. Second,
the threat of a Russian military intervention is real and, I would add, has nothing to do with the
forces allegedly deployed at the Russian-Ukrainian border. Let me explain this as the corporate
media is completely missing this. Let me give you an example of what could happen.
Let's us assume that a few multiple-rocket launcher batteries around, say, Slaviansk suddenly
decided to get serious and open up with a sustained artillery barrage similar to the one the Georgians
unleashed on Tskhinval in the first hours of the 08.08.08 war. In response to that, Russia would
not need to send armor and troops across the border. Putin could order missile and air-strikes which
could literally obliterate the offending Ukrainian artillery units in a matter of *minutes* (one
single Iskander missile armed with a fragmentation or fuel-air explosive warhead could do the job!).
Unlike the western reporters (which is a misnomer, they should be called "parroters" because they
parrot the government lies), the Ukrainian military commanders all fully realize that they are all
very much within reach of enough Russian firepower to send them all the a better world in minutes.
Would you want to obey orders to shell Slaviansk while knowing that there is a bullseye painted
on our exact position by many Iskander missile operators and that if the Russians fire it, you will
neither see, nor hear it coming (not even on radar)?
All the reports on the ground concur to say that while the various Ukrainian death squads (the
"National Guard", the Dniepr and Dniester battalions, the various oligarch-owned death squads, etc.)
are extremely hostile and even shoot civilians for fun, the Ukrainian military is mostly shy or
even pretty friendly to the locals. Here is what is happening really:
Ukrainian death squads are far more busy dealing with the Ukrainian military than with the Donbass
forces. For one thing, this is easier and safer for them (like all death squads, they are staffed
with lunatics, perverts and cowards): why risk your life fighting some pretty motivated folks when
you can instead bully regular military commanders to do the fighting for you? As for the Ukrainians,
they cannot openly defy these orders, but they can make darn sure that they are minimally executed.
Furthermore, by all accounts, the death squads get all the support while the regular military
forces are under or not paid at all, they are under fed, under equipped, they have little or not
medical support and the logistics are plain horrible.
In fact, Igor Strelkov admits this in his address. His concern is that with the gradual escalation
the already small forces of volunteers is having to shoulder am immense effort while hundred of
thousands of men, including military trained ones, are sitting at home and sipping beer. Is that
really true?
I believe that this is indeed very true. There are many reasons for this state of affairs.
To begin, an entire generation of Ukrainians have been raised in abject passivity. "Work, shut
up and mind your business while we fleece you" was the order of the day under the various oligarch-controlled
regimes of the "independent Ukraine". Second, there are not one or two but at least THREE local
powers in the Donbass right now: the local mobsters, the Kiev junta and the local resistance. This
creates a huge confusion were many people are both afraid and do not want to get burned. Third,
most people clearly that Russia will solve the problem for them and think "we will vote for sovereignty,
and the Russians will come to liberate us sooner or later". And never forget that that there
are death squads operating all over the Ukraine right now. The purpose of massacres like the
one in Odessa or Mariupol is to terrify the locals by showing how ruthless and murderous you are
and it works (death squads are of the most time honored traditions of the Empire!). So it is all
well to sit in the safety of my house in sunny Florida and wish that the folks in the Donbass would
take up arms, except for my wife and family are not threatened. My house will (probably) not get
assaulted at night by man in black, and I am unlikely to be disappeared, tortured and murdered.
This also applies to most of the readers of this blog.
Of course, Strelkov clearly sees where all this is heading (escalation) and he is concerned that
the currently small resistance will not be able to cope with a constantly growing junta escalation:
it all began with baseball bats, the they switched to Molotov cocktails, then handguns, assault-rifles
and machine guns. Now they have already used mortar and artillery fire. We have confirmed reports
of helicopter-fired unguided missile attacks and this morning I got a report of a Sukhoi attack.
Add to this oligarch-paid death squads and you clearly will see what has Strelkov so worried and,
let's face it, disgusted with the passivity of the locals.
But keep in mind that even if his appeal is not heeded, and even if the key cities are re-taken,
the Donbass is already lost. In fact,
the latest report out
of Kiev says the Ukie rump-Rada has adopted a memorandum stating that "Ukrainian troops deployed
in the country's east should immediately return to their bases". Now, I am not holding my breath
(Uncle Sam will never agree), but who knows what might happen (maybe the Germans are getting involved
now?). I believe that nobody really knows.
There are simply too many variables to confidently state that this or that will happen. Heck,
we are not even sure of what has already happened! This is an extremely chaotic situation in which
most unpredictable things could happen (for example, an oligarch could e bought by Moscow or a resistance
figure could be bought by the USA - it really could go either way). The fact is that with the notable
exception of true believers (on both sides), the vast majority of Ukrainians are still in the "what
is in it for me?" mode. Again, this is in no way different form the position of most Russians in
1917, 1991 or 1993. While this kind of apparent passivity has nothing to do with some "lack of democratic
culture in the past of these societies which only recently were feudal" and all the rest of the
garden variety western racism supremacist, it is a direct result of a profound alienation with,
and suspicion of, the elites. These folks just so Yanukovich hand power to neo-Nazis and run abroad!
They have been burned over and over again. And, this is crucial, there is no Ukrainian Putin
to follow.
When Putin came to power in Russia it took less than a month for the armed forces to feel that
"this guy as got our backs". It took the rest of the population a little longer, but now the vast
majority of Russians actually trust Putin. Whom should they trust in the Ukraine or even in the
Donbass. Figure which appeared just a few weeks ago and which nobody really knows or figures which
are known for decades for being thief, crooks and pathological liars?
Whom would you trust if you were living in Donetsk or Lugansk?
Would you risk your life and the life of your family on such a choice?
Exactly.
So while I understand the frustration of Strelkov (and most of us!) with seeing a territory with
millions of people defended by only a few hundred courageous men, and while I also catch myself
getting enraged in discussed with the news out of the Ukraine and day-dreaming about Polite Armed
Men in Green obliterating the Ukie death-squads, I also understand why this has been and will continue
to be a slow process: it is simply too fluid and too rapidly shifting to take any premature
or rash decisions.
The AngloZionists are desperately trying to trigger an over Russian intervention, and there is
a pretty good chance that they might succeed, no doubt, but the good news is that time is running
out fast, very fast, soon the economic crisis is going to start really biting and the unrest will
spread far beyond the Donbass.
As for the Presidential elections next Sunday, they are going to be such a mega-farce that it
serve no other purpose than to maybe give NATO a justification to move forces into the western Ukraine
at the "request" of the new President. Will the West recognize this election? You betcha it will!
As Vladimir Soloviev put it on Sunday, "even if there will be only one candidate and one person
voting, the West will call these elections free and fair". But for the people of the Ukraine
this will be a self-evident farce which will only alienate them further, including the neo-Nazis.
In fact, Yulia Timoshenko (who, by the way, seems to have gone completely insane) has even declared
that if the billionaire oligarch Poroshenko is elected (as all polls seem to suggest) she will launch
yet another revolution with Maidan and all.
Following the example of the Ukraine, not it is "Banderastan" which is committing national suicide
and that entire house of cards will be coming down soon (unless a last minute effort by Germany
helps delay or stop this, but I am not holding my breath). We all need to show some patience now.
Sorry for the very long SITREP, but I have to cover a lot of ground.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
PS: I am under huge time pressure, so no time to correct typos. I apologize for that and ask
for your understanding. And, besides, this is a SITREP not a work of literary art.
A bit of historical background in last decade concerning NGOs involved with setting US policy
for Eastern Europe (and the Middle East) ○
Neocons Covert
Action and Ukraine Watch
PS I tried to post parts here, but due to number of links the post got stuck in moderation.
Nulandstan expresses gratitude to Nuland in its own way
As will this. That
republic passed the following resolution
3. Law enforcement agencies of the Republic to ensure the criminal prosecution of the
leaders of the Kiev junta and other persons involved in inciting, organizing and committing
mass murders on the territory of the DND: Kolomoyskit, Nalivaichenko, Parubiy, Havanova,
Yulia Tymoshenko, Atarinov, Arseniy Yatseniuk, Lyashko, Artemenko and U.S. citizens Brennan,
Nuland, Psaki.
Many outside the republic could now agree with that list.
3. Law enforcement agencies of the Republic to ensure the criminal prosecution of
the leaders of the Kiev junta and other persons involved in inciting, organizing and committing
mass murders on the territory of the DND: Kolomoyskit, Nalivaichenko, Parubiy, Havanova,
Yulia Tymoshenko, Atarinov, Arseniy Yatseniuk, Lyashko, Artemenko and U.S. citizens Brennan,
Nuland, Psaki."
Now that is interesting, compare this action to the first act of the Kiev regime which was
to ban the Russian language. Someone in the Republic has a head on their shoulders.
I agree, Putin originally (I suspect) wanted to share the cost of getting the Ukraine back
on its feet with the EU as part of his 2010 publicized strategy for a pan-euro-asian trade partnership.
The either'or demand of the US/EU IMF package caught Russia by surprise, espec as Russia had
already advanced 3 billion of a proposed 15 billion loan.
And once Russia saw Natzi elements in play I think they reached for well thought out battle
strategies re Crimea and my guess is they have additional equally well thought out strategies
for annexing/defending any and all parts of the Ukraine if it comes down to it.
None of this upheaval was necessary and it is amazing to me to see how badly played the
west's role has been. If someone tells me one day that Nuland was a mole I will be inclined
to believe it:)
I agree that Russia has stepped up their game. So far they have avoided a new NATO state
on their border and a hot war. But, the Kremlin better not gloat because the Civil War next
door will spill over into Russia.
I worked for the US government for 42 years. I dealt with representatives of Swiss, German,
French, UK, Japanese, and American companies until they were all consolidated into a few giant
multinationals. Just before I retired, one American company ignored the law and regulations
and just did what they wanted. When caught they paid a couple million dollar fine but no one
was jailed; "The costs of doing business". Since 2008 corporations and the wealthy have had
a free ticket to do whatever they want. The result is Austerity, War, and Superyachts.
The United States and European Union are like Ukraine before the start of the Color Revolutions.
Each country is run by and for the Oligarchs not the people. Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland,
and Portugal are on the edge. If rich eastern plutocrats had funded democracy movements in these
States like Westerners did in Ukraine, they would already have had their revolutions.
Knut
I believe the Russians can wait for as long as it takes, short of NATO troops being stationed
in the Ukraine at the 'invitation' of the new government to be elected in two weeks. This would
cross to fat a red line. As to provocations, it would require something bigger than the Maidan
regime can pull off without significant foreign assistance. As Russia has its own people there,
it would be impossible to pull off without the perpetrators being unmasked. As b and others
here have observed, any serious repression of the Russophone population would provoke serious
indigenous resistance that the regime would be unable to contain. So far, it's checkmate.
bevin
"...a Cold War is not inevitable. Russia has made, for example, no antagonistic moves in
Iran, in Syria or in Afghanistan. Putin has been at some pains to underline that whereas – from
now – Russia will pursue its vital interests unhesitatingly, and in the face of any western
pressures, on other non-existential issues, it is still open to diplomatic business as usual....
Crooke contradicts himself: a Cold War is inevitable.
"...the era of Gorbachevian hope of some sort of parity of esteem (even partnership) emerging
between Russia and the western powers, in the wake of the conclusion to the Cold War, has imploded
– with finality..."
That is, the Cold War continues. It never ended.
The problem is that Russia has no appetite to recognise it. It refuses to face up to the
awful reality of imperialism. Russia hopes that, after a few more Olympic Games and all manner
of cultural contacts, the Cold Warriors in the West will just fade away. And capitalism will
revert to the existence it has never had anywhere but in the textbooks of its propagandists,
and drop the plundering and destruction and make friends of bosses everywhere, including in
Russia.
They won't: warmongering is not a prejudice born of misunderstanding and slavophobia but
a way of life. Without a Cold War the US economy and the state have no purpose: they exist to
pursue hegemony, not to achieve it, but to maintain the thrill, and the profits, of the chase.
The thrill of a trillion dollar military budget.
The thrill of having the entire population's personal details at their fingertips. A
blackmailer's nirvana.
The thrill of running a gulag system without parallel in its extent, brutality and profitability
in modern history.
The thrill of having agents wandering the streets of Sa'ana and Karachi shooting whomsoever
they fancy. The thrill of using drone strikes to wipe out wedding parties "pour encourager
les autres."
The thrill of looting the domestic economy, impoverishing the masses on the excuse that
there is an emergency, a war on terror, that necessitates the postponement of non-military
responsibilities. BUt never mind "There will be pie in the sky. When you die." Lots of pie.
And death comes earlier every year.
Russia has made "no antagonistic moves in Iran, in Syria or in Afghanistan." And what has
it gained by assisting the US in Afghanistan? Or by refusing to honour its defense contracts
to Iran?
What did it gain by watching Saddam being crushed? Or Ghadaffi?
On the whole little more than contempt and disdain. Its restraint has been interpreted as
weakness, which in turn has been interpreted as an invitation to escalated aggression. Thus
do the Kagans see the world.
What we have seen since Gorbachev's day is an assault on Russia, a full spectrum assault,
to which Russia has made no reply, sitting there paralysed like a serpent's victim as it has
been torn apart and devoured by enemies at whom it smiles beatifically, like an ikon or a sub-Dostoevskyan
protagonist. Like an impotent Oblomov. Patience on a monument to 25 million martyrs.
Still, "...the atmosphere in Moscow is hardening, and hardening visibly. Even the 'pro-Atlanticist'
component in Russia senses that Europe will not prove able to de-escalate the situation. They
are both disappointed, and bitter at their political eclipse in the new mood that is contemporary
Russia, where the 'recovery of sovereignty' current prevails."
It could be that in the eastern Ukraine, where massacres such as those we have seen in the
past week are taken to heart a little more easily than they are in Moscow, will force Russia's
hand. And Kiev's too. One side's provocations and the other's pacifism make for good Chess but
bad politics. Another Odessa incident and not only the Donbas but Russia could explode.
Then Putin will have to respond. And the only reasonable response must be to insist
that the US get its pit bulls back under control, end the killings and call a halt to a process
that must lead to war if continued. Real war, not proxy terrorism, death squads and drones but
an immediate expansion of the battlefield from south eastern Ukraine to the whole of Europe.
War not because the General Staffs want it, or the Kaisers or the Diplomats but because the
logic of Odessa and Maryupol leads only to war. The shooting of one maverick Grand Duke was
nothing compared to what we saw in Odessa. And the links between Gavrilo Princip and Belgrade
were incomparably vaguer than those between the criminals in Odessa and Barack Obama.
muskat
Take a look back to recent years. At the beginning there were the uprisings in northern africa,
deleting partners and outposts of russia. then the war in syria began. in assad, another allie
have to fight against all sorts of enemies. Iran faced tough sanctions made by the US and the
EU. Coincidently Russia is going to get the same sanctions out of nothing. At the same time
NATO placed troops in the baltic countries. Finally. If this is not a kind of cold war, what
else?
re bevin 10. I wouldn't have thought that Putin was ignorant of the possibility of a new Cold
War. It is simply, as Crooke says, that the Russians don't want it.
Alexno
Putin's actions seem to me reasonable, in order to defend their interests, and to avoid war.
Ukraine will collapse of its own accord, if the present road continues. Actually, I quite admire
Putin's policy. He has avoided fighting and killing. That should not be taken for weakness,
rather a degree of subtlety rare in the modern day. And certainly unknown to the US.
The danger is that the "hardening atmosphere" in Moscow may demand more robust action. As
Putin is in a position to be relatively autocratic, I wouldn't have thought that would eventuate.
To add to 12. Putin is also aware that Europe can't avoid its dependence on Russian gas.
The West is split. The US doesn't suffer, so it can be as bellicose as it wants. But there's
no alternative to Russian gas for Europe. All the stories of American LNG for Europe are pie
in the sky. No surplus is available, and even if it were, it would take several years to put
it in action. No European leader can face the thought of Europe freezing in the winter. Even
Britain who theoretically doesn't consume much Russian gas is affected, as the gas sharing system
implies that Britain will lose if Russian gas goes down.
No doubt measures will be taken, including the release of Germany's reserve. But some will
be cold, including me. That problem will surface before Russia runs out of money.
Putin doesn't have to act. He is much better to wait and see how the Western alliance splits.
Demian
Whether there's going to be another cold war or not is not an interesting question. One
could say that even using the term "Cold War" here is anti-Russian propaganda, as it suggests
that treating today's Russia as the enemy is morally equivalent to treating the USSR as the
enemy.
The really interesting question is whether the USG will succeed in its plan for driving
a wedge between Russia and western Europe (to speak of driving a wedge between "Russia and Europe"
is also anti-Russian propaganda, since Russia is part of Europe), or whether Russia will drive
a wedge between the US and Europe, aided by USG's stupidity, mendacity, and rapacity.
Grieved I think we're mistaken to characterize Russia's actions as "fighting back" if it chooses
military action, but "not fighting back" if it chooses, for example, diplomatic action.
I see Russia as fully engaged with its enemy, whom it has studied for decades and whom it
understands extremely well. Its choice of diplomacy and impeccable lawful protocols is itself
a way of fighting. In the psychiatric field, manifesting sanity in the presence of the insane
is the recommended way to help the situation, I believe.
To my eyes, Russia is indeed fighting, every day, every hour, very seriously in a fight
to the death.
The conservation of resources and the elegance of Russia's moves during all this skirmishing
leaves me profoundly impressed. Russia has not wasted one heartbeat of action, not one grain
of power or material resource, and look at what it has gained already. And it has barely begun
in the long battle it faces of watching the US destroy itself without itself suffering damage
or loss of force.
somebody
Main Stream Media surrenders - it
has become too obvious - Daily Telegraph - and no, they are decidedly anti-Putin
The West in general, and the EU in particular, chose to intervene directly in domestic Ukrainian
politics, backing opponents of the thuggish but none the less freely-elected President Yanukovych.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that they were thereby inviting others to intervene.
Ukraine was always going to matter more to Moscow than to Brussels, yet EU diplomats seemed
genuinely nonplussed when, after they had sponsored undemocratic regime change in Kiev,
Putin did the same in Crimea.
...
European and other Western diplomats might reasonably have pursued one of two strategies
vis-à-vis Russia. They could have decided to overlook Putin's authoritarianism and treat
him, albeit guardedly, as a partner. They could have taken the view that, in the long term,
the main strategic threats to the West were likely to come from further afield than Russia,
and drawn Moscow into an entente cordiale. This would have meant accepting Putin's offer
of a Lisbon-to-Vladivostok free trade zone, and so sparing Ukraine from having to choose
between the EU and Putin's customs union.
Alternatively, Washington and Brussels might have taken the view that the Kremlin's values
were incompatible with theirs, that Russia's readiness to resort to force put it beyond
the comity of nations, and that the freedom of action of former Soviet states was too high
a price to pay for Moscow's goodwill. It could have encouraged these republics to join the
West, and guaranteed their sovereignty by placing Nato bases on their eastern or northern
marches.
Both these approaches would have had their drawbacks; but the milk-and-water diplomacy
pursued instead has been nothing short of calamitous.
Let me take a bet - it will be the Lisbon to Vladivostock free trade zone.
Laut "Bild am Sonntag" werden die ukrainischen Sicherheitskräfte von 400 Academi-Elitesoldaten
unterstützt. Sie sollen Einsätze gegen prorussische Rebellen rund um die ostukrainische
Stadt Slowjansk geführt haben. Demnach setzte der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) die Bundesregierung
am 29. April darüber in Kenntnis. Wer die Söldner beauftragt habe, sei noch unklar.
Die Informationen sollen vom US-Geheimdienst stammen und seien während der sogenannten
Nachrichtendienstlichen Lage, einer regelmäßigen Besprechung unter Leitung von Kanzleramtschef
Peter Altmaier (CDU), vorgetragen worden. An dem Treffen hätten auch die Präsidenten der
Nachrichtendienste und des Bundeskriminalamts, der Geheimdienstkoordinator des Kanzleramts
und hochrangige Ministeriumsbeamte teilgenommen.
Translation: German Secret Service informed the German government on April 29, that
operations around Sloviansk were led by 400 Academi/Blackwater mercenaries, high ranking German
government and and administration officials took part in the meeting where this was revealed.
It is not clear who has contracted the mercenaries.
BILD is the tabloid read by most people in Germany. Its editorial policy is considered to
be politically decisive.
Thanks, Scalawag. I think this is a really important story. Here's the Lifenews.ru story
about the captured Grad launchers, from the previous day. Check the source to see if I have
taken undue liberties translating. And tell me, if this is true, why the hell haven't they put
these things on show? That would be devastating PR:
Militia detained a major by the name of Roman Koti, who was to deliver the launchers to the
village of Markovka in the Lugansk region. According to him, he did not know what the next orders
would be. The major presented his identity card, which listed his military unit as A-1302 in
Dnepropetrovsk. He said:
The installation was sent to town to Markovka. I was supposed to be there by 5 am (Saturday
May 10, presumably - RB). My briefing was conducted by Colonel Melnik.
According to militia reports, one of the launchers was to be targeted on the Slavyansk Valley,
the second on Mount Karachun. Activists of self-defense claim they intercepted radio traffic
between Ukrainian forces indicating that they had planned to use the Grads in the near future.
Anonymous
somebody
I read this comment on another site:
Today a more informative article emerged on Der Spiegel.......seems ACADEMI-mercs formerly
known as Blackwater are operating in specialpolice SOKOL-uniforms since some time know.......remember
the SOKOL-Snipers from Maidan!
You know
the article? Or is it the same that you linked?
Rowan Berkeley
Right. But before you pointed that story out, I had already suggested that this whole meme
was a dubious one, because Lifenews were the only source for it, and their own source was unnamed,
and most decisively because (I think) they said somewhere that they had been following it since
May 5, but as of today, May 11, no one else is reporting it except them. I assume they had been
reporting on it since May 5, though my own Russian-language site search ability is (shall we
say) limited. I would put this forward as a principle for evaluating stories in general. I know
I rather often dismiss other people's stories as 'disinfo' and this is a chance for me to illustrate
that I do have some principles to go by.
somebody
Der Spiegel article I linked to quotes a Russian source on the SOKOL uniforms but says it
is unconfirmed.
This article here in RT quoting German business research institute director Sinn in the Wall
Street Journal is interesting
As Hans Werner Sinn, president of the Ifo Institute for Economy Research in Germany, wrote
in the Wall Street Journal on May 2:
"It must be borne in mind that the present crisis was triggered by the West… after killing
millions of Russians in World War II and enjoying the good fortune of a peaceful reunification
thanks also to Russia's support, it is the duty of Germany in particular to de-escalate
the conflict with Russia."
The article is written by two people from American University in Moscow which is a very interesting
institution in itself.
After remembering the Second World Alliance of the US, the Soviet Union, Britain and
France against Nazi Germany they come to this conclusion
We live in Alice's Wonderland: Reason and common sense have fled and the bitterly won
lessons of history have been thrown overboard. Who can save us from our own ignorance and
stupidity?
So far the only things we hear from President Obama are demands for sanctions, sanctions,
and more sanctions against Russia. It sounds more like an invitation to dance on the brink
of a very frightening precipice.
Wouldn't it be the greatest historical irony if it turns out to be German Chancellor
Angela Merkel who can do it? At least her first name sounds like an invitation to peace.
As Germans overwhelmingly are against sanctions despite a dislike for Putin this is the direction
where Merkel will go.
"Alice's Wonderland" is a very good description of US foreign policy.
What is wrong with having a democratic referendum on autonomy, on a federal rather than
'Kiev controls all' governmental structure for Ukraine? Why are pro-federalists called 'pro-Russians'?
Why is it that the sponsors of the Kiev coup, we heard Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador
to Ukraine on the phone choosing the after-coup prime minister, aren't subject to sanctions?
Why aren't we discussing sanctions for those providing massive economic and on-the-ground
military support for the illegally installed junta?
What is wrong with opposing a government that openly employs armed fascists and neo-Nazis
(Right Sector and Svoboda) in its National Guard? That employs tanks and heavy weapons against
unarmed civilians (as anyone who can watch a youtube video can see)?
Why is the government that is explicitly and excruciatingly not involved in Ukraine unrest
being subject to sanctions and asked to back its military 100s of miles away from its own
border?
A two-hour hearing of US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at the House Foreign Affairs
Committee over the Obama administration's and the US' role in the developments in Ukraine nailed
down Nuland over the United States overt cooperation with and use of neo-Nazis. Nuland tried
to dodge questions, explained US plans for Ukraine and told the Committee outright lies about Kiev
having "upheld the obligations of the Geneva agreement". Nuland omitted that Kiev has mobilized
Ukraine's military forces and the presence of large contingents of Ukrainian troops near the Russian
border.
Hard times covering-up cooperation with neo-Nazis. It becomes increasingly difficult for
the Obama administration and the corporate US press to cover-up the fact that the main driving force
behind the coup in Ukraine are neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, supported by the US.
Victoria Nuland Lies to House Foreign Affairs Committee; Congressman Rohrabacher Challenges
Nuland's Claim No Nazis in Kiev.
Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, lied by denying
that there were armed Nazis supporting the ouster of Ukraine's "free and fairly elected" President
Victor Yanukovych, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Thursday, despite repeated
questions posed by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) about pictures of neo-Nazis armed with guns in the
Maidan, and their affiliations with neo-Nazi groups in other countries.
The full committee hearing on the Ukraine crisis featured an opening statement by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher
(R-CA), as Chair of its Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia. Rohrbacher stated that the situation
in Ukraine is "much murkier" than is being pretended. It is not simply a case of Russian aggression.
Chaos began, said Rohrbacher, when the elected President of Ukraine (Yanukovych), who won an election
- an election which observers from the OSCE declared "free and fair" - was forced out of office
by street involvement. (emphasis in original).
The problem started without any Russian involvement. It started when the Ukraine President decided
to make an economic agreement with Russia, not the EU. It gets murkier. We should not be jumping
into it.
Later, in his turn to question Nuland, Rohrbacher asked:
Rohrbacher: What will [intervening in Ukraine] cost the U.S., bottom line?
Nuland: $187m + $50m + $18m DOD budgeted for security services and border guards.
Rohrbacher: Did we guarantee any loans from the World Bank to Ukraine?
Nuland: $400m for Treasury of $1 billion from the IMF.
Rohrbacher: Do we have preferential payback?
Nuland: I don't know; I'll get back to you…
Rohrbacher: I think I know the answer. We had a legitimate election before, but [the President]
was removed. About the violence. There are pictures of neo-Nazis. Were the neo-Nazis involved in
the street violence?
Nuland: The vast majority were peaceful protesters. We saw firebombs being thrown, and people
shooting into police ranks. All of these incidents are subject to investigation.
Rohrbacher: Guns were involved.
Nuland: As the demonstration became more violent both…
Rohrbacher: Was the neo-Nazi group affiliated with Nazi groups in other countries?
Nuland: I don't know about the early period. Later, we see recruiting on neo-Nazi websites in
Russia. We don't have any information against neo-Nazi groups from Europe. There is no information
to corroborate. Ukraine is investigating…
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) also pointed to the anti-Russian bias of U.S. foreign policy in the
alternating cases of U.S. support at times, for territorial integrity, and at other times, independence,
as shown in South Sudan, South Ossetia, Moldova, and other cases. "It seems haphazard," Sherman
said, but "Every decision we make is anti-Moscow."
Sherman: Has the Right Sector militia been disarmed?
Nuland: Ukraine has made a massive effort.
Sherman: How successful has it been?
Nuland: There's progress, but more to do.
Sherman: Kiev wants to repeal the Russian language law.
Nuland: Language rights will be protected.
Other useful questioning of Nuland occurred.
Rep. Albio Sires (R-NJ) asked Nuland why, if the Russian people were impacted by the sanctions,
"Putin is getting more popular."
Nuland's testimony made clear that the plan for the May 25 referendum is a large vote turnout,
with thousands of observers, and she claimed that 39 million voters had been registered online,
while the International Republican Institute is predicting 84% are likely to vote.
(Note: Non-quotes are paraphrases.) Related content: No related posts. B Disclaimer: The contents
of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization
will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of
Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community
internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified.
The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles
in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
[email protected]
http://www.globalresearch.ca contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in
an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material
on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other
than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries:
[email protected]
Hat tip to Mood of Alabama. Quote: "Alastair Crooke, a former MI-6 honcho and diplomat, is just
back from Moscow and has some
interesting
thoughts on the bigger historic issues which express themselves in the current events in Ukraine."
Following five days in Moscow, a few thoughts on Russian perspectives: Firstly, we are beyond
the Crimea. That is over. We too are beyond 'loose' federalism for Ukraine (no longer thought politically
viable). Indeed, we are most likely beyond Ukraine as a single entity. Also, we are beyond either
Kiev or Moscow having the capacity to 'control' events (in the wider sense of the word): both are
hostage to events (as well as are Europe and America), and to any provocations mounted by a multitude
of uncontrollable and violent activists.
In gist, the dynamics towards some sort of secession of East Ukraine (either in part, or in successive
increments) is thought to be the almost inevitable outcome. The question most informed commentators
in Moscow ask themselves is whether this will occur with relatively less orrelatively
more violence – and whether that violence will reach such a level (massacres of ethnic Russians
or of the pro-Russian community) that President Putin will feel that he has no option but to intervene.
We are nowhere near that point at the time of writing: Kiev's 'security initiatives' have been strikingly
ineffective, and casualties surprisingly small (given the tensions). It seems that the Ukrainian
military is unwilling, or unable (or both of these), to crush a rebellion composed only of a few
hundred armed men backed by a few thousand unarmed civilians - but that of course may change at
any moment. (One explanation circulating on
Russian internet circles is that pro-Russian insurgents and the Ukrainian servicemen simply
will not shoot at each other - even when given the order to do so. Furthermore, they appear to be
in direct and regular contact with each other and there is an informal understanding that neither
side will fire at the other. Note - we have witnessed similar understandings in Afghanistan in the
1980s between the Soviet armed forces and the Mujahidin.)
And this the point, most of those with whom we spoke suspect that it is the interest of certain
components of the American foreign policy establishment (but not necessarily that of the US President)
to provoke just such a situation: a forced Russian intervention in East Ukraine (in order to protect
its nationals there from violence or disorder or both). It is also thought that Russian intervention
could be seen to hold political advantage to the beleaguered and fading acting government in Kiev.
And further, it is believed that some former Soviet Republics, now lying at the frontline of the
EU's interface with Russia, will see poking Moscow in the eye as a settling of past scores, as well
as underscoring their standing in Brussels and Washington for having brought 'democracy' to eastern
Europe.
There seems absolutely no appetite in Moscow to intervene in Ukraine (and this is common to all
shades of political opinion). Everyone understands Ukraine to be a vipers' nest, and additionally
knows it to be a vast economic 'black hole'. But … you can scarcely meet anyone in Moscow who does
not have relatives in Ukraine. This is not Libya; East Ukraine is family. Beyond
some certain point, if the dynamic for separation persists, and if the situation on the ground gets
very messy, some sort of Russian intervention may become unavoidable (just as Mrs Thatcher found
it impossible to resist pressures to intervene in support of British 'kith and kin' in the Falklands).
Moscow well understands that such a move will unleash another western outpouring of outrage.
More broadly then, we are moving too beyond the post-Cold War global dispensation, or unipolar
moment. We are not heading – at least from the Russian perspective, as far as can be judged
– towards a new Cold War, but to a period of increased Russian antagonism towards any western
move that it judges hostile to its key interests – and especially to those that are seen to threaten
its security interests. In this sense, a Cold War is not inevitable. Russia has made, for example,
no antagonistic moves in Iran, in Syria or in Afghanistan. Putin has been at some pains to underline
that whereas – from now – Russia will pursue its vital interests unhesitatingly, and in the
face of any western pressures, on other non-existential issues, it is still open to diplomatic business
as usual.
That said, and to just to be clear, there is deep disillusion with European (and American)
diplomacy in Moscow. No one holds out any real prospect for diplomacy – given the recent history
of breaches of faith (broken agreements) in Ukraine. No doubt these sentiments are mirrored in western
capitals, but the atmosphere in Moscow is hardening, and hardening visibly. Even the 'pro-Atlanticist'
component in Russia senses that Europe will not prove able to de-escalate the situation. They are
both disappointed, and bitter at their political eclipse in the new mood that is contemporary Russia,
where the 'recovery of sovereignty' current prevails.
Thus, the era of Gorbachevian hope of some sort of parity of esteem (even partnership) emerging
between Russia and the western powers, in the wake of the conclusion to the Cold War, has imploded
– with finality. To understand this is to reflect on the way the Cold War was brought to
and end; and how that ending, and its aftermath, was managed. In retrospect, the post-war
era was not well handled by the US, and there exist
irreconcilable
narratives on the subject of the nature of the so-called 'defeat' itself, and whether it was
a defeat for Russia at all.
Be that as it may, the Russian people have been treated as if they were psychologically-seared
and defeated in the Cold War – as were the Japanese in the wake of the dropping of the nuclear bombs
by the US in 1945. Russia was granted a bare paucity of esteem in the Cold War's wake; instead
Russians experienced rather the disdain of victors for the defeated visited upon them. There was
little or any attempt at including Russia in a company of the nations of equals – as many Russians
had hoped. Few too would defeated, and some felt then – and still feel – just betrayed. Whatever
the verdict of history on how much the Cold War truly was a defeat, the aftermath of it has given
rise to a Versailles Treaty-type of popular resentment at the consequences of the post-Cold War
settlement, and at the (unwarranted) unipolar triumphalism (from the Russian perspective).
In this sense, it is the end of an era: it marks the end of the post-Cold War settlement that
brought into being the American unipolar era. It is the rise of a Russian challenge to that unipolar
order which seems so unsettling to many living in the West. Just as Versailles was psychologically
rejected by Germans, so Russia is abdicating out of the present dispensation (at least in respect
to its key interests). The big question must be whether the wider triangulation (US-Russia-China)
that saw merit in its complementary touching at each of its three apexes is over too - a triangulation
on which the US depends heavily for its foreign policy. We have to wait on China. The answer to
this question may well hinge on how far the antagonism between Russia and the West is allowed –
or even encouraged – to escalate. Only then, might it become more apparent how many, and who, is
thinking of seceding from the global order (including from the Federal Reserve controlled financial
system).
In the interim, time and dynamics require Russia to do little in Ukraine at this point but to
watch and wait. The mood in Russia, however, is to expect provocations in Ukraine, by any one of
the assorted interested parties, with the aim of forcing a Russian intervention - and thus a politically
useful 'limited' war that will do many things: restore US 'leadership' in Europe, give NATO a new
mission and purpose, and provide the same (and greater prominence) to certain newer EU member states
(such as Poland). Russia will have concluded that the second round of economic sanctions has revealed
more about a certain lack of political (and financial) will – or perhaps vulnerability – on the
part of America'sEuropean
allies. Russia no doubt sees the US to be gripped by the
logic of escalation (as Administration talk centres on a new containment strategy, and the demonization
of Russia as a pariah state), whatever President Obama may be hinting through the columns of
David Ignatius. It is a dangerous moment, as all in Moscow acknowledge, with positions hardening
on both sides.
Russia is not frightened by sanctions (which some, with influence in Moscow, would welcome as
a chance to push-back against the US use of the global interbank payment systems for its own ends).
Nor is Russia concerned that, as occurred with the USSR, the US – in today's changed circumstances
– can contrive a drop in the price of oil in order to weaken the state. But Russia is somewhat more
vulnerable to the West's teaming up with Sunni radicals as its new geo-strategic weapon of choice.
We have therefore seen a Russian outreach both to Saudi Arabia and Egypt (President Putin recently
extolled King Abdallah's "wisdom"). There is a feeling too that US policy is not fully controlled
by the US President; and that Gulf States, smelling that US policy may be adrift, and open to manipulation
by interests within the US, will take advantage (perhaps in coordination with certain Americans
opposed to President Obama's policies) to escalate the jihadist war against President Assad and
to target Obama's Iran policy. Russia may be expected to try to circumscribe this danger to its
own Muslim population and to that of its neighbouring former Soviet Republics. But for now, Russia
will be likely to play it cool: to wait-and-see how events unfold, before recalibrating any main
components of its Middle East policy. For the longer term however, Russia's effective divorce out
of the unipolar international order will impact powerfully on the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia
(not to say Syria and Iran) have already virtually done the same.
Austrian
I hope the Russians are aware that the cowardly EU governments are not acting with
the full consent of their populace. Many of us would prefer to have good (business and
other) relations with Russia, and deplore the foolish and offensive "sanctions".
The majority is not even aware of the folly of our governments, especially now that
the media are burying the Ukraine dossier headlines under the tritest domestic news,
and censoring disapproving comments. A casual or less informed reader/viewer (the vast
majority) most likely has no idea of how our politicians are playing with fire and supporting
the new Nazis, or that the Ukraine story is more important than all the other news items.
As an Austrian I find this situation particularly infuriating. For all my five decades
I've had to listen to reproaches that my people did not stand up to the Nazis' takeover
of Austria, and now that Nazis are once again marching in Europe with swastikas and
all, who is supporting them? The very countries that were acting oh-so-disdainful and
morally superior (as well as our own clueless politicians), and the most supposedly
"liberal" media.
Another thing - there has been so much fake crying of "wolf" in calling populist
right parties Nazis (I vividly remember the "sanctions" on Austria in 2000), that now
the real thing has apparently emerged, nobody is taking the danger seriously any more.
And suddenly, it's Russia that has to be sanctioned, not the real-life fascists.
The hypocrisy of all this is breathtaking in its audacity and scope.
On the other hand, we now have a better idea how long and patiently the USUK must
have worked to get all the important media and politicians suborned, blackmailed or
paid off - a huge number of ducks must have been put into a row for this moment, and
they are probably furious that the propaganda is still not getting enough traction internationally.
I can just imagine the secret briefings to new US Presidents where they get handed
a list of US "assets" including many of the "free" world's leading politicians, and
told that all these are firmly "under our control". This would explain much of the hubris
and arrogance we have all observed.
ODESSA, Ukraine -
If the West appears confused by Russian actions in Ukraine and unable to find an adequate
response to the crisis, it is because from the outset, it has misread the situation, transforming
an essentially domestic dispute into one that threatens the security architecture of Europe. While
all sides have contributed to the current debacle, six widely held assumptions have played an inordinate
role in shaping Western discourse about Ukraine. These will need to be corrected before any real
progress can be made.
1. The Ukrainians are one people, united in their support of change:
This is a familiar refrain among Western politicians, yet anyone familiar with Ukrainian history
knows that its borders have changed many times in the past century. As a result, millions of people
without any ethnic, cultural, or linguistic attachment to Ukraine wound up in its present borders.
Since 1991, the most visible division has been between Western Ukrainians, many of whom seek a Ukraine
culturally and politically distinct from Russia, and Eastern Ukrainians, who want to live in a Ukraine
that is independent, but that also maintains close spiritual, cultural, and economic ties to Russia.
The fact that Western governments have identified the national aspirations of Ukraine with those
of the Western regions of the country puts them at odds with half the country. Even if the Western
regions prevail over the Eastern regions in the current struggle, choosing sides in this way has
generated anti-Western sentiment in the East that is likely to linger for years to come.
2. Supporting the Euromaidan's ouster of president Yanukovych: At the height
of the Euromaidan riots, Western governments warned president Yanukovych not to use force to disband
the protests, even as they turned violent. Later, during a critical phase of negotiations with the
opposition, officials from the United States were taped discussing which specific opposition leaders
they wanted to replace him. To a Ukrainian public already sharply divided over the legitimacy of
the public protests on the Maidan (three-quarters
of the population in Ukraine's eastern cities regarded the Euromaidan protests as illegal),
this merely proved that the West was intervening to thwart the political preferences of half the
country.
3. Failing to stand behind the February 21 agreement: The failure of France,
Germany and Poland to stand behind the
negotiated transition of power that they had called for, has been a blow to the legitimacy
of Ukrainian state institutions from which it has had great difficulty recovering. The subsequent
seizure of power by the opposition not only brought down the much reviled, though legitimately elected
president, it also led to the collapse of the country's largest political party which, for all its
faults, embodied the political aspirations of roughly half the population. To this day,fewer than a third of the population in Russian-speaking Ukraine view the acting president
and prime minister as legitimate, while in Donetsk and Lugansk, the hotbeds of armed resistance,
this figure falls to less than 15 percent.
4. Ignoring the rise of the Radical Right: The Western media has slowly caught
on to the fact that right-wing nationalist groups like Svoboda and the Right Sector played a decisive
role in the radicalization of the Euromaidan, and in the dramatic seizure of power immediately after
the February 21 accords. Officially, however, Western governments continue to insist that their
role is marginal. Yet, even today, such groups wield inordinate influence within the parliament
and on the streets of central Kiev, which they continue to occupy despite pleas by the acting president
to leave. They intimidate politicians, judges, and journalists, indeed anyone who speaks out against
the policies of the current government. Their intimidation of presidential candidates associated
with the Party of Regions elicits almost no comment from Western governments. Many in the Eastern
and Southern regions of Ukraine see this as further confirmation of Western partisanship.
5. Labeling protesters in the East and South "pro-Russian" and "separatists.":
Both labels are misleading because attachment to Russia in these regions is cultural and
linguistic, not political. Reports from the region, surveys, and statements by local and national
politicians, make it abundantly clear that there are significant local grievances against the interim
government in Kiev. Even firebrandYulia Tymoshenko recently acknowledged as much on national television. The vast majority
simply want their Russian heritage to be recognized as part of their Ukrainian identity. The easiest
way to do this, they say, would be to acknowledge the reality of Ukraine's bilingualism in the constitution.
The interim government's resistance to this idea only deepens their mistrust of Kiev.
As for the charge of separatism, it is worth noting that in every instance where separatism has
become an issue, including Crimea, the original demand was for greater regional rights and autonomy
within Ukraine. Only when Kiev responded by replacing local officials with ones loyal only to the
new government, did the issue of secession arise. That is one reason why most people in the Eastern
and Southern regions of Ukraine (62 percent)blame the loss of Crimea on Kiev, rather than on Crimean separatists (24 percent), or
on Russia (19 percent). The same approach is now being taken toward eastern and southern Ukraine,
with the same disastrous results.
6. Blaming Russia for Ukraine's problems: Despite the heated rhetoric coming
from Western governments, Russia's primary objective in Ukraine has actually been to reduce the
level of domestic instability. The reasons are not hard to fathom. First, such instability is bad
for business, which in the case of Ukraine, involves military, industrial and energy investments
that are vital to Russia. Second, continued instability is bad for Russia because it increases the
likelihood of Ukraine becoming a failed state, which Russia will feel obliged to support with massive
humanitarian assistance. Third, such instability is bad because it increase tensions with the West,
which has a tendency to blame Russia for everything that happens there.
Russia would very much like to see Ukraine as a stable economic and political partner, able to
provide enough growth and jobs to its own citizens to reduce the annual flow of more than 3 million
Ukrainian migrant workers into Russia, and thus contribute to the prosperity of the 11 million Russians
who live along the border with Ukraine. Having already spent as much as300 billion dollars over the past two decades to prevent the collapse of the Ukrainian
economy, it hardly seems likely that Russia now seeks its economic demise. It most certainly does
not want to spend the tens of billions of dollars it would take to absorb these regions, and raise
their standard of living up to that of Russia.
What Ought To Be Done Instead
If Russia's actions are not the root cause of Ukraine's problem, then chastising it cannot possibly
resolve the current crisis. In fact, it compounds the crisis in three ways: first, by distracting
Western policy makers from the real divisions within Ukraine that need to be dealt with; second,
by reinforcing the notion, popular among some in the interim government in Kiev, that Western backing
means there is no need to negotiate with the discontented eastern regions; third, by antagonizing
the external actor with the greatest stake in Ukraine's well-being-Russia.
But Russia is not the USSR. In an odd historical twist, in the current crisis, it is defending
the rights of local populations to be heard by their government, whereas the West is defending the
removal of a legitimately elected president. Significantly, all this is taking place in an area
of the world that retains strong sympathies for Russia.
An extensivesurvey of Russian-speaking areas in April 2014 shows that while 70 percent do not support
secession, if a referendum were held today only 25 percent would want to join EU, whereas 47 percent
would prefer to join the Russia-led Customs Union. Only 15 percent feel that Ukrainian relations
with Russia should be the same as with any other county, whereas three-quarters say the two countries
should have open borders, and 8 percent feel the two should be one country. Most worryingly
for the prospects of the military campaign against the rebels being conducted in the East, while
nearly three-quarters say they do not support the introduction of Russian troops, only 10 percent
say they would take up arms to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
This is the minefield within which the United States and the EU are now trying to maneuver-deep
in the historical heartland of the Russian empire, where popular sympathies for Russia are both
vast and deep, and where the West has yet to define any clear strategic objectives.
Historians of the future will wonder greatly at the forbearance that Russia has shown in
wielding its potentially vast influence (the ease with which Crimea was taken by Russia should be
highly instructive), in contrast to the boldness verging on recklessness with which the United States
and EU have sought to manipulate the political outcome in Kiev.
Recognizing the indigenous nature of Ukraine's current problems, which often go back to promises
left unfulfilled by past Ukrainian governments, is therefore a necessary first step toward dealing
with them realistically. But it is only the first step. The next is to apply meaningful pressure
on the interim government to do what it has thus far refused to do-establish a government of national
unity.
Understandably, it is not easy for those who came to power on the wave of revolutionary enthusiasm,
to admit that many of their countrymen regard what they did as illegitimate. Fortunately, however,most people in the East and South are still eager to reach an accommodation in the name
of national unity. But they feel that such an accommodation should be based on concrete actions
taken by Kiev that demonstrate that law and order is actually being restored, and that the interim
government is not under the thumb of radical nationalists. Presently,the number one concern of people in the East and South is fear of "rampant banditry;"
i.e., falling prey to the violence unleashed in Kiev in January and February, and the lawlessness
they are witnessing there today.
A second critical step is making Russian Ukraine's official second language. This one gesture
would reassure the predominantly Russian-speaking regions of the country that their cultural legacy
is indeed fully accepted in today's Ukraine. Such a step has been promised by many presidential
candidates since Ukraine's independence, but has always been opposed by Ukrainian nationalists.
That is why its advocates now demand that it be enshrined in the constitution.
A final step is political and economic decentralization, which some identify as federalism. The
essential difference between regional autonomy and federalism is that the latter is a compact between
regions and the central government stipulated in the constitution. Some types of federalism are
very broad, while other types are very narrowly defined. If autonomy is not constitutionally established,
its advocates say, any new group of legislators could rescind what was previously granted, as happened
with Crimea in 1998.
The interim government, however, cannot accomplish these urgent tasks on its own. It is too strongly
beholden to the radical nationalists and pro-revolutionary street forces that brought it to power.
Let us not forget that the latter even approved the current government. Since any move toward a
true government of national unity will have to be taken against the wishes of one of the interim
government's core constituencies, it will require political cover, and this can only be provided
by its major supporters-the United States and the EU.
Recognizing the indigenous nature of Ukraine's problems therefore leads directly to a radically
different strategy toward Russia-one of cooperation rather than confrontation in the pursuit of
a strong and independent Ukraine. Last, but certainly not least, it could put to rest once and for
all the calls for a new Cold War.
Nicolai N. Petro, professor of politics at
the University of Rhode Island,
is currently a Fulbright Research Scholar in Ukraine. The views expressed do not reflect the views
of the Fulbright Program or the U.S. Department of State.
stepstone
I am pessimistic. To me it looks like the "west" is hellbent on confrontation with Russia.
Western media have been bashing Russia for quite some time now, long before the crisis in the
Ukraine. And, if anyone has any doubts about that, mainstream media in the west is not independent
any longer and hasn't been for quite some time - it's just another tool for those who rule over
us to use.
Quite why our rulers seek confrontation with Russia is a bit unclear to me but it looks like
a sort of "zero sum game thinking". Russia is thought to be an enemy so it must be attacked,
no matter whether any given means of attack is just or not.
The total hypocrisy shown in this Ukraine-crisis is breathtaking. The combined western powers
and the combined MSM root for a "revolution" that was carried out by neo-nazis. Sure there were
some, even many, protesters with legitimate grievances against the former regime in the Ukraine.
But it was solely the neo-nazi Right Sector that brought that regime down. To western applause.
Quite unreal, and because of that I am very pessimistic when I try to guess future developments.
kievite
>Does this strangely sensible piece of writing indicate a welcome > outbreak of sanity on
the part of the US foreign policy elite?
I don't think so. Radical neoliberal and neocon faction of the US foreign policy elite are
way to strong despite Iraq debacle and 2008 economic crisis. They dominate State Department
and their power dooms those sensible recommendations. They will follow Nuland's neocon path
to the end. In this sense, my impression is that Ukraine is just a pawn in a bigger game of
"containing" Russia. So events in Ukraine are part of indirect confrontation with Russia, decision
about which was already made. And in neocons views a low intensity civil war in Ukraine is not
against the US interests as it also pressures EU and damages its economic cooperation with Russia.
That's why Nuland was against "national unity government plan" (and her infamous remark is probably
about the denial of EU interests by State Department) and went with February 22 putsch. Killing
two birds with one stone.
I think one of the most astute observation that Nicolai N. Petro made is that "the
Obama administration has already achieved one of that conflict's most unfortunate byproducts
- the manipulation of external power by local actors seeking maximum advantages for themselves."
Tonyandoc
Unfortunately, as can be seen from events so far, the West sees a benefit in radicalizing
the various factions in Ukraine to the point of civil war. This is the focus of their efforts.
Putin, who has Ukraine on his doorstep and vital national security interests in Crimea, sees
"crowd control" as his primary objective.
Both sides have chalked up significant progress in their conflicting objectives so far. However
neither side can adequately control the forces stirred up in the West nor continue to restrain
those in Eastern Ukraine from all-out resistance for much longer.
Soon we can add another failed state to the scourge of Pox Americana. Just let's hope it
does not spread into super-power conflict.
popsiq
Even western Ukraine has significant sub populations of Poles, Hungarians and Romanians 'trapped'
in the former administrative Soviet SSR. Thank goodness nobody's asking them what they want.
The 'historic' Ukraine is less that 20 percent of the current area - an enclave bordered
by the River Dnieper on the east and situated 300 Km north of the Crimean peninsula.
Linguistic Ukrainians live in all areas, and in Russia and other places as well - but they
form a minority in Ukraine itself.
Fiscally strapped Western governments can argue that such planning would not pass muster in an
age of growing austerity. The status quo-with Russia supplying a significant portion of Europe's
energy needs within the confines of a long-term energy partnership and Ukraine's industries geared
towards supplying a Russian/Eurasian market-seemed to make perfect sense even six months ago.
If that was the case, then there was a critical mismatch between the economic realities of leaving
Ukraine economically tied to Russia and political aspirations of moving the country closer to the
West. Were these discontinuities not flagged in the respective policy shops of the key Euro-Atlantic
countries, or worse, was there a naive belief that Vladimir Putin would simply have to accept new
geopolitical realities? Putin had made it clear in the years since the Orange Revolution of 2004
that he considered Ukraine to be a vital national interest, and that he would take drastic action
if needed to secure Moscow's equities in Ukraine.
So now we have a crisis in Ukraine, and one where we will have to spend much more, both in terms
of resources and in political capital, to try to get to a settlement that will be less advantageous
to Western (or even Ukrainian) interests than if the groundwork had been laid, either for Ukraine's
westward movement or to reach some sort of accommodation with Moscow. And while Ukraine dominates
the headlines-and sucks up all the oxygen in the policy process-what other long term troubles quietly
stirring under the water where proactive action might make a difference are being ignored-until
we have our next Ukraine erupting into the headlines?
Nikolas K. Gvosdev, a contributing editor at The National Interest, is a professor of national-security
studies at the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed are entirely his own
What distinguishes Imperialism from Neo-Imperialism is that with the latter the former colonies
and others in a similar situation are fully independent, each country theoretically running its
own foreign and domestic policies.
April 21, 2014 | Al-Jazeerah, CCUN
There are three aspects about the use of the terms, Imperialism, colonialism and their derivatives
that need clarification: definitions need to be clearer; dates need to be more accurate, and it
should be noted that some powerful countries are following others.
The entry in wikipedia.org which states that Neo-Imperialism began in 1830 and ended in 1945
is entirely misleading.
Imperialism involves colonies, and colonial rule in Africa began with the Partition of Africa
by the Treaty of Berlin in 1870 and ended at different times. In Africa south of the Sahara, the
"wind of change" came in the nineteen sixties. Colonial rule in Asia and North Africa ended after
the end of World War Two. Consequently, Imperialism began and ended at different times in
different geographical areas. Wikipedia's "neo-Imperialism" should consequently be read as "Imperialism."
Some Imperialists treated colonies as extension of the homeland. France and Portugal, for
instance, treated people of the colonies as citizens of the "mother country." Britain was
ambivalent about her colonies; sometimes they treated their overseas people as citizens and sometimes
they were "Commonwealth citizens," with no rights of entry to Britain.
From the late nineteenth century to the first half of the twentieth century, Western Imperialists
struck a deal. By the Monroe Doctrine, the US treated the Americas as their "sphere of influence"
and the Europeans were allowed to dictate terms in the rest of the world. The US, therefore, had
an imperialist framework for the Americas south of the US, but operated in a neo-imperialist mode.
Russia's intended expansion is similar to the US's. Whereas Russia extended its territory eastwards
towards the Pacific, the US had to wage a war with Mexico to gain access to the Pacific. Both,
Russia and USA, take a neo-Imperialist approach towards their southern neighbors. Crimea, which
Russians claim as theirs, is Russia's equivalent of warm-water Hawaii which was annexed by guile.
Given a time gap, China followed the Imperialist model by annexing independent states, like Tibet
and Uyghuristan, after 1945.
Russia's annexation of Crimea annoyed the West since an independent country, Ukraine, was invaded
and taken by force. Russia's claim that it was reclaiming territory that was made part of
Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union, was unacceptable to the West and Ukraine. The annexation
of Crimea and the separation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia in 2008 by armed force,
are recent examples of Russian Imperialism.
Palestinians, on the other hand, note that they are experiencing what Lenin called "the highest
form of Capitalism – Imperialism"1 which started after 1945. Gaza is an open air prison and
the West Bank is steadily losing territory. The Palestinians are neither fully independent
nor are they inhabiting a colony. Israel uses the Russian model
in administering the Palestinians: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, West Bank and Gaza are non-states and
therefore in limbo.
What distinguishes Imperialism from Neo-Imperialism is that with the latter the former colonies
and others in a similar situation are fully independent, each country theoretically running its
own foreign and domestic policies.
We would have to agree, however, with Scientific American that each former colony will continue
to have "strong elements of neo-colonialism …in the economic relations between rich and poor countries."2
But a better word for "neo-colonialism" in this quote is "neo-Imperialism."
For neo-Imperialism to function smoothly, the British and French introduced the term "Commonwealth."
By the 1931 Statute of Westminster, the modern British Commonwealth was created and within two decades
it had 53 members, which includes monarchies, republics and commonwealth realms.
Ten countries, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Ghana, Mauritius, Rwanda, St Lucia Seychelles
and Vanuatu, joined the French Commonwealth, or Francophonie, where decisions are arrived at by
majority voting, unlike the British Commonwealth where decisions are arrived at by consensus.3
Russia followed with its Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in 1991 when the Soviet Union
imploded. But CIS was found to be weak.
The Russians, therefore, created the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) to improve economic activity,
like energy and water coordination. The Treaty signed in 2001 included founding members, Russia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and new members, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Moldova, Ukraine and Armenia had
observer status.
Meanwhile, the EU was pushing for an Eastern (Economic) Partnership a year after the Georgian
War of 2008. Many states which were part of Russia's Near Abroad want to join this Partnership:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. But Russia takes objection to
this interference.4
Since, in today's world, independent states are more numerous than colonies and states in limbo,
we have to conclude that this is an Age of Neo-Imperialism where large states dominate weaker independent
ones, through economic and indirect political means. Imperialism, a relic of the past, is
an anomaly which crops up from time to time.
We have to conclude, too, that when independent countries do not complain about neo-imperialism
they feel that they are benefiting from an association with the "mother" country or benefactors.
This explains why the United Nations General Assembly collaborates with a Security Council where
only former imperialists have veto power.
As the world takes on a new political shape, we have to agree with Saker, a pseudonym, that a
new Cold War is developing between the "Anglo-Zionist world power structure" and a Eurasian bloc.5
A Russian general suggested that China and Russia should have a more effective military alliance
to counteract NATO. But China feels that the time has not come for such a move.
It is ironic that the West should object to Imperialism in Ukraine while
participating in Imperialism in Palestine.
Nuland is simply a neocon and is doing what neocons always do. And Neoconservatism can be distilled
into the following four beliefs:
America is good and a force for good, and everything it does is right.
America should therefore assume global leadership by force if necessary - including regime change.
The bad guys who stand in the way of freedom, democracy and the American way, must be neutralized.
These rogue states are (a) Iran, (b) Russia and (c) China. They are the impediment to the neoliberal
paradise which awaits mankind.
Uppity little states like Iraq, Libya, Syria, who cannot be won over to the American way (even
if they were once aligned to it, as Saddam was) must be smashed up.
People holding illegal arms and occupying government buildings are perfectly OK, as long as they
are permitted to do so, believes Washington's top diplomat in Europe. But doing exactly the same
thing without permission is bad.
This piece of infallible logic came from the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland,
as she refused to equate the situation in Ukrainian capital, Kiev, in February with the present
one in eastern Ukraine. In both cases armed militias have seized buildings and refused to leave.
"You can't compare the situation in Kiev, where now everything that is still being held by
protesters is being held with licenses and with the agreement of the government of Ukraine, with
the agreement of the Rada, or with regular leases from the owners of the buildings," Nuland
told CNN in an interview.
Of course, when those militias were taking over buildings and building barricades in Kiev and
elsewhere in in Ukraine, they didn't have any license. It was only after they toppled the Ukrainian
government that the new authorities moved to legitimize those seizures. The same authorities whose
legitimacy is now being questioned by the protesters in the country's east.
There is another difference between the two armed movements, according to Nuland.
"You can't compare it to what is happening in eastern Ukraine, where you have armed separatists
wearing balaclavas, carrying very heavy munitions, holding government buildings refusing to allow
monitors in refusing to allow journalists in," she claimed.
As if balaclava-wearing radical protesters never pelted the police with firebombs and didn't
shoot at them with guns stolen from police stations in Ukraine. But isn't this is how the people
presumably now in charge came to power?
The Kiev militias are where they are because they could topple the new government just as they
did with the previous one. They already besieged the parliament demanded the resignation of the
interior minister for the killing one of their leaders, and it took a lot of convincing on the part
of the MPs to make them leave.
Of course when the authorities can't force somebody to follow the law, they can save face by
altering that law. Unfortunately for the Ukrainian government, disarming those unruly militias is
what they agreed to by signing a joint statement with Russia, the US and the EU in Geneva last week.
Pretending that this document applies only to those opposing Kiev simply won't work.
Naturally, Washington blames Russia for making things worse in Ukraine, and fails to see the
impotence of the current government.
"We continue to be concerned that you cannot dress yourself like a firefighter and behave
like an arsonist," Nuland said.
One can wonder what she was dressing herself like as she was treating Maidan activists to cookies
and discussing the composition of the government which now sits in Kiev with the US ambassador to
Ukraine.
Or how the $5 billion, which the US poured into "building civil society" in Ukraine helped the
country overcome its inherent divisions and build a stable nation that can change its government
without any street violence.
The fact of the matter is that Harding is not an investigative journalist seeking out
the truth, but basically a propagandist, whatever he might believe to the contrary. Okay,
so he wants to be part of the Russia-bashing fraternity, that is his prerogative, but please
don't us expect to be drawn into his cold war mindset and political obsessions. He has obviously
got an enormous political axe to grind and a very l
America is good and a force for good, and everything it does is right.
America should therefore assume global leadership by force if necessary - including
regime change.
The bad guys who stand in the way of freedom, democracy and the American way, must be
neutralised. These rogue states are (a) Iran, (b) Russia and (d) China. They are the impediment
to the neoliberal paradise which awaits mankind.
Uppity little states like Iraq, Libya, Syria, who cannot be won over to the American
way (even if they were once aligned to it, as Saddam was) must be systematically smashed
up.
And so a string of failed states are being created from Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and
now perhaps Ukraine.
This has all resulted from the neo-con takeover (of which Ms Nuland is a prime example) of
US foreign policy in the US State department and the Pentagon.
Ok course none of this implies that everything is rosy in the garden in those countries mentioned.
But that does not of course stop the accusation of critics being 'Kremlin trolls' 'Putin bots'
and the rest of the silly epithets.
But of course this is a standard debating trick when it is difficult to counter the facts
and issues raised.
Nabaldashnik -> Scipio1
Essentially the belief is
America is good and a force for good, and everything it does is right.
America should therefore assume global leadership by force if necessary - including
regime change.
The bad guys who stand in the way of freedom, democracy and the American way, must
be neutralised. These rogue states are (a) Iran, (b) Russia and (d) China. They are
the impediment to the neoliberal paradise which awaits mankind.
Uppity little states like Iraq, Libya, Syria, who cannot be won over to the American
way (even if they were once aligned to it, as Saddam was) must be systematically smashed
up.
"Russia … is now recognized as the center of the global 'mutiny' against global dictatorship
of the US and EU. Its generally peaceful .. approach is in direct contrast to brutal and destabilizing
methods used by the US and EU…. The world is waking up to reality that there actually is, suddenly,
some strong and determined resistance to Western imperialism. After decades of darkness, hope
is emerging." – Andre Vltchek,
Ukraine: Lies and Realities, CounterPunch
Russia is not responsible for the crisis in Ukraine. The US State Department engineered the fascist-backed
coup that toppled Ukraine's democratically-elected president Viktor Yanukovych and replaced him
with the American puppet Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a former banker. Hacked phone calls reveal the critical
role that Washington played in orchestrating the putsch and selecting the coup's leaders. Moscow
was not involved in any of these activities. Vladimir Putin, whatever one may think of him, has
not done anything to fuel the violence and chaos that has spread across the country.
Putin's main interest in Ukraine is commercial. 66 percent of the natural gas that Russia exports
to the EU transits Ukraine. The money that Russia makes from gas sales helps to strengthen the Russian
economy and raise standards of living. It also helps to make Russian oligarchs richer, the same
as it does in the West. The people in Europe like the arrangement because they are able to heat
their homes and businesses market-based prices. In other words, it is a good deal for both parties,
buyer and seller. This is how the free market is supposed to work. The reason it doesn't work that
way presently is because the United States threw a spanner in the gears when it deposed Yanukovych.
Now no one knows when things will return to normal.
Check out
this chart at Business Insider and you'll see why Ukraine matters to Russia.
The overriding goal of US policy in Ukraine is to stop the further economic integration of
Asia and Europe. That's what the fracas is really all about. The United States wants to control
the flow of energy from East to West, it wants to establish a de facto tollbooth between the continents,
it wants to ensure that those deals are transacted in US dollars and recycled into US Treasuries,
and it wants to situate itself between the two most prosperous markets of the next century. Anyone
who has even the sketchiest knowledge of US foreign policy– particularly as it relates to Washington's
"pivot to Asia"– knows this is so. The US is determined to play a dominant role in Eurasia in the
years ahead. Wreaking havoc in Ukraine is a central part of that plan.
Retired German Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jochen Scholz summed up US policy in an open letter
which appeared on the Neue Rheinilche Zeitung news-site last week. Scholz said the Washington's
objective was "to deny Ukraine a role as a bridge between Eurasian Union and European Union….They
want to bring Ukraine under the NATO control" and sabotage the prospects for "a common economic
zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok."
Bingo. That's US policy in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with democracy, sovereignty, or human
rights. It's about money and power. Who are the big players going to be in the world's biggest growth
center, that's all that matters. Unfortunately for Obama and Co., the US has fallen behind Russia
in acquiring the essential resources and pipeline infrastructure to succeed in such a competition.
They've been beaten by Putin and Gazprom at every turn. While Putin has strengthened diplomatic
and economic relations, expanded vital pipeline corridors and transit lines, and hurtled the many
obstacles laid out for him by American-stooges in the EC; the US has dragged itself from one quagmire
to the next laying entire countries to waste while achieving none of its economic objectives.
So now the US has jettisoned its business strategy altogether and moved on to Plan B, regime
change. Washington couldn't beat Putin in a fair fight, so now they've taken off the gloves. Isn't
that what's really going on? Isn't that why the US NGOs, and the Intel agencies, and the State
Dept were deployed to launch their sloppily-engineered Nazi-coup that's left the country in chaos?
Once again, Putin played no part in any of this. All he did was honor the will of the people
in Crimea who voted overwhelmingly (97%) to reunite with the Russian Federation. From a purely pragmatic
point of view, what other choice did they have? After all, who in their right mind would want to
align themselves with the most economically mismanaged confederation of all time (The EU) while
facing the real possibility that their nation could be reduced to Iraq-type rubble and destitution
in a matter of years? Who wouldn't opt-out of such an arrangement?
As we noted earlier, Putin's main objective is to make money. In contrast, the US wants to dominate
the Eurasian landmass, break Russia up into smaller, non-threatening units, and control China's
growth. That's the basic gameplan. Also, the US does not want any competitors, which we can see
from this statement by Paul Wolfowitz which evolved into the US National Defense Strategy:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory
of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly
by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy
and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources
would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."
This is the prevailing doctrine that Washington lives by. No rivals. No competition. We're the
boss. What we say, goes. The US is Numero Uno, le grande fromage. Who doesn't know this already?
Here's more from Wolfowitz:
"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds
the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role
or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas,
we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage
them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic
order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring
to a larger regional or global role."
In other words, "don't even think about getting more powerful or we'll swat you like a fly."
That's the message, isn't it? The reason we draw attention to these quotes is not to pick on Wolfowitz,
but to show how things haven't changed under Obama, in fact, they've gotten worse. The so called
Bush Doctrine is more in effect today than ever which is why we need to be reminded of its central
tenets. The US military is the de facto enforcer of neoliberal capitalism or what Wolfowitz calls
"the established political and economic order". Right. The statement provides a blanket justification
for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine. The US can do whatever it deems
necessary to protect the interests of its constituents, the multi-national corporations and big
finance. The US owns the world and everyone else is just a visitor. So shut the hell up, and do
what you're told. That's the message. Here's Wolfowitz one more time:
"We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly
comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do
not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts
to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly
others."
Wolfowitz figured the moment would come when the US would have to square off with Moscow in order
to pursue it's imperial strategy in Asia. Putin doesn't seem to grasp that yet. He still clings
to the misguided notion that rational people will find rational solutions to end the crisis. But
he's mistaken. Washington does not want a peaceful solution. Washington wants a confrontation. Washington
wants to draw Moscow into a long-term conflict in Ukraine that will recreate Afghanistan in the
1990s. That's the goal, to lure Putin into a military quagmire that will discredit him in the eyes
of the world, isolate Russia from its allies, put strains on new alliances, undermine the Russian
economy, pit Russian troops against US-backed armed mercenaries and Special Ops, destroy Russian
relations with business partners in the EU, and create a justification for NATO intervention followed
by the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. That's the gameplan. Why doesn't Putin
see that?
A) Assorted neo-nazis and fascists have just violently overthrown the democratically elected
Government of Ukraine, as a result of being been egged on and funded by the West.
Even Nuland couldn't resist expressing her gratitude by getting personally into the action
to hand out the much needed cookies.)
B) Protesters and activists are now protesting against this overthrow of democracy in Ukraine.
Two Questions:
1) Will Nuland get herself over there once again to deliver fresh cookies and arrange for
more taxpayers money to go the new lot of protesters?
2) Will McCain give his verbal support with another rousing speech at the new barricades?
Stewby Zippydoo
Is it irony that the extreme right uses cookie monster to recruit the youth in Europe
and Nuland uses cookies to recruit the extreme right in Ukraine?
Does Nuland have that sort of sense of humor?
Stijn C. Zippydoo
I must say I don't understand why you conspiracy nuts are so obsessed with McCain and
Nuland.
Surely you could've made your loony theories slightly more plausible by using actual
important American political actors.
Stewby Stijn C.
Conspiracy is real. Why do people insist that since there are some crazy conspiracy theories
out there that means that all conspiracy theories are impossible.
The job of intelligence agencies and diplomats is to conspire amongst themselves and
with those of other nations to advance the interests of the American people. Lately the
only loyalty of our spies and diplomats are to the banks, so they spend all their time shaking
down other nations to extort rent for the bankers to pocket.
Real people will die because of this reckless foreign policy. I suspect that Nuland
and McCain are just too stupid to realize that the Russians could never countenance giving
up Crimea as a military installation, and I am fairly sure that they wouldn't have done
what they did if they had seen this crisis coming.
From comments: "No sign of Kagan`s wife among the demonstrators on this occasion---no expletives---are
East Ukrainians less deserving of our sympathy than westerners---are they not people too with families
and dreams of the future---are "liberals" liberal only when it serves their interests?"
Word spread quickly through the few hundred
pro-Russian protesters in Donetsk in eastern
Ukraine: "The miners are coming!"
The crowd parted as a group of a dozen or so burly men in orange work helmets marched past barbed-wire
and tyre barricades into the 11-storey
administration building, which protesters seized last weekend as they demanded greater independence
from Kiev.
"Glory to the miners!" the crowd began chanting. "Glory to Donbass!" they shouted, much as protesters
at Kiev's Euromaidan demonstrations had shouted "Glory to Ukraine!" before they ousted the president,
Viktor Yanukovych, in February.
... ... ...
"It's hard to arouse the miners, but when you do, there will be trouble," said Artyom, a former
miner who was guarding the administration building on Friday night. "If the miners all rise up,
it will be an economic, physical and moral blow. It will be hard for everyone."
... ... ...
"There's only one position, only in support of the referendum," said a miner who identified himself
only as Vitaly. "But we can't stop working today, or tomorrow I'll be on the street," he added,
saying that any strike would put the mine out of commission for a significant period.
Oleg Krymenko, another local miner, said he did not support the occupation but worried about
rising prices – the cost of utilities and basic goods has been shooting up in recent months – and
said ties with Russia should be close. "They work and that's it. Before their shift, they have to
relax. Coalminers don't engage in nonsense," he said about the protests.
A miner's work is tough, especially in the ageing coal mines of the Donbass. Local miners descend
to depths of up to 1,300 metres and often work in temperatures pushing 100 degrees fahrenheit. Fatalities
are common, and 111 died in a series of explosions at the local Zasyadko mine in 2007. Flags were
lowered to half-mast in Donetsk on Friday after seven miners died in a gas explosion at the Skochinsky
mine.
Equipment is often worn-out and safety procedures are frequently violated, according to Oleg
Obolents, a retired miner who recently formed an independent miners' union to fight for better pay
and safety standards. Donbass miners are "breathing incense", he said, using an expression that
refers to the incense burned during Russian Orthodox funeral services and is roughly equivalent
to having "one foot in the grave".
A local miner named Andrei said he came to the barricades every day after work, wearing his orange
helmet and headlamp. He and his comrades often discussed the political situation when descending
into their mine outside the city, he said.
"We need to fight for our rights and protect the Donbass from Bandera supporters. I don't
like the Kiev regime," he said, referring to Stepan Bandera, a second world war nationalist
leader who is commemorated with dozens of monuments in western Ukraine but widely reviled as a Nazi
collaborator in the east. Many protesters see the new Kiev government as dominated by nationalists
from western Ukraine, which has a largely agrarian economy.
... ... ...
Most of the major mines in Donbass are owned by Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest man, who has
served as a mediator in negotiations between the Donetsk protesters and the Kiev-appointed governor.
In a speech on Friday at a meeting with Ukraine's prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Akhmetov said
he supported the protesters' demands for preserving the Russian language and greater independence
from Kiev, but added: "For me, Donbass is Ukraine."
Valera, a miner who said the Kiev regime was cracking down on the Russian language, predicted
"trouble for the bosses" if the mines stopped working. "If they stop, there will be war," he said.
domeus
No sign of Kagan`s wife among the demonstrators on this occasion---no expletives---are East
Ukrainians less deserving of our sympathy than westerners---are they not people too with families
and dreams of the future---are "liberals" liberal only when it serves their interests?
Why can't our media tell it like it is? It's a no brainer - an unpopular, but legitimately
elected government is overthrown by a bunch of thugs in a violent coup d'etat. US and EU handpick
several front men to be the replacement government, but - unsurprisingly - the coup fails because
the Quizzlings don't have the support of the population of Ukraine.
People from eastern Ukraine are raising a revolution in protest, and I'd be gobsmacked if
the people from western Ukraine really want to be ruled by a bunch of greedy and violent thugs,
especially now that they know that EU won't give them money or jobs, or do anything to improve
their lot.
In the meantime, a bunch of self-interested arms manufacturers and military profiteers from
the "international community" are doing their utmost to start World War 3, and the rest of us
are likey to feel the chill next winter, because our gas central heating won't work or will
be too expensive to afford.
I just hope that the UK media come to their senses before this gets worse. Mainstream media
have lost their credibility over their handling of the Ukraine story - it's time to sober up
and start telling it like it is.
April 9, 2014 (EIRNS)-Victoria Nuland, the midwife of Obama's illegal neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine,
lied repeatedly in testimony before the CSCE, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission, today,
as she further exposed the Obama administration's control of the regime she installed.
During the hearing she was asked by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) whether she could give any assurances
that the claims which many of his constituents have brought to his attention, that the coup in Ukraine
was run by neo-Nazis, was not valid. Nuland who knows full well that she was in bed with neo-Nazis,
could not bring herself to even repeat the words "neo-Nazis." Instead she avoided the issue by lying
that some extremist elements involved, but they were talked out of buildings in Kiev and disarmed
by other Maidan participants.
To try to minimize the involvement of neo-Nazis in the regime, she said that extremists on the
left and the right are only polling 3%. Of course, she left out that the deputy prime minister of
Ukraine and the head of national security are both neo-Nazis from the Svoboda Party, that the National
Guard is recruiting thousands of members of the neo-Nazi Right Sector, and that the Nazis are regularly
beating up members of Parliament, judges, and political opponents throughout the country.
Nuland also said Washington had low expectations for the planned four-way talks between Ukraine,
Russia, the United States, and the European Union. "We don't have high expectations for these talks,
but we do believe it is very important to keep that diplomatic door open, and we'll see what they
bring," effectively signalling that Obama has no intention of seriously seeking a negotiated solution.
More than five years into his presidency, Barack Obama has failed to take full control over his
foreign policy, allowing a bureaucracy shaped by long years of Republican control and spurred on
by a neocon-dominated U.S. news media to frustrate many of his efforts to redirect America's approach
to the world in a more peaceful direction.
But Obama deserves a big dose of the blame for this predicament because he did little to neutralize
the government holdovers and indeed played into their hands with his initial appointments to head
the State and Defense departments, Hillary Clinton, a neocon-leaning Democrat, and Robert Gates,
a Republican cold warrior, respectively.
Even now, key U.S. diplomats are more attuned to hard-line positions than to promoting peace.
The latest example is the Ukraine where U.S. diplomats, including Assistant Secretary of State for
European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, are celebrating
the overthrow of an elected pro-Russian government.
Occurring during the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, the coup in Ukraine dealt an embarrassing
black eye to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had offended neocon sensibilities by quietly
cooperating with Obama to reduce tensions over Iran and Syria, where the neocons favored military
options.
Over the past several weeks, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was undercut by a destabilization
campaign encouraged by Nuland and Pyatt and then deposed in a coup spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias.
Even after Yanukovych and the political opposition agreed to an orderly transition toward early
elections, right-wing armed patrols shattered the agreement and took strategic positions around
Kiev.
Despite these ominous signs, Ambassador Pyatt hailed the coup as "a day for the history books."
Most of the mainstream U.S. news media also sided with the coup, with commentators praising the
overthrow of an elected government as "reform." But a few dissonant reports have pierced the happy
talk by noting that the armed militias are part of the Pravy Sektor, a right-wing nationalist group
which is often compared to the Nazis.
Thus, the Ukrainian coup could become the latest neocon-initiated "regime change" that ousted
a target government but failed to take into account who would fill the void.
Some of these same American neocons pushed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, not realizing that
removing Saddam Hussein would touch off a sectarian conflict and lead to a pro-Iranian Shiite regime.
Similarly, U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011 eliminated Muammar Gaddafi but also empowered
Islamic extremists who later murdered the U.S. ambassador and spread unrest beyond Libya's borders
to nearby Mali.
One might trace this neocons' blindness to consequences back to Afghanistan in the 1980s when
the Reagan administration supported Islamic militants, including Osama bin Laden, in a war against
Soviet troops, only to have Muslim extremists take control of Afghanistan and provide a base for
al-Qaeda to plot the 9/11 attacks against the United States.
Regarding Ukraine, today's State Department bureaucracy seems to be continuing the same anti-Moscow
geopolitical strategy set during those Reagan-Bush years.
Robert Gates described the approach in his new memoir, Duty, explaining the view of President
George H.W. Bush's Defense Secretary Dick Cheney:
"When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement
not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never
again be a threat to the rest of the world."
Vice President Cheney and the neocons pursued a similar strategy during George W. Bush's presidency,
expanding NATO aggressively to the east and backing anti-Russian regimes in the region including
the hard-line Georgian government, which provoked a military confrontation with Moscow in 2008,
ironically, during the Summer Olympics in China.
Obama's Strategy
As President, Obama has sought a more cooperative relationship with Russia's Putin and, generally,
a less belligerent approach toward adversarial countries. Obama has been supported by an inner circle
at the White House with analytical assistance from some elements of the U.S. intelligence community.
But the neocon momentum at the State Department and from other parts of the U.S. government
has continued in the direction set by George W. Bush's neocon administration and by neocon-lite
Democrats who surrounded Secretary of State Clinton during Obama's first term.
The two competing currents of geopolitical thinking -- a less combative one from the White House
and a more aggressive one from the foreign policy bureaucracy -- have often worked at cross-purposes.
But Obama, with only a few exceptions, has been unwilling to confront the hardliners or even fully
articulate his foreign policy vision publicly.
For instance, Obama succumbed to the insistence of Gates, Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus to
escalate the war in Afghanistan in 2009, though the President reportedly felt trapped into the decision
which he soon regretted. In 2010, Obama backed away from a Brazilian-Turkish-brokered deal with
Iran to curtail its nuclear program after Clinton denounced the arrangement and pushed for economic
sanctions and confrontation as favored by the neocons and Israel.
Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing
In Defense
of Empire. Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any
representation. The lunacy of his arguments can be show best when one substitute the object of his
essay:
Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery,
Western or Eastern. Anarchy reigned in the interregnums. To wit, the British may have failed
in Baghdad, Palestine, and elsewhere, but the larger history of the British slaveholdership
is one of providing a vast armature of stability, fostered by sea and rail communications, where
before there had been demonstrably less stability.
...
But slavery is now seen by global elites as altogether evil, despite slaveholdership having
offered the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic,
tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum. Compared with slaveholdership, democracy
is a new and uncertain phenomenon. Even the two most estimable democracies in modern history,
the United States and Great Britain, were slaveholdership for long periods. "As both a dream
and a fact the American slaveholdership was born before the United States," writes the mid-20th-century
historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto. Following their initial settlement, and before
their incorporation as states, the western territories were nothing less than slaveholdership
possessions of Washington, D.C. No surprise there: slaveholdership confers a loose and accepted
form of sovereignty, occupying a middle ground between anarchy and full state control.
...
Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts
of the world a modicum of slavery order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America
must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic heartland of the world
economy and the home of American treaty allies.
...
That, I submit, would be a policy direction that internalizes both the drawbacks and the
benefits of slaveholdership, not as it has been conventionally thought of, but as it has actually
been practiced throughout history.
It is somewhat frightening that people believing such nonsense have influence in political circles.
Crest
Imperialism benefits no one but a small slice of the ruling class. But it's always defended
as if it's the only thing providing food for the average person. It's been true since the Roman
empire. The looting oriented British Raj stripped away so much and somehow almost none of it
ended up in the hands of the average Briton. Same for the Kingdoms of Spain and Portugal. It's
just no good. I don't know how long it will take for average people to understand it.
Noirette
The interest in slavery is not just neo-connish etc. but in a way, underground, an interest
of Big Corporations (1).
Not, imho, in first place because of the 'cheap labor' but because of issues of control.
Right now we are living in a world that is organized in part by nation-states (as a kind
of ultimate authority) and for another part, not well coordinated with the first, by Big Corporations,
who increasingly control Banking and Finance, thus also say pol. contributions in the US, territory
(2) and its uses, supra-territorial matters such as communications and benchmarks (internet,
the control of space, rating agencies, for ex.), and other related matters like patent laws.
Slavery as an official doctrine is not in their interests, cheap labor is already available
thru modern slavery. So they keep a low profile, and let their 'elected' representatives take
the flack.
Such clashing interests are well illustrated in the case of Ukraine, where the confusion
of the Western 'nation-states' has become pathetically ridiculous, as they cannot make public
their lack of power and attendant subservience to Corporate interests. They are kind of 'holding
on' to keep some hand in the game, and mobilizing their 'electorate' with propaganda, as that
is where their livelihood come from.
1. Shell, BP, Total, plus many others in the energy field. Also the likes of Glencore Xstrata,
Cargill, AXA, Monsanto, Nestlé, JP Morgan, etc. etc. all entwined in a kind of global network.
2. Straight out buying and leasing land; owning thru investments and 'deals', exploration
rights, mineral rights, agriculture, transport hubs (pipelines, shipping, ports, the machines
that implement the transport, etc.)
In this flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and
the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt agreed to nominate Bat'kyvshchina Party leader Arseniy
Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko off the game for
a while and to discredit neo-Nazi Svoboda party chief Oleh Tiahnybok as "Yanukovych's project".
Then Mrs. Nuland informed the US Ambassador that the Washington's hand by the UN Secretary General,
Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had already instructed Ban Ki-moon to send
his special envoy to Kyiv this week "to glue the things". Touching the European role in managing
Ukraine's political crisis, she was matchlessly elegant: "Fuck the EU".
In a short while, after nervious attempts to blame Russians in fabricating (!) the tape (State
Department: "this is a new low in Russian tradecraft"), Mrs. Nuland brought her apologies to the
EU officials. Does it mean that the Washington's repeatedly leaked genuine attitude towards the
"strategic Transatlantic partnership" is much worthy of apology than the direct and clear interference
into the internal affairs of a sovereign state and violation of the US-Russia-UK agreement (1994
Budapest memorandum) on security assurances for Ukraine? Meanwhile this document inter alia reads
as follows:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles
of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders
of Ukraine.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons
will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles
of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own
interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure
advantages of any kind.
Back to the latest Mrs. Nuland's diplomatic collapse made public, it is hardly an unwilling and
regretful fault. Andrey Akulov from Strategic Culture Foundation has published a brilliant report
(Bride at every wedding [1])
a couple of days ago depicting a blatant lack of professionalism and personal intergity of Mrs.
Nuland. He described in details her involvement in misinforming the US President and nation on the
circumstances of the assasination of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi in September
2012 and her support of the unlawful US funding of a number of the Russian "independent" NGOs seeking
to bring a color revolution to Russia.
Her diplomatically unacceptable behavior on the Ukrainian track, which culminated on YouTube
this week (video and full transcript are available below), suggests that Mrs. Nuland is perhaps
a wrong person in a wrong position for protecting American interests in Eurasia.
* * *
Full transcript of the telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt (posted on YouTube on Feb 6, 2014):
Victoria Nuland (V.N.): What do you think?
Geoffrey R. Pyatt (G.P.): I think we are in play. The Klitchko piece is obviously the most complicated
electron here, especially the announcement of him as Deputy Prime Minister. You have seen my notes
on trouble in the marriage right now, so we are trying to get a read really fast where he is on
the staff. But I think your argument to him which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone
call that you want to set up is exactly the one you made to Yats (Yatsenuk's nickname). I'm glad
you put him on the spot. <…> He fits in this scenario. And I am very glad he said what he said.
V.N.: Good. I don't think Klitsch (Klitschko's nickname) should be in the government. I don't
think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.
G.P.: Yeah, I mean, I guess… In terms of him not going into the government… I'd just let him
stay out and do his political homework. I'm just thinking, in terms of sort of the process moving
ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is gonna be with Tyahnibok and
his guys. And, you know, I am sure that is part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
V.N.: I think Yats is the guy. He has economic experience and governing experience. He is the
guy. You know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnibok on the outside. He needs to be talking to
them four times a week. You know, I just think if Klitchko gets in, he's going to be at that level
working for Yatsenuk, it's just not gonna work…
G.P.: Yeah, yeah, I think that's right. Ok, good. Would you like us to set up a call with him
as the next step?
V.N.: My understading from that call that you tell me was that the big three were going into
their own meeting and that Yats was gonna offer in this context, you know, a "three plus one" conversation
or a "three plus two" conversation with you. Is that not how you understood it?
G.P.: No. I think that was what he proposed but I think that knowing the dynamic that's been
with them where Klitchko has been the top dog, he'll show up for whatever meetings they've got and
he's probably talking to his guys at this point. So, I think you reaching out directly to him, helps
with the personality management among the three. And it also gives you a chance to move fast on
all this stuff and put us behind it, before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like
it.
V.N.: Ok. Good. I am happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before
or after.
G.P.: Ok, I will do it. Thanks.
Nuland-YouTube V.N.: I can't remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this: when
I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning he had a new name for the UN guy – Robert Serry. I wrote you
about it this morning.
G.P.: Yeah, I saw that.
V.N.: Ok. He's gotten now both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry will come on Monday
or Tuesday. That would be great I think to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it
and, if you like, fuck the EU.
G.P.: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you
can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude that the Russians will be working behind
the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I am still
trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych <…> that. In the meantime there is a Party of Regions
faction meeting going on right now and I am sure there is a lively argument going on in that group
at this point. But anyway, we could land
jelly side up on this one if we move fast.
So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… I think we just want to try to get somebody
with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue
is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things
start to fall into place.
V.N.: So on that piece, Jeff, when I wrote the note Sullivan's come back to me V.F.R., saying
you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta boy and to get the details to stick. So,
Biden's willing.
G.P.: Ok. Great, thanks.
* * *
Transcript of the telephone talk between the Deputy Secretary General EE AS External Service
Helga M. Schmid (H.S.) and Jan Tombinsky (J.T.), EU Ambassador to Ukraine (rendering, starting 0:04:13
on the tape):
Helga M. Schmid: Jan, it's Helga once again. I'd like to tell you one more thing, it's confidential.
The Americans are beating about the bush and saying that our stand is too soft. They believe we
should be stronger and apply sanctions. I talked to Cathy (Cathrene Ashton – OR) and she agrees
with us on the matter we were discussing last time. We will do it but we must arrange everything
in a clever way.
Jan Tombinsky: You know we have other instruments.
H.S.: The journalists are already talking that the EU stand is "too soft". What you should really
know is that we are very angry that the Americans are beating about the bush. Maybe you tell the
US Ambassador and draw his attention to the fact that our stand is not soft, we've just made a hard-line
statement and took a tougher stance… I want you to know that it would be detrimental to our interests
if we see in the newspapers that "The European Union does not support freedom". Cathy will not like
it.
J.T.: Helga, we do not compete in a race. We should demonstrate that this situation is not a
competition in diplomatic toughness. I've just heard about the opposition's new proposal to the
president. I'll write Cathy about it right now.
Секретарь Совета национальной безопасности и обороны Украины Андрей Парубий заявил, что его страна
находится перед угрозой масштабного российского вторжения. Он привел цифры: на границе более 80
тысяч личного состава, до 270 танков, до 380 реактивных систем залпового огня и так далее.
Парубий
был комендантом Майдана. Вот что о нем в интервью "России-24" рассказал экс-глава СБУ Александр
Якименко:
"Выстрелы прошли со здания филармонии. За это здание отвечал комендант Майдана Парубий. С
этого здания 20 числа работали снайперы и работали люди с автоматическим оружием. Когда же первая
волна отстрелов закончилась, то многие зафиксировали выход 20 человек, хорошо одетых, специальная
форма была. У них были саквояжи, сумки специально для переноски оружия, в том числе и снайперских
винтовок. Были при них автоматы КМ с оптическими прицелами. А самое интересное, что это видели
не только наши оперативные сотрудники, но и представители Майдана. Видел "Правый сектор", видели
представители "Свободы", видели представители "Батькивщины", "Удара".
Для того чтобы зайти на Майдан, мне нужно было согласование и Парубия, иначе мне бы ударили
силы самообороны в спину. Парубий не дал такого согласия.
На Майдан ни один элемент вооружений не мог завезтись без разрешения Парубия.
Парубий же ушел в сторону, его перетянул к себе Порошенко, перетянул к себе Гвоздь, Маломуж.
Это представители разведки. Его подтянул Гриценко, который участвовал в этой же группе. Это
силы, которые выполняли все, что говорилось им руководителями, представителями США. Они, по
сути, каждый день жили в посольстве. Не было такого дня, чтобы они не посещали посольство.
Майдан этих людей не назначает, их назначают Соединенные Штаты. Возьмите последние назначения:
Парубий, Гвоздь, Наливайченко. Это все люди, которые выполняли волю, и волю не Европы даже.
Это люди, которые напрямую связаны со спецслужбами США".
По словам Александра Якименко, важную роль в событиях на Украине сыграла также Польша, чей гражданин
Ян Томбинский, который является представителем ЕС на Украине, стал посредником между Европой и оппозицией.
Миллионы наличных долларов, по словам Якименко, передавались диппочтой. Её количество со времён
нач в увеличилось в 10 раз. Но были и местные спонсоры.
Александр Якименко:
"Как и Порошенко, так и Фирташ, Пинчук - они финансировали Майдан. Они заложники данной ситуации,
потому что почти весь бизнес, все их активы расположены за рубежом, и они выполняли команды
Запада. Им не оставалось ничего другого, как поддержать Майдан и финансировать его, так как
в противном случае они остались бы без своих активов. В данном случае эти люди не думали о стране,
они думали только о своих возможностях, о своих финансах".
Александр Якименко возглавлял Службу безопасности Украины чуть больше года. В январе 2013 на
эту должность его назначил Виктор Янукович, а в феврале текущего года Верховная Рада сняла с должности.
В ближайшие дни, а возможно, часы, украинские военные проинспектируют с воздуха российские приграничные
области. Официальное разрешение дало Минобороны РФ. Как заявил замминистра обороны РФ Анатолий Антонов,
такая миссия запрашивается впервые в рамках Договора по открытому небу с момента его подписания
в 1992 году.
Минобороны также сообщило, что армейские подразделения наращивают интенсивность полевых занятий
- в полном соответствии с планом боевой подготовки. Задействованы полигоны Ростовской, Белгородской,
Тамбовской и Курской областей.
Former State Security Head of Ukraine Oleksandr Yakimenko blames Ukraine's current government
for hiring snipers on Feb. 20, when dozens of people were killed and hundreds more wounded. The
victims were mainly EuroMaidan Revolution demonstrations, but some police officers were also killed.
This was the deadliest day during the EuroMaidan Revolution, a three-month uprising that claimed
100 lives.
Yakimenko also blamed the United States for organizing and financing the revolution by bringing
illegal cash in using diplomatic mail.
The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine dismissed the charges as ludicrous, while another official with the
current government called the accusations "cynical" propaganda with no factual basis.
... ... ...
Yakimenko made these and other accusations in a 10-minute exclusive interview to Russia's Vesti
channel in an undisclosed location.
"The shots sounded from the building of Philharmonics," Yakimenko told Vesti. "This was the building
supervised by (now National Security Council Chief Andriy) Parubiy."
He said the snipers were shooting in the back of the running police, as well as at protesters.
He said there were two groups of "well-dressed" snipers, each composed of 10 people, operating in
the building. Yakimenko said their exit was witnessed by both SBU operatives and protesters themselves.
He said one of the groups of snipers disappeared, but the other one relocated to Hotel Ukraina
and continued to kill the protesters at a slower pace. Yakimenko said at that point representatives
of Svoboda and Right Sector appealed to him to deploy SBU's special unit Alfa to destroy the snipers.
Yakimenko claims that he was ready to do it, but did not get the permission of Parubiy, who supervised
the self-defense forces.
"To get inside EuroMaidan I needed Parubiy's permission because the forces of self-defense would
hit me in the back," Yakimenko said. "But Parubiy did not give me such a permission."
"Not a single weapon could get onto Maidan without Parubiy's permission," he said, adding that
EuroMaidan protesters used mercenaries from former defense ministry's special units, as well as
foreign mercenaries, including those from former Yugoslavia.
... ... ....
Yankimenko says that Parubiy, as well as a number of other organizers of EuroMaidan, received
direct orders from the U.S. government. Among those people he named former and current intelligence
chiefs Mykola Malomuzh and Viktor Gvozd, former Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko and leader of
the opposition Petro Poroshenko.
"These are the forces that were doing everything they were told by the leaders and representatives
of the United States," he says. "They, in essence lived in the U.S. embassy. There wasn't a day
when they did not visit the embassy."
... ... ...
SBU chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko is also accused of playing to the tune of the Americans. The
U.S. Embassy in Ukraine commented on these accusations in just one word: "ludicrous."
All orders were given either by the U.S. or EU ambassador Jan Tombinski, "who in essence is a
Polish citizen."
"The role of Poland cannot be evaluated," Yakimenko said. "It dreams about restoring its old
wish, Rzeczpospolita."
The EU Delegation had no comment about the accusations.
The former SBU chief also talked at length about the financing of EuroMaidan protests, saying
much of it came directly from the U.S., and that some Ukrainian oligarchs, including Poroshenko,
Dmytro Firtash and Viktor Pinchuk.
"From the beginning of Maidan we as a special service noticed a significant increase of diplomatic
cargo to various embassies, western embassies located in Ukraine," says Yakimenko. "It was tens
of times greater than usual diplomatic cargo supplies." He says that right after such shipments
crisp, new U.S. dollar bills were spotted on Maidan.
He said Ukraine's oligarchs were also financing Maidan because they were "hostages of the situation
and had no choice" because most of their assets are located in the west.
An apparently bugged phone conversation in which a senior US diplomat disparages the EU over
the Ukraine crisis has been posted online. The alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary
of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt,
appeared on YouTube on Thursday.
It is not clearly when the alleged conversation took place.
Here is a transcript, with analysis by BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus:
Warning: This transcript contains swearing.
Voice thought to be Nuland's: What do you think?
Jonathan Marcus: At the outset it should be clear that this is a fragment of what may well
be a larger phone conversation. But the US has not denied its veracity and has been quick to
point a finger at the Russian authorities for being behind its interception and leak.
Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko,
one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially
the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles
in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff.
But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call
you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader].
And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad
that he said what he said in response.
Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a
peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their
future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome
should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US
is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington
clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass
Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering
in Ukraine's domestic affairs.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't
think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay
out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving
ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh
Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President
Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing
experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking
to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level
working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with
him as the next step?
Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were
going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one
conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic
that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up
for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think
you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives
you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and
he explains why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk
before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember
if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United
Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN
guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?
Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on
at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts
to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big
guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private
words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree
that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing
and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration
at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine
crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It
certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does
not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on
its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together
because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be
working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right
now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's
a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going
on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast.
So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international
personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach
to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national
security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President
Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick.
So Biden's willing.
Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.
Jonathan Marcus: Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody
really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal
in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given
the ease with which their communications were hacked. But is the interception and leaking of
communications really the way Russia wants to conduct its foreign policy ? Goodness - after
Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and the like could the Russian government be joining the radical apostles
of open government? I doubt it. Though given some of the comments from Vladimir Putin's adviser
on Ukraine Sergei Glazyev - for example his interview with the Kommersant-Ukraine newspaper
the other day - you don't need your own listening station to be clear about Russia's intentions.
Russia he said "must interfere in Ukraine" and the authorities there should use force against
the demonstrators.
Ukraine unrest: Timeline
21 November 2013: Protests start after Ukraine announces it will not sign a deal aimed at
strengthening ties with the EU
17 December: Russia agrees to buy $15bn of Ukrainian government bonds and slash the price
of gas it sells to the country
16 January 2014: Parliament passes law restricting the right to protest
22 January: Two protesters die from bullet wounds during clashes with police in Kiev; protests
spread across many cities
25 January: President Yanukovych offers senior jobs to the opposition, including that of
prime minister, but these are rejected
28 January: Parliament votes to annul protest law and President Yanukovych accepts resignation
of PM and cabinet
29 January: Parliament passes amnesty law for detained protesters, under the condition occupied
buildings are vacated
The French military's current campaign to dislodge jihadist militants from northern Mali and
the
recent
high-profile attack against a natural gas facility in Algeria are both directly linked to the
foreign intervention in Libya that overthrew the Gadhafi regime. There is also a strong connection
between these events and foreign powers' decision not to intervene in Mali when the
military conducted a coup in
March 2012. The coup occurred as thousands of heavily armed Tuareg tribesmen were returning
home to northern Mali after serving in Moammar Gadhafi's military, and the confluence of these events
resulted in an implosion of the Malian military and a power vacuum in the north. Al Qaeda in the
Islamic Maghreb and other jihadists were able to take advantage of this situation to seize power
in the northern part of the African nation.
As all these events transpire in northern Africa, another type of foreign intervention is occurring
in Syria. Instead of direct foreign military intervention, like that taken against the Gadhafi regime
in Libya in 2011, or the lack of intervention seen in Mali in March 2012, the West -- and its Middle
Eastern partners -- have pursued a
middle-ground
approach in Syria. That is, these powers are providing logistical aid to the various Syrian
rebel factions but are not intervening directly.
Just as there were repercussions for the decisions to conduct a direct intervention in Libya
and not to intervene in Mali, there will be repercussions for the partial intervention approach
in Syria. Those consequences are becoming more apparent as the crisis drags on.
Intervention in Syria
For more than a year now, countries such as the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
European states have been providing aid to the Syrian rebels. Much of this aid has been in the form
of humanitarian assistance, providing things such as shelter, food and medical care for refugees.
Other aid has helped provide the rebels with non-lethal military supplies such as radios and ballistic
vests. But a review of the weapons spotted on the battlefield reveals that the rebels are also receiving
an increasing number of lethal supplies.
For example, there have been numerous videos
released showing Syrian rebels using weapons such as the M79 Osa rocket launcher, the RPG-22, the
M-60 recoilless rifle and the RBG-6 multiple grenade launcher. The Syrian government has also released
videos of these weapons after seizing them in arms caches. What is so interesting about these weapons
is that they were not in the Syrian military's inventory prior to the crisis, and they all likely
were purchased from Croatia. We have also seen many reports and photos of Syrian rebels carrying
Austrian Steyr Aug rifles, and the Swiss government has complained that Swiss-made hand grenades
sold to the United Arab Emirates are making their way to the Syrian rebels.
With the Syrian rebel groups using predominantly second-hand weapons from the region, weapons
captured from the regime, or an assortment of odd ordnance they have manufactured themselves, the
appearance and spread of these exogenous weapons in rebel arsenals over the past several months
is at first glance evidence of external arms supply. The appearance of a single Steyr Aug or RBG-6
on the battlefield could be an interesting anomaly, but the variety and concentration of these weapons
seen in Syria are well beyond the point where they could be considered coincidental.
This means that the current level of external intervention in Syria is similar to the level exercised
against the Soviet Union and its communist proxies following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.
The external supporters are providing not only training, intelligence and assistance, but also weapons
-- exogenous weapons that make the external provision of weapons obvious to the world. It is also
interesting that in Syria, like Afghanistan, two of the major external supporters are Washington
and Riyadh -- though in Syria they are joined by regional powers such as Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and
the United Arab Emirates, rather than Pakistan.
In Afghanistan, the Saudis and the Americans allowed their partners in Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence agency to determine which of the myriad militant groups in Afghanistan received the
bulk of the funds and weapons they were providing. This resulted in two things. First, the Pakistanis
funded and armed groups that they thought they could best use as surrogates in Afghanistan after
the Soviet withdrawal. Second, they pragmatically tended to funnel cash and weapons to the groups
that were the most successful on the battlefield -- groups such as those led by
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
and Jalaluddin
Haqqani, whose effectiveness on the battlefield was tied directly to their zealous theology
that made waging jihad against the infidels a religious duty and death during such a struggle the
ultimate accomplishment.
A similar process has been taking place for nearly two years in Syria. The opposition groups
that have been the most effective on the battlefield have tended to be the jihadist-oriented groups
such as Jabhat
al-Nusra. Not surprisingly, one reason for their effectiveness was the skills and tactics they
learned fighting the coalition forces in Iraq. Yet despite this, the Saudis -- along with the Qataris
and the Emiratis -- have been arming and funding the jihadist groups in large part because of their
success on the battlefield. As my colleague Kamran Bokhari noted in February 2012, the situation
in Syria was providing an
opportunity for jihadists, even without external support. In the fractured landscape of the
Syrian opposition, the unity of purpose and battlefield effectiveness of the jihadists was in itself
enough to ensure that these groups attracted a large number of new recruits.
But that is not the only factor conducive to the radicalization of Syrian rebels. First, war
-- and particularly a brutal, drawn-out war -- tends to make extremists out of the fighters involved
in it. Think Stalingrad, the Cold War struggles in Central America or the ethnic cleansing in the
Balkans following the dissolution of Yugoslavia; this degree of struggle and suffering tends to
make even non-ideological people ideological. In Syria, we have seen many secular Muslims become
stringent jihadists. Second, the lack of hope for an intervention by the West removed any impetus
for maintaining a secular narrative. Many fighters who had pinned their hopes on NATO were greatly
disappointed and angered that their suffering was ignored. It is not unusual for Syrian fighters
to say something akin to, "What has the West done for us? We now have only God."
When these ideological factors were combined with the infusion of money and arms that has been
channeled to jihadist groups in Syria over the past year, the growth of Syrian jihadist groups accelerated
dramatically. Not only are they a factor on the battlefield today, but they also will be a force
to be reckoned with in the future.
The Saudi Gambit
Despite the jihadist
blowback the Saudis experienced after the end of the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan
-- and the current object lesson of the jihadists Syria sent to fight U.S. forces in Iraq now leading
groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra -- the Saudi government has apparently calculated that its use of
jihadist proxies in Syria is worth the inherent risk.
There are some immediate benefits for Riyadh. First, the Saudis hope to be able to break the
arc of Shiite influence
that reaches from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. Having lost the Sunni counterweight
to Iranian power in the region with the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the installation of a
Shiite-led government friendly to Iran, the Saudis view the possibility of installing a friendly
Sunni regime in Syria as a dramatic improvement to their national security.
Supporting the jihad in Syria as a weapon against Iranian influence also gives the Saudis a chance
to burnish their Islamic credentials internally in an effort to help stave off criticism that they
are too secular and Westernized. It allows the Saudi regime the opportunity to show that it is helping
Muslims under assault by the vicious Syrian regime.
Supporting jihadists in Syria also gives the Saudis an opportunity to ship their own radicals
to Syria, where they can fight and possibly die. With a large number of unemployed, underemployed
and radicalized young men, the jihad in Syria provides a pressure valve similar to the past struggles
in Iraq, Chechnya, Bosnia and Afghanistan. The Saudis are not only trying to winnow down their own
troubled youth; we have received reports from a credible source that the Saudis are also facilitating
the travel of Yemeni men to training camps in Turkey, where they are trained and equipped before
being sent to Syria to fight. The reports also indicate that the young men are traveling for free
and receiving a stipend for their service. These young radicals from Saudi Arabia and Yemen will
even further strengthen the jihadist groups in Syria by providing them with fresh troops.
The Saudis are gaining temporary domestic benefits from supporting jihad in Syria, but the conflict
will not last forever, nor will it result in the deaths of all the young men who go there to fight.
This means that someday the men who survive will come back home, and through the process we refer
to as "tactical
Darwinism" the inept fighters will have been weeded out, leaving a core of competent militants
that the Saudis will have to deal with.
But the problems posed by jihadist proxies in Syria will
have effects
beyond the House of Saud. The Syrian jihadists will pose a threat to the stability of Syria
in much the same way the Afghan groups did in the civil war they launched for control of Afghanistan
after the fall of the Najibullah regime. Indeed, the violence in Afghanistan got worse after Najibullah's
fall in 1992, and the suffering endured by Afghan civilians in particular was egregious.
Now we are seeing that the jihadist militants in Libya pose a threat not only to the Libyan regime
-- there are serious problems in eastern Libya -- but also to foreign interests in the country,
as seen in the attack on the British ambassador and the
U.S. diplomatic mission
in Benghazi. Moreover, the events in Mali and Algeria in recent months show that Libya-based
militants and the weapons they possess also pose a regional threat. Similar long-lasting and wide-ranging
repercussions can be expected to flow from the intervention in Syria.
While Cohen has some interesting observations, I didn't get the impression that Nuland and Pyatt
were discussing plans for a coup. To me, it seemed that they were talking about the possibility
of Arseniy Yatseniuk taking a position in the Yanukovych government while excluding the other two
opposition leaders they mentioned.
The recorded conversation was heard by many people and no one else has suggested that a coup
was in the works till today. If anyone else is interested in having a listen to the intercepted
phone call, here it is. A transcript of the conversation is below.
Nuland: What do you think?
Pyatt: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders]
piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime
minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying
to get a read really fast, on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which
you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you
made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on
the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary,
I don't think it's a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out
and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving
ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh
Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President
Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing
experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking
to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level
working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as
the next step?
Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going
into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation
or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's
been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever
meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching
out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also
a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains
why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before
or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told
you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations
Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert
Serry did I write you that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry
could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to
have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you
can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind
the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still
trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of
Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that
group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let
me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international
personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach
to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security
adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President
Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick.
So Biden's willing.
The WikiLeaks revelations have shined a light on the dark nature of U.S. foreign policy, including,
as Eric Margolis
recently described it: "Washington's heavy-handed treatment of friends and foes alike, its bullying,
use of diplomats as junior-grade spies, narrow-minded views, and snide remarks about world leaders."
As much as I, an American, hate to say it, U.S. foreign policy is actually much worse. It is
aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and meddling. It sanctions the destabilization and overthrow
of governments, the assassination of leaders, the destruction of industry and infrastructure, the
backing of military coups, death squads, and drug traffickers, and imperialism under the guise of
humanitarianism. It supports corrupt and tyrannical governments and brutal sanctions and embargoes.
It results in discord, strife, hatred, and terrorism toward the United States.
The question, then, is simply this: Can U.S. foreign policy be fixed? Although I am not very
optimistic that it will be, I am more than confident that it can be.
I propose a four-pronged solution from the following perspectives: Founding Fathers, military,
congressional, libertarian. In brief, to fix its foreign policy the United States should implement
a Jeffersonian foreign policy, adopt Major General Smedley Butler's Amendment for Peace, follow
the advice of Congressman Ron Paul, and do it all within the libertarian framework of philosopher
Murray Rothbard.
Thomas Jefferson, our first secretary of state and third president, favored a foreign policy
of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." This
policy was basically followed until the Spanish-American War of 1898. Here is the simple but profound
wisdom of Jefferson:
"No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another."
"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs
of Europe."
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or
no diplomatic establishment."
"We have produced proofs, from the most enlightened and approved writers on the subject,
that a neutral nation must, in all things relating to the war, observe an exact impartiality
towards the parties."
No judgment, no meddling, no political connection, and no partiality: this is a Jeffersonian
foreign policy.
U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.
After leaving the military, he authored the classic work War Is a Racket. Butler proposed
an Amendment for Peace to provide an "absolute guarantee to the women of America that their loved
ones never would be sent overseas to be needlessly shot down in European or Asiatic or African wars
that are no concern of our people." Here are its three planks:
1. The removal of members of the land armed forces from within the continental limits of
the United States and the Panama Canal Zone for any cause whatsoever is hereby prohibited.
2. The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed services,
are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy,
more than five hundred miles from our coast.
3. Aircraft of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps is hereby prohibited from flying, for any
reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States.
Butler also reasoned that because of "our geographical position, it is all but impossible for
any foreign power to muster, transport and land sufficient troops on our shores for a successful
invasion." In this he was echoing Jefferson, who recognized that geography was one of the great
advantages of the United States: "At such a distance from Europe and with such an ocean between
us, we hope to meddle little in its quarrels or combinations. Its peace and its commerce are what
we shall court."
And then there is our modern Jeffersonian in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul, the only consistent
voice in Congress from either party for a foreign policy of peace and nonintervention. In a
speech on the House floor several months before the invasion of Iraq, Ron Paul made the case for
a foreign policy of peace through commerce and nonintervention:
A proper foreign policy of non-intervention is built on friendship with other nations, free
trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas.
We should avoid entangling alliances and stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations
- no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances that we should
avoid include the complex alliances in the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.
The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting
the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked,
self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with
the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business
and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling
our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and
unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks
financially and militarily.
For the libertarian framework necessary to ensure a foreign policy of peace and nonintervention,
we can turn to libertarian political philosopher and theoretician Murray Rothbard:
The primary plank of a libertarian foreign policy program for America must be to call upon
the United States to abandon its policy of global interventionism: to withdraw immediately and
completely, militarily and politically, from Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, from
everywhere. The cry among American libertarians should be for the United States to withdraw
now, in every way that involves the U.S. government. The United States should dismantle its
bases, withdraw its troops, stop its incessant political meddling, and abolish the CIA. It should
also end all foreign aid - which is simply a device to coerce the American taxpayer into subsidizing
American exports and favored foreign States, all in the name of "helping the starving peoples
of the world." In short, the United States government should withdraw totally to within its
own boundaries and maintain a policy of strict political "isolation" or neutrality everywhere.
The U.S. global empire with its 1,000 foreign military bases and half a million troops and mercenary
contractors in three-fourths of the world's countries must be dismantled. This along with the empire's
spies, covert operations, foreign aid, gargantuan military budgets, abuse and misuse of the military,
prison camps, torture, extraordinary renditions, assassinations, nation building, spreading democracy
at the point of a gun, jingoism, regime changes, military alliances, security guarantees, and meddling
in the affairs of other countries.
U.S. foreign policy can be fixed. The United States would never tolerate another country building
a string of bases around North America, stationing thousands of its troops on our soil, enforcing
a no-fly zone over American territory, or sending their fleets to patrol off our coasts. How much
longer will other countries tolerate these actions by the United States? We have already experienced
blowback from the Muslim world for our foreign policy. And how much longer can the United States
afford to maintain its empire?
It is time for the world's policeman, fireman, security guard, social worker, and busybody to
announce its retirement.
id you hear the audio of the phone call between Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland and the American ambassador to Ukraine? The Russians apparently recorded it, and leaked it.
Here's a transcript from the BBC. I agree with the analysis of BBC's Jonathan Marcus:
The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution,
noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this
transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is
striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in
Ukraine's affairs – no more than Moscow, the cynic might say – but Washington clearly has its
own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and
for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's
domestic affairs.
Marcus goes on to say - rightly, I think - that this episode makes both the US and Russia look
bad (the Russians, because it makes clear that they're intercepting US diplomatic communications
… but then, our NSA has been doing the same thing to foreign leaders, e.g.,
Angela Merkel, who leads a nation that is not an enemy or a rival, but an ally). Still, the
big difference is that Ukraine is on Russia's border, and well within its sphere of influence. I
haven't been following the Ukraine situation closely, and for all I know, those Europhile Ukrainians
protesting the Yanukovych government are entirely in the right. But what business is it of the United
States to manipulate Ukrainian politics? Marcus, the analyst, says that the EU is holding back on
involving itself in Ukraine's power struggle because it doesn't see the relative value in offending
Moscow over Kiev. Nuland's response: "F–k the EU."
Lovely. From a realist perspective, doesn't the EU have the better of the argument? Last December,
Robert Merry wrote about the Ukraine mess, explaining that Ukraine is divided between its Catholic,
Europe-oriented west, and its Orthodox, Russia-oriented east. It's not simply a matter of a corrupt
authoritarian regime standing against the People. Excerpt:
Ukraine will have to find its way through its historical predicament. Russia no doubt will
play a role in whatever outcome emerges, if any. After all, Russia has been involved in the
fate of Ukraine since 1654. Europe may have a role to play as well, given its proximity and
the Western affinity of Ukraine's western regions. But the United States has almost no standing
to interfere.
What will be the outcome? Will Ukraine eventually split in two, each half going in its favored
direction? It's difficult to see such an eventuality absent a major international crisis in
the region, although there will always be those who advocate such a course. As one Russian general
once mused, "Ukraine or rather Eastern Ukraine will come back [into the Russian fold] in five,
ten or fifteen years. Western Ukraine can go to hell!"
More likely, the country will continue to muddle through its current political conundrum
as best it can. Huntington speculated that "Ukraine will remain united, remain cleft, remain
independent, and generally cooperate closely with Russia." He quotes author John Morrison as
saying that the Russian-Ukrainian relationship is to Eastern Europe what the Franco-German relationship
is to western Europe. Huntington explains, "Just as the latter provides the core of the European
Union, the former is the core essential to unity in the Orthodox world."
The point is not that Russia's hands are clean with regard to interfering with Ukraine's internal
affairs. Of course they aren't; only a fool would believe that they are. The point is that the United
States is involved in Ukraine's internal politics so deeply that a senior American diplomat asserts
the right to decide who among the Ukrainian opposition should go into the government, and who should
not. Why? Why is this in America's interest? As a general matter, it is better to have a pro-American
government in power in a given country than an anti-American one. But is Ukraine really so important
a prize as to risk our relationship with Russia, and with the EU? One understands that
a crackpot hawk
like John McCain would think so, but is this really how Barack Obama wants to carry on?
William Dalton says:
February 11, 2014 at 12:57 am
Public Defender:
"I also agree with those who say that Dreher's reading of the excerpt of the conversation
was hyperbolic. This often happens when he blogs about topics he doesn't know much about (or
at least, no more than most of the people who post on his comboxes). In this case, the diplomat's
statements can be reasonably seen as the kind of frank advice given when nobody else is listening.
And one-on-one conversations don't bind the US the way presidential orders do, so the risks
of further entanglement are much, much smaller.
"The biggest screwup probably was having the conversation on an unsecured line."
I think I might find your argument persuasive, except for one thing. The substance of her
obscenity-loaded comment betrayed the real fault in the thinking of the Obama Administration
represented by Ms. Nuland, a political appointee in the State Department. There is clearly a
contest between Russia and the EU to see which can draw the Ukraine more closely into its orbit.
The EU made an offer Ukraine was about to accept when Russia made a better one. Now the EU is
not showing much interest in getting into a bidding war with Russia. They know that Ukraine
is more important to Russia than it is to the EU. In fact, with all its other obligations to
support weak member states, the economic powers of the EU are not eager to take on underwriting
the Ukraine's economy as well. And the U.S., as is obvious from Ms. Nuland's statement, is aware
of this. So why would any rational American diplomat be seeking to push together the Ukraine
and the E.U. more than is the E.U. itself, let alone a much divided Ukaine? It betrays a policy
which has neither the best interests of the Ukraine or the E.U. at heart, but rather is interested
in playing the petty games of international intrigue and rivalry that cost so much blood and
treasure in the 20th Century. It sustains the military-industrial complex of the Washington-London
axis, not the aspirations of any foreign peoples towards either liberty or democracy. It should
be called out for what it is.
MrsKrishan says:
February 11, 2014 at 3:11 pm
"Why is this in America's interest?" Rod your naivete in geopolitics is remarkable for its dogged
persistence… have you never looked on a map at where the borders of the Ukraine actually lie?
Along the natural gas pipeline that US-Islamic Gulf Monarchist petrochemical interests would
so like to build up through Syria (or Iran) and on into Europe via Turkey?
Its not about petty hegemons, nor even the people who appointed them to serve, its about
the dollar and our need to back it by something tangible, fungible and under our thumb/sphere
of control (since we're busy shipping all the gold not screwed down to China/India with glad
abandon).
simon94022 says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm
This is how everyone in our government carries on. The assumption that the US can and should
"manage" the rest of the world is the common denominator of neo-conservatism and liberal internationalism.
The former is quicker to resort to military force and threats of force, while the latter prefers
to enlist international institutions and threaten economic sanctions. But the assumptions and
goals are identical.
Both approaches focus on short term outcomes, long term consequences be damned. Both brush
aside deep cultural, religious and historical roots of conflicts in favor of a Disneyfied focus
on Getting Rid of the Bad Guy. And neither has outgrown the Cold War assumption that America
actually has the ability to shape other countries to our liking.
TomB says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:53 pm
There's a good article at the National Interest blog interpreting Nuland's call as showing the
U.S. trying to essentially split the difference between the Ukranian factions:
Ukrainians in the USA are disproportionately Catholic. But in Ukraine itself, Catholics only
form a majority in the far west of the country. The "yellow" part of the map from the WaPo that
keeps getting posted is still majority Orthodox.
SteveM says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Neocon Hack Nuland has been in Ukraine glad-handing the protesters. (BTW, at what point do protesters
storming buildings and chucking Molotov cocktails become rioters?)
But that's beside the point. What if Ukrainian, (or Russian) diplomats visited Occupy Wall
Street protests and distributed cookies as an act of solidarity like Nuland did in Kyiv? And
insisted on the replacement of the democratically elected government? They could even make the
accurate claim that Obama garners less than 50% of voter support to rationalize their intrusive
behavior like Nuland did with Yanukovych.
Arrogant U.S. Political Elites can't fix Detroit or Newark, yet they claim the unique skills
and insights, (apart from dropping f-bombs) necessary to rescue, Baghdad, Kabul, Tripoli, Damascus
and now Kyiv. Oh, and while regularly lecturing Moscow how it should run a country with 7 time
zones.
The sad thing is that objective journalism that challenges the status quo has pretty much
collapsed. The mainstream media is part and parcel of the Elite class and will do next to nothing
in examining the continuation of the obsolete and unaffordable America as World Cop model.
When I think of the Crony-Politico Apparatus these days, the word "repulsive" keeps popping
up in my mind.
John says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Ukraine is a sovereign state that should be allowed to solve these problems on their own terms
and through the democratic process we should but out.
Ukraine's president was duly elected by the people. If they don't like it, they can always
vote for his opponent when his term in office comes to an end. To equate what is going on in
Ukraine to what is going on in either Russia or Belarus would be ridiculous.
These protests are the result of a sharp divide between the Russophile Ukrainians and the
Europhile Ukrainians. Any government, should it want to maintain power, would straddle this
fence and try to maintain close relations with both, the western democracies and Russia.
It is not a sworn enemy. Our interests are served by maintaining the status quo. Attempts
to determine Ukraine's destiny, however, could push them into Rusdia's orbit. Quite counterproductive
in my humble opinion.
burton50 says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm
"The point is that the United States is involved in Ukraine's internal politics so deeply that
a senior American diplomat asserts the right to decide who among the Ukrainian opposition should
go into the government, and who should not."
No, Chris1, IMHO, it's not really an overstatement of fact. By Nuland's own admission, we
have at least 5 billion invested on the Ukraine "project". To be sure, it's chump change in
comparison to the analogous regime-change "projects"in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, probably
on a par with the Georgian operation. As a U.S. citizen, I don't see any return on such "investments".
Like most Americans, I think we might consider minding our own business, eh?
Substitution code says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:10 pm
the Russians [are] intercepting US diplomatic communications
That's not entirely clear yet in this case. If true, heads should roll. If Nuland and that
ambassador were yakking on an open line they should both be fired. If State Department diplomatic
voicecom is so vulnerable to decryption that crystal clear recordings can be released within
a few days of a conversation, then those responsible for securing them should be fired.
Fran Macadam says:
February 10, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Don't be too sure about the source of this leak being Russian, without proof. Our authorities
can find out who posted it to YouTube very easily by tracking IP addresses; absent specifics
the allegations are only convenient.
The NSA and U.S. spy services are the real masters at gobbling up everything regardless of
side and they collect everything from our own communications as well, with capabilities far
beyond those of foreign intelligence services. They don't know for sure unless they listen and
analyze, whether or not those on our own side aren't disloyal. And there is as we see from the
latest Snowden documents attempts at Hoover-style leverage over citizens and internal opponents
of policy.
The Ukraine is riddled with U.S. and western listening technology. Thus, it's more likely
this recording has come from within an official Washington addicted to leaks that serve the
purposes of internecine squabbling and careerist backstabbing. Washington's pols and agencies
are bitterly divided and always seeking advantage over one another.
Not everyone in the administration is an admirer of neocon Nuland and her husband Robert
Kagan, Dick Cheney's senior national security adviser.
Yes, the NSA "collects it all," spying on its own people in full Hoover mode, but on cyber
steroids. It's a matter of standard NSA tradecraft exposed in the latest Snowden whistleblowing
documents that these domestic target operations are then made to conveniently appear to come
from foreign adversaries, killing as it were two birds with one stone and casting suspicion
elsewhere.
Leo H says:
February 10, 2014 at 5:43 pm
Is the Western Ukrainian opposition really "Europhile" as reported by hopeful sympathizers?
Uh, no. Not at least in the sense of our dopey elites. Svoboda, the fastest growing party in
the Western Ukraine, and the controlling faction on the barricades is not squishy rainbow friendly.
As Nuland imperiously tries to push out this reality in favor of appointed stooges like the
former boxer turned Merkel water-boy, Klitshcko, she may unwittingly teach real Ukrainian nationalists
that Moscow is now a better option for genuine European nationalists. At least better than the
EUSSR.
And Putin really is that clever to let us divide his opposition for him. Of course they bugged
the dummy's phone!
"That's some pretty impressive tradecraft," said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
of the interception and leak of her now-infamous
call to US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoff Pyatt. The call consisted of the two plotting to install
a US puppet government in Ukraine after overthrowing the current, democratically elected government.
Tradecraft means "spycraft." In other words, Nuland was crediting a foreign intelligence service
with impressive use of technology to be able to hack into her call to the ambassador. Everyone knew
she was talking about Russia, partly because the Administration had been blaming Russia from the
moment the recording was made public.
However, Nuland knew all along that this was not the case, and she did nothing while the Administration
continued to escalate the accusations against Russia.
Jay Carney, White House Spokesman, "It says something about Russia," that they would tap the
telephone call. State Department Spokeswoman Jan Psaki was even harsher,
calling it "a new low in Russian tradecraft."
But the telephone call between the two, we learned yesterday, was not conducted on a secure,
encrypted telephone line that the State Department requires for such sensitive conversations and
communication. Rather, the call was made over
unsecured
cell phones and thus easily intercepted with basic equipment that is widely available to anyone.
Therefore it was not "impressive tradecraft" at all that led to the capture and release of the conversation.
Nuland and Pyatt obviously knew that at the time, being the two parties to the call. They then
either sat by and allowed US government official one after the other accuse Russia of going to great
lengths to hack the call without admitting this fact, or they did inform their superiors but Administration
officials decided to ignore this critical fact and push accusations against Russia anyway. You never
want a serious crisis to go to waste, as it is said.
RPI contacted a former State Department official to clarify security procedures for such a telephone
conversation between high-level personnel. The official was clear:
I know well the seriousness of using an open line (aside from anodyne conversation) for high-level
classified information that would clearly be embarrassing, if not damaging, not only for the
US but also the EU. For using an open line for discussing highly sensitive national security
matters, both [Nuland and Pyatt] should be reprimanded, at the very least.
So this was a serious security violation.
The former official continued:
Assuming the telecon was made on insecure line, I find it curious, if not thought provoking,
that Nuland's profanity has managed to overshadow both the apparent security violation as well
as the potential damage to national security of the substance of the conversation itself.
Indeed, the fallout from "Ukraine-gate" is astounding but sadly not surprising. The mainstream
media in the US has focused solely on the Russian angle (now discredited) and on the salty language
and particularly the false supposition that Nuland was using sailor's language to indicate a serious
rift with the EU on Ukraine policy. In fact, US and EU policy toward Ukraine is identical: regime
change. The dispute is merely over velocity and is therefore cosmetic rather than substantive: should
we travel 100 miles per hour or only 75 miles per hour toward regime change?
As far as we have seen, there has been virtually no discussion of the substance of the telephone
conversation in the US media. But the conversation was a confirmation of all theretofore denied
accusations of US involvement in the current unrest in Ukraine. It was not simply US well-wishing
toward the opposition parties. It was not simply a bit of advice and a wink toward the opposition.
It was wholesale planning and brokering a post-regime change governing coalition in Ukraine, with
the UN being ordered to come in and "glue" the deal.
More precisely, as the Oriental Journal
points
out:
They agreed to nominate Bat'kyvshchina
Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench
Udar Party
leader Vitaly Klitschko from the game for a while and to discredit neo-Nazi
Svoboda partychief
Oleh Tiahnybok as "Yanukovych's project"
Shortly after "Ukraine-gate" broke, Sergei Glazyev, advisor to Russian president Putin
claimed that the US was spending $20
million per week on the Ukrainian opposition, including supplying opposition with training and weapons.
Nuland replied
that such claims are "pure fantasy."
Perhaps, but that is just what Nuland had said previously about claims that the US was meddling
in the internal affairs of Ukraine. And then the tape came out. That was just what she said about
Russia's "impressive tradecraft" in intercepting the telephone call. Then we discover that she was
discussing highly sensitive issues over completely unsecured telephones.
Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself
claimedin December that the US had spent
$5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On what would she like us to
believe the money had been spent?
We know that the US State Department
invests heavily – more than $100 million from 2008-2012 alone - on international "Internet freedom"
activities. This includes heavy State Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's…
…Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet
in a Suitcase"). This is an initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology
Initiative to build a mobile mesh network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase,
to allow activists to continue to communicate even when a government tries to shut down the
Internet, as happened in several Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.
"Commotion Project." What an appropriate name for what is happening in Ukraine.
It is not a far leap from the known billions spent on "democratization" in Ukraine, to the hundreds
of millions spent on developing new tools for regime-changers on the ground to use against authorities
in their home countries, to the State Department from the US embassy in Kiev providing training
and equipment to those seeking the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.
The apparent goal of US policy in Ukraine is to re-ignite a Cold War, installing a US-created
government in Kiev which signs the EU association agreement including its
NATO cooperation
language to effectively push the Berlin Wall all the way to the gates of Moscow and St. Petersburg.
NATO has expanded to central Europe, despite US assurances in the 1980s that it would not do
so. The US rolled over Russia in its deceptive manipulation of a UN Security Council resolution
on Libya to initiate an invasion. The US continues to arm jihadists seeking to overthrow the secular
Assad government in Russia-allied Syria. The US and EU have absorbed the Baltics, leaving their
large ethnic Russian populations to dangle in non-person limbo. The US and EU had all but absorbed
Georgia. Now the US is clearly in the process of absorbing Ukraine, with its strategic importance
to Russia, its proximity, and its nearly 10 million ethnic Russian minority.
Surely there is a point to where Russia will take steps to concretely limit its losses. In December
Russian president Vladimir Putin
said in a meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yanukovich that Russia and Ukraine should
resume comprehensive military cooperation. Other bilateral defense agreements are already in place.
What would have to happen to trigger a Ukrainian request to its close neighbor for assistance
putting down a bloody and illegal coup d'etat instigated by foreign governments? Will US serious
miscalculation of Russian resolve over Ukraine lead to a tragedy of almost inconceivable proportions?
What if this time Russia does not blink?
This article was posted: Monday, February 10, 2014 at 5:47 am
From political point of view neoliberalism vision is close to Communists vision. The only difference
is that now the capital of the world is the USA and it is the USA government that controls the rest
of the world. Other states are just vassals who implement directions from benevolent "Washington Obcom"
and install leaders recommended, or (YouTube)...
Funny that it was communists who actually put a major effort in implementing this vision via the dissolution
of the USSR.
Feb 07, 2014 | Reuters/Yahoo
... ... ...
Modern Ukraine is divided between eastern provinces that were districts of Russia for centuries
and where most people speak Russian, and Western sections that were annexed by the Soviets from
Poland and the former Austrian empire, where most people speak Ukrainian and many resent Russian
domination.
Although many Ukrainians say they dream of integration with the West, the Soviet economic legacy
gives Moscow extraordinary leverage: Ukraine's heavy industry depends on imports of energy, above
all Russian natural gas.
Moscow portrays the anti-Yanukovich demonstrators as paid Western agents and seems to be pushing
for Yanukovich to order a crackdown to clear the streets.
In some of the sharpest language yet, the Kremlin's point man on Ukraine, Sergei Glazyev, urged
the Ukrainian leader to stop negotiating with "putschists". He accused Washington of arming, funding
and training the opposition to take power.
Nuland called the remarks "pure fantasy".
"He could be a science fiction writer," she said.
Re-Ran:
When any empire ends under the guise of "renewal" organizations tend to show up, like a parasite
they eat the legacy of the empire alive often from within. There are remarkable similarities
to most if not all A.D. Empires, From the beginning first pioneers of them up to the final conspicuous
consumer populations that eventually become a burden on the state of the empire. They all have
6 stages and in total last around 200-250 years before collapsing. The age of pioneers, the
age of conquest, the age of commerce, the age of affluence, the age of intellect, ending with
the bread and circus' campaigns of the age of decadence. The age of decadence is amazingly similar
throughout most empires. This involves an undisciplined, over extended military, a continuous
conspicuous display of wealth, a massive and ever growing disparity between rich and poor, desire
to live off a bloated state, and a cultural obsession with sex. More importantly the most similar
trend throughout empires in the age of decadence is the aggressive debasement of that empires
currency. Once the backing resource of an empires currency is abandoned, the denominations go
through a continuous corruption, until even the officials who once backed the people, become
more fixated on the accumulation of as much wealth as possible. With this corruption comes distractions.
Like Rome and their Gladiatorial events used to keep the public eye off of state affairs
and economy, this is a classic trait of declining empires. Today in the U.S. there is an ever
prevalent emphasis on all kinds of television shows, sports, and celebrities. Just like today's
celebrities and sports stars earn vast sums of wealth, so did the Roman charioteers, one in
the second century gained so much wealth, it would equate to several billions today. And ironically
like Rome before it's collapse we even make celebrities out of our chef's. We have been lulled
into a lethargy and have completely accepted it. through un fettered consumerism, continuous
economic bubbles, and the desire for everlasting youth, the "baby boomer" generation squandered
their inheritance from the prior. "and our posterity" became "just for us" and part took in
the largest misallocation of capitol in our time, and future generations will pay the price.
richard d
The inmates are not only running the asylum, they own it. Obama and his administration need
to be Baker Acted. Welcome to the modern day 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'.
Dependency theory originates with two papers published in 1949 – one by
Hans Singer, one by
Raúl Prebisch – in which
the authors observe that the
terms of trade for underdeveloped
countries relative to the developed countries had deteriorated over time: the underdeveloped countries
were able to purchase fewer and fewer manufactured goods from the developed countries in exchange
for a given quantity of their raw materials exports. This idea is known as the
Singer-Prebisch thesis.
Prebisch, an Argentine economist at the United Nations Commission for Latin America (UNCLA), went
on to conclude that the underdeveloped nations must employ some degree of protectionism in trade
if they were to enter a self-sustaining development path. He argued that
Import-substitution
industrialisation (ISI), not a
trade-and-export
orientation, was the best strategy for underdeveloped countries.[2]
The theory was developed from a Marxian perspective by
Paul A. Baran in 1957
with the publication of his The Political Economy of Growth.[3]
Dependency theory shares many points with earlier, Marxist, theories of imperialism by
Rosa Luxemburg and
V.I. Lenin, and has attracted
continued interest from Marxists. Matias Vernengo, a University of Utah economist, identifies two
main streams in dependency theory: the Latin American Structuralist, typified by the work of Prebisch,
Celso Furtado and Anibal
Pinto at the
United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC, or, in Spanish, CEPAL); and the
American Marxist, developed by
Paul A. Baran,
Paul Sweezy, and
Andre Gunder Frank.[4]
The theory was popular in the 1960s and 1970s as a criticism of
modernization theory
(the "stages" hypothesis mentioned above), which was falling increasingly out of favor because of
continued widespread poverty in much of the world.
Many dependency theorists advocate social revolution as an effective means to the reduction of
economic disparities in the world system.[citation
needed]
According to Vernengo, the Latin American Structuralist and the American Marxist schools had
significant differences but agreed on some basic points:
[B]oth groups would agree that at the core of the dependency relation between center and periphery
lays [lies] the inability of the periphery to develop an autonomous and dynamic process of technological
innovation. Technology – the Promethean force unleashed by the Industrial Revolution – is at
the center of stage. The Center countries controlled the technology and the systems for generating
technology. Foreign capital could not solve the problem, since it only led to limited transmission
of technology, but not the process of innovation itself.[5]
Baran and others frequently spoke of the
international
division of labour – skilled workers in the center, unskilled in the periphery – when discussing
key features of dependency.[6]
Baran placed surplus extraction and capital accumulation at the center of his analysis. Development
depends on a population's producing more than it needs for bare subsistence (a surplus). Further,
some of that surplus must be used for capital accumulation - the purchase of new means of production
- if development is to occur; spending the surplus on things like luxury consumption does not produce
development. Baran noted two predominant kinds of economic activity in poor countries. In the older
of the two, plantation agriculture, which originated in colonial times, most of the surplus goes
to the landowners, who use it to emulate the consumption patterns of wealthy people in the developed
world; much of it thus goes to purchase foreign produced luxury items-automobiles, clothes, etc.
-- and little is accumulated for investing in development. The more recent kind of economic activity
in the periphery is industry-but of a particular kind. It is usually carried out by foreigners,
although often in conjunction with local interests. It is often under special tariff protection
or other government concessions. The surplus from this production mostly goes to two places: part
of it is sent back to the foreign shareholders as profit; the other part is spent on conspicuous
consumption in a similar fashion to that of the plantation aristocracy. Again, little is used for
development. Baran thought that political revolution was necessary to break this pattern.[7]
In the 1960s, members of the Latin American Structuralist school argued that there is more latitude
in the system than the Marxists believed. They argued that it allows for partial development or
"dependent development" – development, but still under the control of outside decision makers. They
cited the partly successful attempts at industrialisation in Latin America around that time (Argentina,
Brazil, Mexico) as evidence for this hypothesis. They were led to the position that dependency is
not a relation between commodity exporters and industrialised countries, but between countries with
different degrees of industrialisation. In their approach there is a distinction made between the
economic and political spheres: economically, one may be developed or underdeveloped; but even if
(somewhat) economically developed, one may be politically autonomous or dependent. More recently,
Guillermo O'Donnell
has argued that constraints placed on development by neoliberalism were lifted by "the military
coups in Latin America that came to promote development in authoritarian guise" (Vernengo's words,
summarising O'Donnell, 1982).[8]
The importance of technology, multinational corporations, and State promotion of technology were
emphasised by the Latin American Structuralists.
Fajnzybler has made a distinction between systemic or authentic competitiveness, which is the
ability to compete based on higher productivity, and spurious competitiveness, which is based on
low wages.[9]
The third-world debt crisis of the 1980s and continued stagnation in Africa and Latin America
in the 1990s caused some doubt as to the feasibility or desirability of "dependent development".[10]
Vernengo (2004) has suggested that the sine qua non of the dependency relationship is
not the difference in technological sophistication, as traditional dependency theorists believe,
but rather the difference in financial strength between core and peripheral countries – particularly
the inability of peripheral countries to borrow in their own currency. He believes that the hegemonic
position of the United States is very strong because of the importance of its financial markets
and because it controls the international reserve currency – the US dollar. He believes that the
end of the Bretton Woods international financial agreements in the early 1970s considerably strengthened
the United States' position because it removed some constraints on their financial actions.[11]
"Standard" dependency theory differs from Marxism, in arguing against internationalism and any
hope of progress in less developed nations towards industrialization and a liberating revolution.
Theotonio dos Santos described a 'new dependency', which focused on both the internal and external
relations of less-developed countries of the periphery, derived from a Marxian analysis. Former
Brazilian President
Fernando Henrique
Cardoso (in office 1995-2002) wrote extensively on dependency theory while in political exile
during the 1960s, arguing that it was an approach to studying the economic disparities between the
centre and periphery. The American sociologist
Immanuel Wallerstein
refined the Marxist aspect of the theory, and called it the "World-system."
It has also been associated with Galtung's Structural Theory of Imperialism.
With the economic growth of India and some East Asian economies, dependency theory has lost some
of its former influence. It is more widely accepted in disciplines such as
history and
anthropology[citation
needed]. It also underpins some
NGO campaigns, such as
Make Poverty History
and the fair trade movement.
Dependency theory
is the body of theories by various intellectuals, both from the
Third World and the
First World, that suggest
that the wealthy nations of the world need a peripheral group of poorer states in order to remain
wealthy. Dependency theory states that the poverty of the countries in the periphery is not because
they are not integrated into the world system, but because of how they are integrated into the system.
These poor nations provide
natural resources,
cheap labor, a destination for obsolete technology, and markets to the wealthy nations, without
which they could not have the standard of living they enjoy. First world nations actively, but not
necessarily consciously, perpetuate a state of dependency through various policies and initiatives.
This state of dependency is multifaceted, involving economics,
media control,
politics,
banking and
finance,
education,
sport and all aspects of human
resource development. Any attempt by the dependent nations to resist the influences of dependency
could result in economic sanctions and/or military invasion and control. This is rare, however,
and dependency is enforced far more by the wealthy nations setting the rules of international trade
and commerce.
Dependency theory first emerged in the 1950s, advocated by
Raul Prebisch whose research
found that the wealth of poor nations tended to decrease when the wealth of rich nations increased.
The theory quickly divided into diverse schools. Some, most notably Andre Gunder Frank and Walter
Rodney adapted it to Marxism.
"Standard" dependency theory differs sharply from Marxism, however, arguing against internationalism
and any hope of progress in less developed nations towards industrialization and a liberating revolution.
Former Brazilian President
Fernando Henrique
Cardoso wrote extensively on dependency theory while in political exile. The American sociologist
Immanuel Wallerstein
refined the Marxist aspect of the theory, and called it the "world
system." [14]
According to Brazilian social scientist, Theotonio Dos Santos, dependence means a situation in
which certain countries economies' are conditioned by the development & expansion of another to
which the former is subject. He goes on to further clarify that the interdependence of two or more
economies, and consequently world trade, assumes the form of dependence when dominant countries
can create dependency only as a reflection of that expansion, which can have a negative effect on
the subordinate's immediate economy.
Guyanese Marxist historian and political activist, Walter Rodney, contends in reference to Africa`s
underdevelopmemt, "The decisiveness of the short period of colonialism and its negative consequences
for Africa spring mainly from the fact that Africa lost power. Power is the ultimate determinant
in human society, being basic to the relations within any group and between groups. It implies the
ability to defend one's interests and if necessary to impose one's will by any means available.
In relations between peoples, the question of power determines maneuverability in bargaining, the
extent to which a people survive as a physical and cultural entity. When one society finds itself
forced to relinquish power entirely to another society, that in itself is a form of underdevelopment"
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.