Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
U.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command
opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Too much training to send to jail.
While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!
Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
U.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command
opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Too much training to send to jail.
While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the
U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 7.4 percent ** of what
the U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the
U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
(I see my comment on military spending here created a bit of confusion. I was looking at the
U.S. share of the commitment, 0.25 percent of its GDP and comparing it to the roughly 4.0 percent
of GDP it spends on the military. That comes to 6 percent. I was not referring to the whole $100
billion.)
Defense spending was 60.3% of federal government consumption and investment in July through
September 2015.
(Billions of dollars)
$738.3 / $1,224.4 = 60.3%
Defense spending was 23.1% of all government consumption and investment in July through
September 2015.
$738.3 / $3,200.4 = 23.1%
Defense spending was 4.1% of Gross Domestic Product in July through September 2015.
$738.3 / $18,064.7 = 4.1%
djb said in reply to djb...
oh never mind I get it
.25 % is 6 percent of the percent us spends on military
the 40 trillion is the gdp of all the countries
got it
anne said in reply to djb...
"I get it:
.25 % is 6 percent of the percent US spends on military."
So .25 percent of United States GDP for climate change assistance to poor countries is 6 percent
of the amount the US spends on the military.
.0025 x $18,064.7 billion GDP = $45.16 billion on climate change
$45.16 billion on climate change / $738.3 billion on the military = 0.61 or 6.1 percent of
military spending
anne said in reply to anne...
United States climate change assistance to poor countries will be .25 percent of GDP or 6% of
US military spending.
anne said in reply to anne...
What the United States commitment to climate change assistance for poor countries means is spending
about $45.2 billion yearly or .25 percent of GDP. Whether the President can convince Congress
to spend the $45 billion yearly will now have to be answered.
anne said in reply to djb...
"I get it:
.25 % is 6 percent of the [amount] US spends on military."
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the
U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
(I see my comment on military spending here created a bit of confusion. I was looking at the
U.S. share of the commitment, 0.25 percent of its GDP and comparing it to the roughly 4.0 percent
of GDP it spends on the military. ** That comes to 6 percent. I was not referring to the whole
$100 billion.)
There was an article in one of the Mexico City dailies today, written in response to the
shootings in San Bernardino, that cited some numbers that were news to me:
1) The United States is the #1 small arms manufacturer in the world
2) 83% of small arms manufactured in the world are manufactured in the United States
3) The US's closest competitor is Russia, which manufactures 11% of the world's small arms
4) Small arms are the US's third largest export product, surpassed only by aircraft and agricultural
products
5) The US market itself consumes 15 million small arms per year, and there are 300 million
small arms currently in the posession of US private citizens
6) Saudi Arabia, however, is by far and away the largest small arms consumer in the world,
and purchases 33.1% of all small arms produced in the world
7) Saudi Arabia then re-distributes these small arms to its allies in Syria, Lybia, etc.
8) So far in 2015, there have been 351 "mass shootings" in the United States in which 447 persons
have been killed and another 290 wounded
9) The world's leading human rights organizations never speak of the bloodbath ocurring around
the world due to the proliferation of small arms, much less the United Nations Security Council.
10) Both the United States and Russia seem quite content to keep any talk of small arms proliferation
off the agenda.
War tends to perpetuate itself. As soon as one brute gets killed, another takes his place; when the
new guy falls, another materializes.
Consider Richard Nixon's intensification of the American war on Cambodia. In hopes of maintaining
an advantage over the Communists as he withdrew American troops from Southeast Asia, Nixon ravaged
Vietnam's western neighbor with approximately
500,000 tons
of bombs between 1969 and 1973. But instead of destroying the Communist menace, these attempts
to buttress Nguyen Van Thieu's South Vietnamese government and then Lon Nol's Cambodian government
only transformed it. The bombings led many of Nixon's early targets to desert the eastern
region of the country in favor of Cambodia's interior where they organized with the Khmer Rouge.
As a CIA official noted in 1973, the Khmer Rouge started to
"us[e] damage
caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda." By appealing to Cambodians who were
affected by the bombing raids, this brutal Communist organization, a peripheral batch of 10,000 fighters
in 1969, had expanded by 1973 into a formidable army with 20 times as many members. Two years later,
they seized control of Phnom Penh and murdered more than
one million of their compatriots in a grisly
genocide.
The following decade, when war erupted between the forces of Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the United States hedged its bets by providing military assistance to
both
governments as they slaughtered
hundreds of thousands
of people. But when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, ousted the emir, and ultimately assassinated about
1,000 Kuwaitis, the
United States turned on its former ally with an incursion that directly killed
3,500 innocent Iraqis and suffocated
100,000
others through the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. The US also maintained an embargo against
Iraq throughout the 1990s, a program that contributed to the deaths of
500,000
Iraqis and that UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Dennis Halliday deemed "genocidal"
when he explained his 1998 resignation.
The newly restored Kuwaiti government, for its part, retaliated against minority groups for their
suspected "collaboration" with the Iraqi occupiers. The government threw Palestinians out of schools,
fired its Palestinian employees, and threatened thousands with "arbitrary
arrest, torture, rape, and murder." Beyond that, Kuwait interdicted the reentry of more than
150,000 Palestinians and tens of thousands of
Bedoons who had evacuatedKuwait when the tyrant Saddam took over. Thus, years of American maneuvering to achieve peace
and security – by playing Iran and Iraq off of each other, by privileging Kuwaiti authoritarians
over Iraqi authoritarians, by killing tens of thousands of innocent people who got in the way – failed.
The chase continues today as the United States targets the savage "Islamic State," another monster
that the West inadvertently
helped create by assisting foreign militants. History suggests that this war against Islamism,
if taken to its logical extreme, will prove to be an endless game of whack-a-mole. Yes, our government
can assassinate some terrorists; what it cannot do is stop aggrieved
civilian victims of Western bombings from replacing the dead by
becoming terrorists
themselves. Furthermore, even if ISIS disappeared tomorrow, there would still exist soldiers – in
Al-Qaeda, for instance – prepared to fill the void. That will remain true no matter how many bombs
the West drops, no matter how many weapons it tenders to foreign militias, no matter how many authoritarian
governments it buttresses in pursuit of "national security."
So, what are we to do when foreign antagonists, whatever the source of their discontent, urge
people to attack us? We should abandon the Sisyphean task of eradicating anti-American sentiments
abroad and invest in security at home. Gathering foreign intelligence is important when it allows
us to strengthen our defenses here, but bombing people in Iraq and Syria, enabling the Saudi
murder of
Yemenis, and deploying troops to
Cameroon are futile steps when enemy organizations can constantly replenish their supply of fighters
by propagandizing among natives who deplore Western intervention.
This understanding, though underappreciated in contemporary American government, reflects a noble
American tradition. John Quincy Adams, for his part, loved an America that "goes not abroad in
search of monsters to destroy." Decades later, Jeannette Rankin doubted the benefits of American
interventionism, contending that "you can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
Martin Luther King Jr. warned that "violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem:
it merely creates new and more complicated ones." These leaders adamantly rejected an American politics
of unending aggressive war. It is time for us to do the same.
Tommy Raskin is a contributor to the Good Men Project and Foreign Policy in Focus.
Konstantin Murakhtin, a navigator who was rescued in a joint operation by Syrian and Russian commandos, told Russian media: "There
were no warnings, either by radio or visually. There was no contact whatsoever."
He also denied entering Turkish airspace. "I could see perfectly on the map and on the ground where the border was and where we
were. There was no danger of entering Turkey," he said.
The apparent hardening of both countries' versions of events came as Russian warplanes carried out heavy raids in Syria's northern
Latakia province, where the plane came down. Tuesday's incident – the first time a Nato member state has shot down a Russian warplane
since the Korean war – risks provoking a clash over the ongoing conflict in Syria, where Russia has intervened to prop up the regime
of Bashar al-Assad.
... ... ...
Later, in a telephone call with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, Lavrov said Turkey's actions were a "gross violation" of
an agreement between Moscow and Washington on air space safety over Syria. The state department said Kerry called for calm and more
dialogue between Turkish and Russian officials.
... ... ...
Russian officials made it clear that despite the fury the reaction would be measured. There is no talk of a military response,
and no suggestion that diplomatic relations could be cut or the Turkish ambassador expelled from Moscow. However, the tone of relations
between the two countries is likely to change dramatically.
... ... ...
A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, hit out at the US state department official Mark Toner, who said the
Turkmen fighters who shot the Russian airman as he parachuted to the ground could have been acting in self defence. "Remember these
words, remember them forever. I will never forget them, I promise," Zakharova wrote on Facebook.
"... Recently, Moscow's rapprochement with the Syrian Kurds, the PYD, only added to the huge complexity of the situation. ..."
"... any solution of the Syrian conflict will be based on a precondition that the US and Russia put aside their differences, ..."
"... At least one good thing has come from all of this. At least it took Putin to be the first leader to openly say exactly what turkey actually is. A despicable, Islamist supporting vile wolf in Sheep's clothing. ..."
"... well , just think for a second .... all the image - they were shooting him while he was in the air , shouting "Allah Akbar " then they showed a photo with dead pilot , being proud of that ..... Those ppl are the "hope" for a Syria post-Assad....don't you feel that something is wrong here ? ..."
"... Also as soon as the noble Turkman started shooting at the pilot and navigator once they'd bailed out of the plane they showed themselves to be the terrorists they are. Playing "no prisoners" against Russia. ..."
"... At the G20 Antalya summit of Nov 15, Putin embarrassed Obama publicly showing satellite pictures of ridiculously long tanker lines waiting for weeks to load oil from ISIS, as the coalition spared them any trouble. "I've shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil," said Putin. ..."
"... So there you have it. For 15 months, the US didn't touch the oil trade that financed ISIS affairs, until Russia shamed them into it. Then, the mightiest army in the world bombs 400 trucks, while Russia destroys 1000. Then Russia provides videos of its airstrikes, while the US doesn't, and PBS is caught passing off Russian evidence as American. ..."
"... Of course Turkey did not need to down this jet: well planned and a clear provocation to start the propaganda war against Russia which actually wants to stop this war before a transition without a pre-planned (US) outcome. ..."
"... With Saudi and Turkish support for ISIS , just who have they bothered saving and sending out into Europe amongst their name taking and slaughters ? Wahabists? How many cells set up now globally? ..."
"... The turkmen are illegally staging war. Russia is the only country legally in Syria. That's why CIA, Saudi, Turk, Israel etc etc etc operate clandestine. But they all enjoy bombing hotheads. A pity so many of them think their brands of religion or old stories from centuries ago of enemies have any bearing today. Or perhaps they just believe rich mens newspapers and media too much. Maybe all their educations and futures were lost by gangsters that were funded and protected and given country ownership for oil and now forces clean up their centuries long mess for newer deals. ..."
"... I thought Russia was INVITED by the Syrian Gov. to assist them in eradicating ALL rebel factions including a bunch of Turkmen rebels funded by Erdogan. No others operating in Syria are legitimate. Any cowards shouting Allah uakbar and killing POWs should be eradicated ..."
"... According to the BBC the Turkmen fight with Al Nusra. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389 UN Resolution 2249 calls not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups. ..."
"... I also know Turkey has been "laundering" ISIS oil from Syria and Iraq to the tune of $2 million/day. ..."
"... Well, a US Air Force has now also suggested that the Turkish shooting down of the Russian had to have been a pre-planned provocation. Also US officials have said it cannot be confirmed that the Russian jet incurred into Turkish territory. And of course there is the testimony of the Russian pilot. ..."
"... What ethnic cleansing??? Assad has a multi sect and multi ethnic government. Meanwhile western and Turkish backed jihadist have openly said they will massacre every last Kurd,Christian,Alawi and Druze in the country. ..."
"... Shooting down the Russian plane was Turkey's way of flexing its muscles. The murder of the pilot in the parashoot was a cowardly act. These are the people the US are backing. They can be added to Obama's list of most favored and join the ranks of the Saudis who behead and crucify protesters ..."
"... Erdogan is playing both NATO and Russia for fools. Trying to create a wedge and sabotage the restoration of stability in Syria. ..."
"... It is all a giant make-believe. They are only using ISIS as a pretext to occupy and breakup Syria. And Western populations swallow all these lies without blinking and feel victimized by refugees. ..."
"... Now, I'd bet that Putin has no plans to exacerbate the current situation by shooting down any Turkish jets out of revenge for yesterday's incident. But it will be unsettling for Turkish flyboys and their bosses to know that a good chunk of their a airspace is totally vulnerable and they fly there only because Russia lets them. ..."
"... it's astonishing how many of the Putin hating NATObots from the Ukrainian-themed CIF threads turn out to be ISIS supporters. ..."
"... indeed, with the "stench" of US grand mufti all over them.. How far do you think Obama will bow on his next visit to Saudi. ..."
"... Yup the FT estimated before the Russians got involved that ISIS were producing between 30,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil a day. You would need over 2000 full size road tankers just to move one days output. Now its fair to assume after filling up it takes more than a day before it gets back to the pump. Surprisingly the US has neither noticed all these tankers and even more surprisingly the oil tanks and installations. ..."
"... The whole regime change plan is hanging in the balance and every day Russia solidifies Assad's position. If this continues for even another month it will be virtually impossible for the Western alliance to demand the departure of Assad. ..."
"... Their bargaining position is diminishing by the day and it is great to watch. Also good to read that the Russians have been pounding the shi*e out of those Turkmen areas. Expect those silly buggers to be slaughtered whilst Erdogan and the Turks watch on helplessly. If they even try anything inside the Syrian border now the Russians will annihilate them. ..."
"... Erdogan's reaction to Syria shooting down a Turkish jet in 2012. "Erdogan criticized Syria harshly on Tuesday for shooting down the Turkish fighter jet, saying: "Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack." "It was clear that this plane was not an aggressive plane. Still it was shot down," the corrupt ISIS supporting scumbag said" ..."
The nervousness displayed by the AKP administration, in Ankara, has a lot to do with Turkey's Syria policy being in ever-growing
disarray, and its failure to set priorities to help resolve the conflict. As the Syrian quagmire deepened, old anti-Kurdish fixations
in Ankara came to the surface, and clashed with the priorities of its allies, centred on Isis. Ankara's blocking moves against the
only combat force on ground, the PKK-YPG axis, has impeded the fight against jihadists, and its constant redrawing of red-lines (Kurds,
Turkmens, no-fly zone, Assad gone etc) may have been frustrating the White House, but does not seem to affect Moscow. Recently,
Moscow's rapprochement with the Syrian Kurds, the PYD, only added to the huge complexity of the situation.
In the recent G20 summit, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was once more keen to underline that "terror has no religion and there
should be no our terrorist and your terrorist"
... ... ...
So, the tension now rises between one determined and one undecided, conflicted player – one lucid on strategy, the other lacking
it. If any, the lesson to be drawn from this showdown is this: any solution of the Syrian conflict will be based on a precondition
that the US and Russia put aside their differences, agree in principle on the future of the region, build a joint intelligence
gathering and coordinated battle scheme against jihadists, and demand utter clarity of the positions of their myopic, egocentric
allies. Unless they do so, more complications, and risks beyond turf wars will be knocking at the door
Eugenios -> André De Koning 25 Nov 2015 23:24
Assad is targeted because it is a necessary prelude to an attack on Iran. Pepe Escobar called that long ago. What is sought
is a Syria in the imperialist orbit or in chaos.
Attack on Iran by whom--you ask? Actually several in cahoots, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.
A brief search on the internet shows many items referring to Turkish support for IS.
Now the SAA with Russian support is on the border dealing with the jihadist Turkmen, Turkey's duplicity is in danger of being
revealed .
Hence the impotent rage and desperate pleas for support to its other US coalition partners and the strange reluctance of the
complicit western MSM to fully reveal the lies and double standards of the western allies in this foul business.
Only the other day a US TV program was trying to con its viewers that the US was bombing ISIS oil trucks, with video from a
Russian airstrike.
At least one good thing has come from all of this. At least it took Putin to be the first leader to openly say exactly
what turkey actually is. A despicable, Islamist supporting vile wolf in Sheep's clothing. Who else was buying ISIS oil....the
tooth fairy ? Never in my life did I think I'd be defending the red team yet here I am.
AtelierEclatPekin -> murati 25 Nov 2015 23:06
well , just think for a second .... all the image - they were shooting him while he was in the air , shouting "Allah Akbar
" then they showed a photo with dead pilot , being proud of that ..... Those ppl are the "hope" for a Syria post-Assad....don't
you feel that something is wrong here ?
Shankman -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 23:02
He was awfully quick to accept Turkey's version of events.
As for his Nobel "Peace" Prize, Alfred Nobel is probably still turning in his grave.
Lyigushka -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 23:02
Of course Turkey supports ISIS and has done for all its existence as part of an opposition to its main enemies, Assad and the
Kurds.
.....and the censors are out again.....SHAME on you Guardian.
I say again.....MSM now referring to "Turkmen" like they are cuddly toys FFS
They are head chopping....moon howling....islamo-terrorists.
Russia has the right idea....kill the lot them
ianhassall -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 22:56
Also as soon as the noble Turkman started shooting at the pilot and navigator once they'd bailed out of the plane they
showed themselves to be the terrorists they are. Playing "no prisoners" against Russia.
And as for the US - they can bomb a Medicin sans Frontiers field hospital in Afghanistan for 37 minutes and the best excuse
they come out with is "the plane's email stopped working, it didn't know where the target was, they didn't know where they were,
so they just attacked something that looked like". So much for US military's navigation abilities.
NikLot -> LordMurphy 25 Nov 2015 22:44
Dear Lord, where did I defend it?!! How do you read that?!!! Of course it is appalling!!!
I wanted to point out that the 'good terrorist' Turkmen militia or whoever else did it would have done the same to NATO
pilots and that the story should be explored from that angle too. Statement by Turkey's PM today, if true, confirms my concern:
"Davutoglu told his party's lawmakers on Wednesday that Turkey didn't know the nationality of the plane that was brought
down on Tuesday until Moscow announced it was Russian."
ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 22:38
Its amazing that NATO have been bombing ISIS for 2 years and did very little to halt its progress.
Russia's been doing it for a month and have bombed ISIS, the military supplies NATO have been giving ISIS, and the illegal
oil racket that Turkey's been running with ISIS - all at a fraction of the cost that's going into supporting ISIS and other Syrian
terrorist groups.
I can see why Turkey's upset. Also anyone who thinks Turkey shot down this plane without the approval of NATO and Obama is
kidding themselves. Obama has blood up to his armpits with what's been going on in Syria, despite his Peace Prize credentials.
luella zarf -> ArundelXVI 25 Nov 2015 22:28
OK I did some research and I was somewhat wrong, Russia did initiate the bombing of the oil delivery system, but at the G20
summit. This is the actual chronology:
At the G20 Antalya summit of Nov 15, Putin embarrassed Obama publicly showing satellite pictures of ridiculously long tanker
lines waiting for weeks to load oil from ISIS, as the coalition spared them any trouble. "I've shown our colleagues photos taken
from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil," said Putin.
The next day, on Nov 16, the US bombed a truck assembly for the first time in the history of the coalition and then claimed
to have hit 116 oil tankers. In the meantime, Russia carried on its own airstrike campaign, destroying more than 1,000 tankers
and a refinery in a period of just five days, and posting video footage of the airstrikes.
Because the US never made available any recordings, on Nov 19 PBS used footage of Russian fighter jets bombing an oil storage
facility and passed it off as evidence of the US hits. The Moon of Alabama website was the first to notice. On Nov 23, a second
American air raid claimed to have destroyed 283 oil tankers.
So there you have it. For 15 months, the US didn't touch the oil trade that financed ISIS affairs, until Russia shamed
them into it. Then, the mightiest army in the world bombs 400 trucks, while Russia destroys 1000. Then Russia provides videos
of its airstrikes, while the US doesn't, and PBS is caught passing off Russian evidence as American.
idkak -> John Smith 25 Nov 2015 22:17
Currently 18 aircraft are patrolling the area on a daily basis, they must have misread the memo.... Downing a Turkish plane
over Turkish soil, or attacking a NATO aircraft on mission in Syria within the alliance that is currently bombing ISIS or other
terrorist variants... won't be favorable for Russia or their forces in Syria. Even without NATO, Turkey has a very large military
and the location we are talking about is about 2-5 minutes to bomb, and 1-2 minutes to intercept.. so the attack would be about
the same level of strategic stupidity as attacking Russia from the Ukraine.
André De Koning -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 22:16
How naive: downing a jet who fights al-Nusra. Of course Turkey has supported terrorist there for a long time and left the border
between Turkey and Syria porous, so the proxy war can be fought against Assad (just one man (?) always features in the multi-factorial
warfare, which is easy on the ears of simpletons). There were already plans in 1957 and more modern ones in the US to ruin Syria
and take the land and resources and use it for the oil pipelines from Saudi to Turkey (Assad did not sign off in 2009, so war
was bound to happen).
André De Koning 25 Nov 2015 22:11
Imagine a US fighter being shot down? From the beginning of the war Russia and Syria said there were not just peaceful demonstrators,
but people who were shooting and grew into ISIS and Al-Nusra and al-Qaeda. This did not fit the western propaganda and the Divide
and Ruin policy (title of Dan Glazebrook's recent book of articles) which is that Syria was a on the Ruin-map for a long time.
Turkey's Erdogan is intellectually an Islamist and together with Saudi they and the terrorists are fighting this proxy war the
US can hardly afford.
In 7 weeks Russia destroyed more of ISIS infrastructure and oil tankers than the US did in a year (the superpower has managed
to make ISIS increase seven-fold). The only objective is one man: Assad and the ruin of Syria to be 'rebuilt' (plundered) by western
investments and domination of the entire region of the Middle East. The rest is lies to prop up propaganda and doing as if they
bring democracy (like the West does in Saudi?! the biggest friend and weapons buyer. Just like Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, which
did not play ball, it will be destroyed by the West. It gets harder with Russia actually wishing to stop the proxy war: Syria
itself deciding what their future will be? No way as far as US and UK are concerned (and the weak EU following with their businessmen
contingent to reap the benefits). Absolutely disgusting that the people have to suffer it.
Of course Turkey did not need to down this jet: well planned and a clear provocation to start the propaganda war against
Russia which actually wants to stop this war before a transition without a pre-planned (US) outcome.
EightEyedSpy -> Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 21:59
Meanwhile, Turkey just gave the Russians a no-fly zone--against Turks.
Not true - unless Russia intends to breach the resolution unanimously passed by the UN Security Council authorising all member
nations to fight against ISIS on territory controlled by ISIS in Syria.
Pursuant to the Security Council resolution, which Russia voted for, all member nations have the legal right to use Syrian
airspace and traverse Syrian territory for the purpose of fighting ISIS in Syria.
If Russia attempts to impose a no-fly zone against Turkey in Syria, Russia will violate the Security Council resolution ...
btt1943 25 Nov 2015 21:59
Forget about whether Russian jet has infiltrated Turkey's airspace or not as claimed by one and denied by other, the bottom
line is Turkey has been wanting to play a big and decisive role in Syrian conflict and ISIS's rise. Ankara does not wish to see
Russian's growing influence and intervention in the messy region.
Jimmi Cbreeze -> Normin 25 Nov 2015 21:49
With Saudi and Turkish support for ISIS , just who have they bothered saving and sending out into Europe amongst their
name taking and slaughters ? Wahabists? How many cells set up now globally?
Jimmi Cbreeze EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 21:17
The turkmen are illegally staging war. Russia is the only country legally in Syria. That's why CIA, Saudi, Turk, Israel
etc etc etc operate clandestine. But they all enjoy bombing hotheads. A pity so many of them think their brands of religion or
old stories from centuries ago of enemies have any bearing today. Or perhaps they just believe rich mens newspapers and media
too much. Maybe all their educations and futures were lost by gangsters that were funded and protected and given country ownership
for oil and now forces clean up their centuries long mess for newer deals.
And then you have the Murdochs and the Rothchilds and the arms industries.
Because where the people are'nt divided by cunning for profit, they are too lunatic and gangster minded to live in peace with
each other anyway.
The whole matter is a multi joint taskforce of opportunism. And wealth is going for broke stamping and taking as much corporate
ground as possible worldwide.
What chance is there of calling peace? Where and when are all these lunatics going to live in peace and constructively? How
would they with half the the globe shitstirring and funding trouble amongst them for profit and gain?
Turkey has attacked Russia on Syrian soil and Russia is the only country legally at arms in Syria. Makes you wonder that Turkey
does'nt like Turkmen or consider them a problem. That they provoke getting them wiped out of Syria. How could Assad or anyone
govern getting undermined from a dozen directions.
Who knows, the place is a mess. It's no use preaching peace inside the turmoil. It has to come from outside and above. But
it appears with this lot-what peace ever.
Bosula trandq 25 Nov 2015 21:07
Since you can't or don't bother to actually read the Guardian or other papers you probably missed that UN Resolution 2249 calls
not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups in Syria. The Syrian Free Army is linked with
these groups, particularly Al Nusra.
Now you have learned something.
Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 21:04
It seems more likely than not that the Russians will make an effort to capture and try the moderate terrorists who shot the
Russian pilot parachuting. It is a war crime after all. The old Soviets would have dispensed with such niceties as trials, but
the RF is more legalistic. Nicely enough the moderate terrorists identified themselves on video, don't you know?
There may also be several legal cases brought against Erdogan and Turkey.
Meanwhile, Turkey just gave the Russians a no-fly zone--against Turks.
ozhellene -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 20:57
I thought Russia was INVITED by the Syrian Gov. to assist them in eradicating ALL rebel factions including a bunch of Turkmen
rebels funded by Erdogan. No others operating in Syria are legitimate. Any cowards shouting Allah uakbar and killing POWs should
be eradicated
luella zarf -> ArundelXVI 25 Nov 2015 20:54
US air strikes destroys 283 oil tankers used for smuggling to fund terror group. You were saying? I don't know why some people
around here just feel free to make things up.
Give us a break. The US hit ISIS oil tanks 6 full days after Russia released footage which showed its fighter jets targeting
200 oil trucks and a refinery. In 15 months of bombing ISIS, there were no American airstrikes on oil tanks until Russia came
along and showed them how it's done. Even PBS pointed out when reporting the attack "For the first time, the US is attacking oil
delivery trucks."
ozhellene 25 Nov 2015 20:35
will this be a "turkey shoot"? Big mistake Mr Erdogan! You just condemned you Turkmen buddies to be bombed by the Russian bears.
Turkey will never avoid the Kurdish finally taking back their rightful lands, stolen during the Ottoman rule.
Never forget that Kurds make up a lot of your population.....waiting for the right moment...
WalterCronkiteBot 25 Nov 2015 20:32
According to the BBC the Turkmen fight with Al Nusra.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389
UN Resolution 2249 calls not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups.
They might not be explicitly AQ affiliated or Al Nusra itself but they share similar doctrines and fight together. Attacking
them may not be by the word of the resolution but its certainly in the spirit of it.
ianhassall -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 20:13
Whether I think the Turkman should be wiped out is generally irrelevent.
I just know in the past 24 hours I've seen Turkey shoot down a Russian plane over Syria to defend the Turkmen. I also saw the
Turkmen shooting at 2 Russian pilots why they attempted to parachute to safety, and one was killed. And I've seen the Turkmen
fire a Saudi Arabia-supplied TOW missile at a Russian rescue helicopter, destroying it and killing two pilots.
I also know Turkey has been "laundering" ISIS oil from Syria and Iraq to the tune of $2 million/day.
You reap what you sow.
nnedjo 25 Nov 2015 19:49
In the recent G20 summit, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was once more keen to underline that "terror has no religion and there
should be no our terrorist and your terrorist".
Yes, just when Erdogan says this, he thinks only on the Kurds, and wonder why the rest of the world considers the Kurds as
freedom fighters, and only Turkey considers them as [its] terrorists.
However, the main message of this article is correct. In order to achieve peace in the Middle East, first the rest of the world
must come to terms. The divisions in the world, inherited from the times of the Cold War were reflected also on the Islamic world,
and so deepened or even provoked a new sectarian Sunni-Shia divisions and conflicts. So although it's "a chronic disease", it
is fallen now into an acute phase in Syria and Iraq. And the urgency of the case requires that really has to come to some deal,
primarily between the US and Russia, that it could reach the end of the civil war in Syria, but also in Iraq, because it's all
inter-connected. Otherwise, this problem will become even more complicated and prolonged, with unforeseeable consequences.
Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 19:58
Well, a US Air Force has now also suggested that the Turkish shooting down of the Russian had to have been a pre-planned
provocation. Also US officials have said it cannot be confirmed that the Russian jet incurred into Turkish territory. And of course
there is the testimony of the Russian pilot. No doubt the Guardian will be covering these points, yes?
ianhassall -> EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 19:47
Yes, I know. Why shouldn't Turkey defend terrorits and shoot down a Russian jet while its flying missions in Syria and not
incur any wrath.
Russians have been fighting Islamic extremists for a bit longer than the West, who have generally only ever funded or armed
them. I'd believe Putin 99 times out of a 100 before I'd believe Obama once.
illbthr22 -> EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 19:21
What ethnic cleansing??? Assad has a multi sect and multi ethnic government. Meanwhile western and Turkish backed jihadist
have openly said they will massacre every last Kurd,Christian,Alawi and Druze in the country.
Andrew Nichols -> Jeremn 25 Nov 2015 19:14
We don't have a clear, clear understanding of everything that happened today, okay? I've said that and I can keep saying it
all day. We're still trying to determine what happened. It's easy to rush to judgments and to make proclamations and declarations
after an incident like this.
Which is exactly what the US did - by supporting Turkeys side of the story. Dont you wish the journalist would point this out?
Cecile_Trib -> Spiffey 25 Nov 2015 19:12
Turkmen terrorists backed by Turkey (now from the air) are there not to fight with Assad but to wipe out Kurds in this region
- Edorgan's sweet dream to get the political weight back.
Amazing how Russia attacking the ISIS oil operation can suddenly embarrass the Yanks into doing the obvious. Why didn't they
do it before? If ISIS and their FSA buddies loses they can't get rid of Assad for Bibi, simples. The good old FSA, chanting Jihad
and carrying white on black Al Qaeda flags. We have an interesting idea of what "moderate" is. Then again Blair was a moderate
and he.... ummm....errrr....oops!
luella zarf -> TheOutsider79 25 Nov 2015 18:38
are France the only honest brokers in all of this, the only ones actually doing what they say they are doing - targeting
ISIS
No, of course not. It's all spin. France, which was Syria's colonial master, is hoping to regain some of its former influence.
ISIS is just a pretext, and they really have no incentive of destroying their only justification for being there in the first
place.
When France launched its first airstrikes in Sep, Reuters wrote: "Paris has become alarmed by the possibility of France being
sidelined in negotiations to reach a political solution in Syria. A French diplomatic source said Paris needed to be one of the
"hitters" in Syria - those taking direct military action - to legitimately take part in any negotiations for a political solution
to the conflict."
This is why they are participating - to get a seat at the table when the great powers break up Syria and hand out land rights
for pipelines to big oil.
SallyWa -> HHeLiBe 25 Nov 2015 18:46
Turkey has no interest in the peaceful settlement to the conflict in Syria that world powers are negotiating. As it gets desperate,
Turkey will attempt to bring focus back on the Assad regime and reverse the losses it has made both in Syria and geopolitically.
SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:45
Really? I guess I'll have to take your word for that.
Really. That's sort of your issue, not mine.
Do you have any links to support your claims about these lost ISIS territories?
Although there has been a war of words between Greece and Turkey, with Turkey charging the Greeks with invading its air space,
Turkey has yet to fire on a Greek plane. The turkmen are considered "moderates, and the US arm them to fight the Assad government.
Shooting down the Russian plane was Turkey's way of flexing its muscles. The murder of the pilot in the parashoot was a cowardly
act. These are the people the US are backing. They can be added to Obama's list of most favored and join the ranks of the Saudis
who behead and crucify protesters, one upmanship over ISIS gruesome beheadings, and of course there is alSiSi, who executes
all opposition. Petroshenko, wants to freeze the people of Crimea, and has over 6500 Ukrainian deaths notched on his belt since
Nuland and Obama gave him the keys to Kiev.
Turkey feels feisty right now, but he obviously isn't aware of the talk coming from Washington about dividing up Syria among
four leaders like they did to Berlin.
Turkey will have no part to play, and the US really wants to keep Russia out of the picture. They blame Assad for ISIS but
the vacuum left by the US and the coalition left in Iraq is what gave birth to ISIS. Easy to depose governments, and then let
chaos reign. Since Obama keeps bringing up the right of a sovereign nation to protect its borders, he should realize that the
Syrian government never invited the US onto its soil. The Turkmen through their actions have shown they are terrorists, and Russia
will treat them accordingly.
HHeLiBe 25 Nov 2015 18:32
Erdogan is playing both NATO and Russia for fools. Trying to create a wedge and sabotage the restoration of stability in
Syria.
Branko Dodig 25 Nov 2015 18:26
The Russian plane was shot over Syrian airspace. Even if it had strayed over Turkish airspace, it was not shot down there.
Basically, an act of revenge for bombing their "rebel" buddies.
SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:24
It is "Turkey screwed up and overreacted". Not confusing at all.
SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:23
Sorry, but I'm not Russian and also where have you been - Russia has been fighting ISIS in Syria better than US/coalition,
though US/coalition did it like for a whole year.The result is that ISIS lost territories which it gained under US's "watch".
centerline 25 Nov 2015 18:12
Since the G20 meeting, Russia has photographed and destroyed the Turkish/ISIS oil convoys.
In the day or so since Turkey shot down the Russian plane in defence of al Qaeda, Russia has for the first time attacked a
Turkish logistics convoy to ISIS and al Qaeda right at the main border crossing to Allepo. A number of trucks destroyed and 7
killed in that operation. turkey will pay dearly in the days to come, without Russia ever having to move into Turkish territory.
Any Turks running errands for AQ and ISIS within Syria will now be an endangered species. Or more to the point they will simply
be eradicated like the vermin they are.
luella zarf -> TonyBlunt 25 Nov 2015 18:10
What a joke.
In one year of bombing, August 2014-July 2015, the coalition conducted 44,000 airstrikes in Syria-Iraq and killed 15,000 ISIS
fighters, which comes at 3 sorties per terrorist!
It is all a giant make-believe. They are only using ISIS as a pretext to occupy and breakup Syria. And Western populations
swallow all these lies without blinking and feel victimized by refugees.
pfox33 25 Nov 2015 17:49
The US and Israel were totally freaking when Russia first considered selling Iran S-300 systems, even though they're defensive.
It would have taken the feasibility of bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure to an unknown place. Russia sold these systems to
select customers, like China. The S-400 is not for sale. Any search of Youtube will explain why.
When the S-400 is set up around Latakia they will effectively own the surrounding skies for 400 miles in every direction. That
extends well into Turkey.
Now, I'd bet that Putin has no plans to exacerbate the current situation by shooting down any Turkish jets out of revenge
for yesterday's incident. But it will be unsettling for Turkish flyboys and their bosses to know that a good chunk of their a
airspace is totally vulnerable and they fly there only because Russia lets them.
So maybe the Turks pissed in the pickles. This little problem is keeping the Nato nabobs up at night. They haven't said a fucking
word.
Geraldine Baxter -> SallyWa 25 Nov 2015 17:47
it's astonishing how many of the Putin hating NATObots from the Ukrainian-themed CIF threads turn out to be ISIS supporters.
indeed, with the "stench" of US grand mufti all over them.. How far do you think Obama will bow on his next visit to Saudi.
Liesandstats -> luella zarf 25 Nov 2015 17:47
Yup the FT estimated before the Russians got involved that ISIS were producing between 30,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil
a day. You would need over 2000 full size road tankers just to move one days output. Now its fair to assume after filling up it
takes more than a day before it gets back to the pump. Surprisingly the US has neither noticed all these tankers and even more
surprisingly the oil tanks and installations.
jonsid 25 Nov 2015 17:33
An article about Syria is now infested with Banderites. They need to worry more about their own long-time disaster of a country
instead of stalking every article mentioning Russia.
Anette Mor 25 Nov 2015 17:29
Russians spent all this time signing the rules of engagement and recognition of each other air crafts over Syria with the US,
only to be shot by Turkey. Does NATO even exist as a unit other than in the headquarter offices? They constantly refer to the
terms which could allegedly force then to support each other in case of external threat, while clearly they will fuck each other
on technicalities for years before doing anything practically viable. Russia waste their time talking to NATO, instead had to
bribe Turkey separately into a workable local deal. I am sure Turkey got just the same conclusion after wasting time in NATO talks.
Corruption and complicity eaten away common sense in western politician and military heads. They only think how weak or strong
they would look imitating one or another decision.
aretheymyfeet -> psygone 25 Nov 2015 17:22
Hilarious, checkmate Putin? The only reason the Turks took this drastic action is because the Western alliance has lost the
initiative in Syria and they are desperately trying to goad Russia into overreacting. But, as we have seen time and again from
the Russians (Lavrov is an incredibly impressive Statesman) that they are cool headed, and restrained.
The whole regime change plan is hanging in the balance and every day Russia solidifies Assad's position. If this continues
for even another month it will be virtually impossible for the Western alliance to demand the departure of Assad.
Their bargaining position is diminishing by the day and it is great to watch. Also good to read that the Russians have
been pounding the shi*e out of those Turkmen areas. Expect those silly buggers to be slaughtered whilst Erdogan and the Turks
watch on helplessly. If they even try anything inside the Syrian border now the Russians will annihilate them. I'd say if
anything, the Turks have strengthened the Russians providing them with the perfect excuse to close the Syrian air space to "unfriendly"
forces. Check.
thatshowitgoes 25 Nov 2015 16:56
Erdogan's reaction to Syria shooting down a Turkish jet in 2012. "Erdogan criticized Syria harshly on Tuesday for shooting
down the Turkish fighter jet, saying: "Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack."
"It was clear that this plane was not an aggressive plane. Still it was shot down," the corrupt ISIS supporting scumbag said"
SallyWa -> psygone 25 Nov 2015 16:56
means he's politically impotent, militarily boxed in a corner and incompetent for self-inflicting
You know you just described Obama and all his policies in a nutshell.
Bob Nassh -> keepithuman 25 Nov 2015 16:54
I believe there's conditions within the NATO treaty that prevent them from defending another member nation providing the conflict
was instigated by war crimes committed by the member nation.
The US doesn't bomb ISIS, only pretends it does. Actually nobody bombs ISIS there except Russia.
Only between August 2014 and July 2015 the coalition aircraft have flown nearly 44,000 sorties, according to USNews, and Airwars
said the strikes have killed more than 15,000 Islamic State militants during this period.
So they needed 3 sorties per terrorist! I have no idea how they manage to be this ineffective unless a) they are world's worst
airforce b) it's all make-believe. My money is on option b).
Yury Kobyzev -> Valois1588 25 Nov 2015 16:41
Now fact - turkey government is on ISIS side. Its simplifies situation. Russia now quite free to clean the Turkey border from
interface with ISIS. It's half a job in fight.
I don't see why Russia can be damaged by so stupid current west policy. I think that clever part of west will change policy
towards Russia in near future and will find there friends as it was during ww2. You can repeat mantra Pu... tin as I use Ooom
... but is he of your level?
Chummy15 25 Nov 2015 16:30
Turkey has made it pretty clear where its primary loyalties lie, with ISIS and the other anti-Assad elements. It was a foolish
move shooting down the Russian plane which clearly was no threat to the security of Turkey whether or not it had violated Turkish
airspace, something that happen around the world regularly. It adds a further dimension to an already complicated war
Vatican City (AFP) - Christmas festivities will seem empty in a world which has chosen "war and hate", Pope Francis said Thursday.
"Christmas is approaching: there will be lights, parties, Christmas trees and nativity scenes ... it's all a charade. The world
continues to go to war. The world has not chosen a peaceful path," he said in a sermon.
"There are wars today everywhere, and hate," he said after the worst terror attack in French history, the bombing of a Russian
airliner, a double suicide bombing in Lebanon, and a series of other deadly strikes.
"We should ask for the grace to weep for this world, which does not recognise the path to peace. To weep for those who live for
war and have the cynicism to deny it," the Argentine pontiff said, adding: "God weeps, Jesus weeps". ...
"... With less than 12 weeks to go before the New Hampshire primary, all Bernie Sanders has is New
Hampshire. ..."
"... In Iowa, Hillary Clinton leads him by 18 points. In South Carolina, Clinton is ahead of Sanders
by 54 points. Nationally, the latest poll had Clinton's lead at 33 percentage points. ..."
"... Over the past month it has become clear that New Hampshire is no longer Bernie Sanders's firewall,
but it remains the only reason he has an argument that there is a contest at all. Should Clinton ever
take a double-digit lead in the Granite State, there will be nothing for anyone to talk about in terms
of the Democratic contest. ..."
"... A substantial lead in the polls could prompt any candidate to look beyond the primary to try
to get a head start on the general election, but in Mrs. Clinton's case, gazing past Mr. Sanders to
next November is part of the intensified strategy to defeat him. ..."
"... "They are running on the same economic policies that have failed us before," Mrs. Clinton said
at a rally in Memphis on Friday. She did not mention Mr. Sanders, but his stances on wealth and income
have seemed to influence his rival's populist tone. "Trickledown economics, cut taxes on the wealthy,
get out of the way of big corporations," she said. "Well, we know how that story ends, don't we?" ..."
"... Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said Mrs. Clinton's obsession with the Republican
Party is a tactic to diminish her main Democratic primary opponent, whose economic message has attracted
enormous crowds and enthusiasm. ..."
"... "We are much closer to Secretary Clinton today than Senator Obama was in 2008," Mr. Weaver
said. "I don't think they think this is locked up." ..."
"... Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton holds a 25 percentage point lead against Mr. Sanders nationally,
according to a Bloomberg Politics poll released on Friday, compared with a nine percentage point advantage
in the same poll conducted in September that also included Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who later
said he would not seek the nomination. ..."
"... The primary is by no means determined. Polls in Iowa, in particular, tend to undercount Mr.
Sanders's young supporters who do not have landline phones, his aides say. And he continues to lead
in some polls in New Hampshire, a state that was supposed to be a stronghold for Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... Even as Mrs. Clinton focuses firmly on the Republicans, her campaign is increasing its indirect,
if aggressive, moves to squeeze Mr. Sanders. She has secured the backing of major labor unions, including
most recently the Service Employees International Union, which has two million members. Her campaign
has emphasized Mrs. Clinton's commitment to gun control, an issue that Mr. Sanders, as a senator from
a hunting state, has been less vehement about, and she delivered a major foreign policy speech on Thursday
in New York, the same day Mr. Sanders delivered a speech about Democratic socialism in Washington. ("Ah,
the attempted bigfoot," Mr. Weaver said of the timing of the two speeches. The Clinton campaign announced
its speech a day earlier than the Sanders team.) ..."
"... Hillary Clintons speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly what
to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down on the existing,
failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of State. ..."
"... The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly
to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the region,
try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists, and thereby
creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world by the forces created
by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change. ..."
With less than 12 weeks to go before the New Hampshire primary, all Bernie Sanders has
is New Hampshire.
In Iowa, Hillary Clinton leads him by 18 points. In South Carolina, Clinton is ahead of
Sanders by 54 points. Nationally, the latest poll had Clinton's lead at 33 percentage points.
But in New Hampshire a poll this week showed the race tied. And last night, the state's largest
union decided to endorse him, bucking the national union which announced it was with Clinton.
Over the past month it has become clear that New Hampshire is no longer Bernie Sanders's
firewall, but it remains the only reason he has an argument that there is a contest at all. Should
Clinton ever take a double-digit lead in the Granite State, there will be nothing for anyone to
talk about in terms of the Democratic contest.
But so far Sanders is hanging on, even if there are some growing pains amid his campaign's
quick attempt to scale up with new campaign cash. Sanders now has more than 60 staffers, and he
opened his 14th campaign office, this one in Laconia, this week. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
There is also a chance that Dems will go with the First Secular Jewish Major Party Candidate,
if The Donald has his say.
Hillary Clinton Looks Past Primaries in Strategy to Defeat Bernie Sanders
By AMY CHOZICK
NOV. 23, 2015
NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. - "Whenever Republicans get into the White House, they mess it up. They
mess it up, folks," Hillary Rodham Clinton told a crowd gathered in a field lined with trees covered
in Spanish moss here on Saturday.
At rallies these days, Mrs. Clinton criticizes the Republican presidential candidates for their
economic policies ("Our economy does better with a Democrat in the White House"); she knocks their
foreign policy approaches and says their positions on immigration and women's issues would set
the country "backwards instead of forwards."
What she does not do is mention her main Democratic primary opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders
of Vermont.
Mrs. Clinton has regained her footing in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and she has locked
in the support of major labor unions and over half the Democratic Party's superdelegates, party
leaders and elected officials, needed to secure the nomination. She is now acting as if she were
no longer running against one rival, Mr. Sanders, but 14: the Republicans who are still preoccupied
with cutting down one another.
A substantial lead in the polls could prompt any candidate to look beyond the primary to
try to get a head start on the general election, but in Mrs. Clinton's case, gazing past Mr. Sanders
to next November is part of the intensified strategy to defeat him.
Even voters who support Mr. Sanders often say that Mrs. Clinton appears more electable when
compared with a Republican nominee. And while her economic message, considering her ties to Wall
Street and the "super PAC" supporting her, can seem muddled when contrasted with Mr. Sanders's,
it sounds more forceful to Democratic voters compared with Republican proposals. And, as a campaign
aide points out, the Republican candidates consistently criticize Mrs. Clinton, so it makes sense
for her to punch back.
"I love Bernie, and I feel he'd get something done about the lopsided distribution of wealth
in this country," said Siobhan Hansen, 58, an undecided voter in Charleston. "But," she added,
"I hate to admit it but I just think Hillary has a better chance in the general election."
Even as Mrs. Clinton's campaign has invested heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire and her schedule
revolves around visiting states with early primaries, her message has become a broader rejoinder
reminding voters of the 2008 financial crisis and linking the Republican candidates to the foreclosures
and joblessness that President Obama inherited. It is a strategy her campaign believes will be
effective in a general election contest after having a dry run before the primaries.
"They are running on the same economic policies that have failed us before," Mrs. Clinton
said at a rally in Memphis on Friday. She did not mention Mr. Sanders, but his stances on wealth
and income have seemed to influence his rival's populist tone. "Trickledown economics, cut taxes
on the wealthy, get out of the way of big corporations," she said. "Well, we know how that story
ends, don't we?"
At a town-hall-style event in Grinnell, Iowa, this month, Mrs. Clinton, talking about the importance
of voter participation, even seemed to forget, albeit briefly, that the short-term goal was to
win the Iowa caucuses. "If not me, I hope you caucus for somebody," she said. She paused. "I hope
more of you caucus for me."
Mrs. Clinton is focused on capturing the nomination and has been contrasting herself with the
Republicans since she announced her candidacy in April, the campaign aide said.
Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said Mrs. Clinton's obsession with the Republican
Party is a tactic to diminish her main Democratic primary opponent, whose economic message has
attracted enormous crowds and enthusiasm.
As Mr. Sanders delivered his standard speech about inequality here on Saturday, Mr. Weaver
closely watched the voters in the front row who wore blue "H" T-shirts, indicating their support
for Mrs. Clinton, as they cheered for Mr. Sanders several times.
"We are much closer to Secretary Clinton today than Senator Obama was in 2008," Mr. Weaver
said. "I don't think they think this is locked up."
Mrs. Clinton may have been helped by the campaign's shift to foreign policy, where Mr. Sanders
is seen as weaker, in the aftermath of the Nov. 13 terrorist attack in Paris. Mrs. Clinton said
in a speech in New York on Thursday that the Republicans' approach to fighting the Islamic State,
compared with her own, amounted to "a choice between fear and resolve." She derided as un-American
the Republicans who said they would either bar Syrian refugees from resettling in the United States
or allow only Christian refugees.
"There are forces no candidate can control, and they can be detrimental," Representative James
E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, said when asked about the newfound focus on defeating
the Islamic State. "I believe in this case third-party forces are working in her favor."
Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton holds a 25 percentage point lead against Mr. Sanders nationally,
according to a Bloomberg Politics poll released on Friday, compared with a nine percentage point
advantage in the same poll conducted in September that also included Vice President Joseph R.
Biden Jr., who later said he would not seek the nomination.
"By turning up the heat on Republicans, going after Trump, that's all part of the essence of
saying, 'I am the leader of the Democratic Party,' " said Robert Shrum, a strategist for Democratic
presidential candidates including John Kerry and Al Gore.
The primary is by no means determined. Polls in Iowa, in particular, tend to undercount
Mr. Sanders's young supporters who do not have landline phones, his aides say. And he continues
to lead in some polls in New Hampshire, a state that was supposed to be a stronghold for Mrs.
Clinton.
Even as Mrs. Clinton focuses firmly on the Republicans, her campaign is increasing its
indirect, if aggressive, moves to squeeze Mr. Sanders.
She has secured the backing of major labor unions, including most recently the Service Employees
International Union, which has two million members. Her campaign has emphasized Mrs. Clinton's
commitment to gun control, an issue that Mr. Sanders, as a senator from a hunting state, has been
less vehement about, and she delivered a major foreign policy speech on Thursday in New York,
the same day Mr. Sanders delivered a speech about Democratic socialism in Washington. ("Ah, the
attempted bigfoot," Mr. Weaver said of the timing of the two speeches. The Clinton campaign announced
its speech a day earlier than the Sanders team.)
Mrs. Clinton has also started to imply that Mr. Sanders's single-payer "Medicare for All" health
care plan would amount to a middle-class tax increase.
In recent days, she has unveiled a plan to give Americans with unexpected medical costs a tax
credit of $2,500 for an individual or $5,000 for a family. On Sunday in Iowa, she introduced another
tax credit to cover up to $6,000 of medical expenses for middle-class families caring for ailing
parents or grandparents. "I believe you deserve a raise, not a tax increase," she said in Memphis.
The Sanders campaign said that his plan would save the average family $5,000 a year through
the elimination of premiums, deductibles and co-payments, and it called Mrs. Clinton's plan "Republican-lite"
because it proposed short-term tax cuts over long-term benefits.
Mrs. Clinton's opponents point out that there is no more precarious place for her to be than
when she seems inevitable, as she did in the early months of the 2008 Democratic primary before
she finished third in the Iowa caucuses behind Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards.
This month, just after Mrs. Clinton had officially put her name on the ballot in New Hampshire,
she sat down to take some questions from the local reporters who gathered around her in a cramped
room at the State House in Concord. The first question: "How does it feel to once again be inevitable?"
Mrs. Clinton said she had put her name on the ballot in that very room in 2007. "I'm back again,"
she said. "I intend to do everything I can to work as hard as possible to be successful this time."
Hillary Clinton and the ISIS Mess
By Jeffrey D. Sachs
Hillary Clinton's speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly
what to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down
on the existing, failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of
State.
The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly
to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the
region, try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists,
and thereby creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world
by the forces created by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change.
In rare cases, great presidents learn to stand up to the CIA and the rest of the military-industrial-intelligence
complex. JFK became one of the greatest presidents in American history when he came to realize
the awful truth that his own military and CIA advisors had contributed to the onset of the Cuban
Missile Crisis. The CIA-led Bay of Pigs fiasco and other CIA blunders had provoked a terrifying
response from the Soviet Union. Recognizing that the U.S. approach had contributed to bringing
the world to the brink, Kennedy bravely and successfully stood up to the warmongering pushed by
so many of his advisors and pursued peace, both during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He
thereby saved the world from nuclear annihilation and halted the unchecked proliferation of nuclear
arms.
Clinton's speech shows that she and her advisors are good loyalists of the military-industrial-intelligence
complex. Her speech included an impressive number of tactical elements: who should do the bombing
and who should be the foot soldiers. Yet all of this tactical precision is nothing more than business
as usual. Would Clinton ever have the courage and vision to push back against the U.S. security
establishment, as did JFK, and thereby restore global diplomacy and reverse the upward spiral
of war and terror?
Just as the CIA contributed to the downward slide to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and just as
many of JFK's security chiefs urged war rather than negotiation during that crisis, so too today's
Middle East terrorism, wars, and refugee crises have been stoked by misguided CIA-led interventions.
Starting in 1979, the CIA began to build the modern Sunni jihadist movement, then known as the
Mujahedeen, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The CIA recruited young Sunni Muslim men
to fight the Soviet infidel, and the CIA provided training, arms, and financing. Yet soon enough,
this US-created jihadist army turned on the US, a classic and typical case of blowback.
The anti-U.S. and anti-Western blowback started with the first Gulf War in 1990, when the U.S.
stationed troops throughout the region. It continued with the Second Gulf War, when the U.S. toppled
a Sunni regime in Iraq and replaced it with a puppet Shia regime. In the process, it dismantled
Saddam's Sunni-led army, which then regrouped as a core part of ISIS in Iraq.
Next the U.S. teamed up with Saudi Arabia to harass, and then to try to topple Bashir al-Assad.
His main crime from the perspective of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia: being too close to Iran. Once
again, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia turned to Sunni jihadists with arms and financing, and part of
that fighting force morphed into ISIS in Syria. The evidence is that the covert U.S. actions against
Assad pre-date the overt U.S. calls for Assad's overthrow in 2011 by at least a couple of years.
In a similar vein, the U.S. teamed up with France and the UK to bomb Libya and kill Muammar
Qaddafi. The result has been an ongoing Libyan civil war, and the unleashing of violent jihadists
across the African Sahel, including Mali, which suffered the terrorist blow last week at the hands
of such marauders.
Thanks to America's misguided policies, we now have wars and violence raging across a 5,000-mile
stretch from Bamako, Mali to Kabul, Afghanistan, with a U.S. hand in starting and stoking the
violence. Libya, Sudan, the Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all cases where
the U.S. has directly intervened with very adverse results. Mali, Chad, Central African Republic,
Somalia are some of the many other countries indirectly caught up in turmoil unleashed by U.S.
covert and overt operations....
Jeffrey D. Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
pgl said in reply to anne...
Jeff Sachs is right to praise Kennedy for not falling in line with the anti Castro nutcases. But
he just skipped over Kennedy's blunder re Vietnam. It was the dumbest thing we had ever done.
But then came March 2003 and Iraq. Hillary Clinton may be too eager for regime change but the
Republicans want to redo the Crusades.
ilsm said in reply to pgl...
Lodge etc. were being lied to by the pentagon reps in RVN, but JFK kept the lid on advisors.
The big mistake on Vietnam was LBJ assuming Goldwater was right.
That said JFK helped usher in the concept of "flexible response" which moved US closer to fitting
out US forces for the past 50 years' quagmires.
Keenan's containment strategy was ruined by NSC 68 which put pentagon responses senior to State.
pgl said in reply to ilsm...
The big mistake on Vietnam was listening to Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara. The Dick Cheney and
Don Rumsfeld of the 1960's.
RGC said in reply to anne...
A Timeline of CIA Atrocities
By Steve Kangas
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed
by the CIA (1)
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad
are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader
because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize
foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment.
So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition.
First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them
a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency
then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy).
It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion,
blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and
disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic
sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which
installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down
on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims
are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor
union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human
rights abuses follow.
This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special
school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning,
Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins."
Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use
of interrogation, torture and murder.
The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as
a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly
calls this an "American Holocaust."
The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not
involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only
threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms,
political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington's dictates, and declarations
of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation's
desire to stay out of the Cold War.
The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American
objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the
CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator
knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington's will. The CIA
then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control,
afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options
for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this "boomerang effect" include the
Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA
has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing
dictatorships.
The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced
by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed - it is
institutionally and culturally corrupt.
1929
The culture we lost - Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation,
saying, "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
1941
COI created - In preparation for World War II, President Roosevelt creates the Office of Coordinator
of Information (COI). General William "Wild Bill" Donovan heads the new intelligence service.
1942
OSS created - Roosevelt restructures COI into something more suitable for covert action, the
Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan recruits so many of the nation's rich and powerful
that eventually people joke that "OSS" stands for "Oh, so social!" or "Oh, such snobs!"
1943
Italy - Donovan recruits the Catholic Church in Rome to be the center of Anglo-American spy
operations in Fascist Italy. This would prove to be one of America's most enduring intelligence
alliances in the Cold War.
1945
OSS is abolished - The remaining American information agencies cease covert actions and return
to harmless information gathering and analysis.
Operation PAPERCLIP – While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for
arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their
use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's master spy who
had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates
the "Gehlen Organization," a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia.
These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the
Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the "Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind
who worked with Eichmann) and SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny (a personal friend of Hitler's). The Gehlen
Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten
years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA However,
much of the "intelligence" the former Nazis provide is bogus. Gehlen inflates Soviet military
capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate
his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces
the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he
produces a fictitious "missile gap." To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated
the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Gehlen
was supposed to protect.
1947
Greece - President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting
communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek
leaders with deplorable human rights records.
CIA created - President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central
Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through
the NSC - there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to "perform
such other functions and duties… as the National Security Council may from time to time direct."
This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.
1948
Covert-action wing created - The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the
Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret
charter, its responsibilities include "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action,
including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile
states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist
elements in threatened countries of the free world."
Italy - The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to
win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition
leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works -- the communists are defeated.
1949
Radio Free Europe - The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over
the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered
illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.
Late 40s
Operation MOCKINGBIRD - The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists
to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles,
Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major
CIA player. Eventually, the CIA's media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated
Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service
and more. By the CIA's own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become
CIA assets.
1953
Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after
he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran,
whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
Operation MK-ULTRA - Inspired by North Korea's brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments
on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to
American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide.
However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford
foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis,
and other forms of suggestion.
1954
Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz
has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director
Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty
policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.
1954-1958
North Vietnam - CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist
government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize
a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win
the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy,
land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating
American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.
1956
Hungary - Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev's Secret Speech,
in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight.
This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a
major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.
1957-1973
Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos' democratic
elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a
member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine"
of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA's army suffers numerous defeats,
the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World
War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.
1959
Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his
own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They
will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal
human rights record.
1961
The Bay of Pigs - The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro's Cuba. But "Operation
Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the
invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro -– which never happens. A promised American
air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA's first public setback, causing President Kennedy
to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.
Dominican Republic - The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington
has supported since 1930. Trujillo's business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent
of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.
Ecuador - The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco
to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency
with its own man.
Congo (Zaire) - The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public
support for Lumumba's politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents
in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.
1963
Dominican Republic - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military
coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.
Ecuador - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not
socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command,
cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
1964
Brazil - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao
Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty
in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America's first death squads, or bands of
secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists"
are no more than Branco's political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death
squads.
1965
Indonesia - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The
CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination
to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor,
General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist."
The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.
Dominican Republic - A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the
country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military
regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.
Greece - With the CIA's backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous
has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.
Congo (Zaire) - A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated
and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.
1966
The Ramparts Affair - The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA
articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars
to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other
universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students'
Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including
draft deferments.
1967
Greece - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections.
The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years,
the "reign of the colonels" - backed by the CIA - will usher in the widespread use of torture
and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about
U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."
Operation PHEONIX - The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged
Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report,
this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."
1968
Operation CHAOS - The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with
Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as
student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are
searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals
and 1,000 organizations.
Bolivia - A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA
wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent
worldwide calls for clemency.
1969
Uruguay - The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political
strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces
them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in
the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to
the death squads rival the Nazis'. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap
and murder him a year later.
1970
Cambodia - The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping
them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian
troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer
Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.
1971
Bolivia - After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup
overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will
have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.
Haiti - "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator
of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA
1972
The Case-Zablocki Act - Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive
agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally
effective.
Cambodia - Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.
Wagergate Break-in - President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices
at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard
Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP),
which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon's illegal campaign
contributions. CREEP's activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.
1973
Chile - The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America's first democratically
elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in
Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende
with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in
a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.
CIA begins internal investigations - William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders
all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is
later reported to Congress.
Watergate Scandal - The CIA's main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post,
reports Nixon's crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters,
Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA's many fingerprints all over the scandal.
It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows
many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep
Throat," is probably one of those.
CIA Director Helms Fired - President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to
help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new
CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.
1974
CHAOS exposed - Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation
CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S.
The story sparks national outrage.
Angleton fired - Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus
Angleton, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns
and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA
House clears CIA in Watergate - The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity
in Nixon's Watergate break-in.
The Hughes Ryan Act - Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence
CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.
1975
Australia - The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime
Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John
Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam
government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the
Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the
nation.
Angola - Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry
Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger's assertions, Angola is a
country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs
the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents
into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976,
but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again.
This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.
"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" - Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing
history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming
an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an
intelligence official in the State Department.
"Inside the Company" - Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA Agee has worked
in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took
part.
Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing - Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on
CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and
Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection
rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number
of reforms intended to increase the CIA's accountability to Congress, including the creation of
a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra
scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.
The Rockefeller Commission - In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee,
President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless
reforms. The commission's namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA
figure. Five of the commission's eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations,
a CIA-dominated organization.
1979
Iran - The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the
rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA's backing of SAVAK, the Shah's bloodthirsty
secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Afghanistan - The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to
any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when
the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess
state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the
World Trade Center bombing in New York.
El Salvador - An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the
poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers
to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back
to "normal" - the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many
of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.
Nicaragua - Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take
over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty
reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of
the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista
government throughout the 1980s.
1980
El Salvador - The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian
to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses.
Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while
saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting
against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming
military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing
atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women
and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.
1981
Iran/Contra Begins - The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits
to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that
the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say 'uncle.'" The CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual
disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery,
blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.
1983
Honduras - The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training
Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras' notorious "Battalion 316" then uses
these techniques, with the CIA's full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least
184 are murdered.
1984
The Boland Amendment - The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments
have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director
William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally
continues supplying the Contras through the CIA's informal, secret, and self-financing network.
This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded
by Iranian arms sales.
1986
Eugene Hasenfus - Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies
to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the
two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes
a mockery of President Reagan's claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.
Iran/Contra Scandal - Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally
captures the media's attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like
Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey
dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the
scandal are purely cosmetic.
Haiti - Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President
for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies
the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the
upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps
the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military
by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture
and assassination.
1989
Panama - The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel
Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with
the CIA's knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega's growing independence and intransigence
have angered Washington… so out he goes.
1990
Haiti - Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand
Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed
military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees
escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide's return,
the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.
1991
The Gulf War - The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, is
another creature of the CIA With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this
costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein's forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence,
training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein's power at home, allowing him to crush the
many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave
him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism - in Kuwait, for example.
The Fall of the Soviet Union - The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold
War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn't been doing
its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the
CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally
failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community's budget
is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.
1992
Economic Espionage - In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly
used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign
companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA's clear preference for dirty tricks
over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.
1993
Haiti - The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove
the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do
not arrest Haiti's military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety
and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda
favorable to the country's ruling class.
EPILOGUE
In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: "By necessity,
the American people will never know the full story of your courage."
Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing
the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem
in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform.
Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.
Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully
clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details
of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA These facts
began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate
and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different
directions.
The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.
(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific
Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed
and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners.
(See Philip Agee's On the Run for an example of early harassment.) However, over the last two
decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have
enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet,
where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency
must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime
example.
Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must
deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with
this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of
democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants.
The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.
Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: "Which American interests?" The
CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's
cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight
the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged
question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?"
The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes
against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal
of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options. The
first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about
the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive
and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members
could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which
of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship,
like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.
North Vietnam - CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist
government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize
a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win
the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy,
land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating
American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War."
We should have let the elections of 1956 go forward. Had we - we could have avoided the entire
Vietnam disaster.
RGC said in reply to pgl...
When you look at that list and you realize that it was done in our name and we were funding it,
it might piss you off a little.
Fred C. Dobbs said...
'Thinking About the Trumpthinkable' - Paul Krugman
Alan Abramowitz reads the latest WaPo poll
and emails:
'Read these results and tell me how Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination? I've been
very skeptical about this all along, but I'm starting to change my mind. I think there's at least
a pretty decent chance that Trump will be the nominee.' ...
Related:
Is Hillary Clinton Any Good at Running for President?
http://nym.ag/1DwluuR via @NYmag - Jazon Zengerle
- April 5
... The election model that's most in vogue - that scored the highest when applied to presidential
elections since World War II, correctly predicting every outcome since 1992 - is one created by
Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz called "Time for a Change." Abramowitz argues that the
fundamentals in a presidential election are bedevilingly simple: the incumbent president's approval
rating in late June or early July, the rate of real GDP growth in the second quarter, and how
many terms the party has been in the White House.
In 2012, for instance, Obama's relatively lopsided victory may have shocked Republicans on
Election Night, but by Abramowitz's reckoning it was practically preordained. Although second-quarter
real GDP growth was a relatively unimpressive 1.5 percent and Obama's approval rating was a good-but-not-great
46 percent that June, he was seeking reelection, and, according to Abramowitz, "first-term incumbents
rarely lose." In fact, he believes that being a first-term incumbent is worth 4 percentage points.
There was nothing in the Abramowitz model that looked good for John McCain in 2008 (bad economy,
bad approval ratings of a second-term president from McCain's party). In 1988, by contrast, George
H.W. Bush was also running to give his party a third term, but Q2 real GDP growth that year was
a booming 5.24 percent and Ronald Reagan's approval rating was above 50 percent.
Sound familiar? "If Obama's approval rating is close to 50 percent and the economy is growing
at a decent rate in the fall of 2016 - both of which seem quite possible, maybe even likely -
then I think Hillary Clinton would have a decent chance of winning," Abramowitz says. But then
there's the "Time for a Change" factor and those four extra points Obama enjoyed in 2012 that
Hillary won't have this time around. In other words, it would be an extremely close race.
Which brings us full circle. "What determines the outcome in 2016," Abramowitz says, "could
very well be the quality of the candidates." ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Tweet: @AlanIAbramowitz
Trump exploits a crack
in the GOP's foundation http://wpo.st/ZHHn0
Fareed Zakaria - Washington
Post - November 12
Today's conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump's best days are behind him and that his poll
numbers will soon descend. Maybe. But Trump has come to represent something fundamental about
the Republican Party: the growing gap between its leaders and its political constituency. Even
if he disappears, this gap is reshaping the GOP.
At the start, Trump's campaign was based largely on his personality. On the issues, he had
a grab bag of positions and lacked coherence and consistency. But like a good businessman, he
seems to have studied his customers - the Republican electorate - and decided to give them what
they want. And what they want is not what their party leaders stand for. ...
pgl said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
"On the issues, he had a grab bag of positions and lacked coherence and consistency. But like
a good businessman, he seems to have studied his customers - the Republican electorate - and decided
to give them what they want. And what they want is not what their party leaders stand for"
What
his customers want is racism. And guess what - the alleged party leaders are racing to the front
to see who can be the most racist. This party has become a dysfunctional disgrace.
"... Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." ..."
"Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons
arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and
world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from
potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth."
Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are
entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth.
Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their
nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at
just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most
important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization."
I just love Prof. Bacevic. Nobody has more credit then him on the subject. Not only for his
unmatched scholarship and laser sharp words, but moreover for the unimaginable personal loss.
He is my hero!!!!
Boogie Knight 1 year ago
How many sons did the NeoCon-Gang sacrifice in their instigated Wars in foreign lands....?
Not one. Bacevich lost his son who was fighting in Iraq in 2007 - for what?!
Yet the NeoCon warcriminals Billy Cristol, Wolfowitz and/or Elliott Abrams are all still
highly respected people that the US media/political elite loves to consult - in 2014!
An excellent explanation of the key postulates of Neoconservatism.
Notable quotes:
"... We need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country
as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isnt ever going to happen. ..."
We need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country
as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isn't ever going to happen.
Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?
Why should my country not support an international court of justice?
Is my country not strong enough to achieve its aims fairly?
When the leaders of a country cause it to do terrible things, what is the best way to restore
the honor of that country?
Is it possible for potential new leaders to raise questions about their country's possible
guilt, without committing political suicide?
Do I deserve retribution from aggrieved people whose lives have been ruined by actions that
my leaders have taken without my consent?
How can I best help set in motion a process by which reparations are made to people who have
been harmed by unjust deeds of my country?
If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions like these, won't
the good people of my country be guilty of making things worse?
Alas, I cannot think of a satisfactory answer to any of these questions. I believe the answer
to number 6 is still no; yet I fear that a yes answer is continually becoming more
and more appropriate, as month upon month goes by without any significant change to the status quo.
The time in which I write ... has a horribly swollen belly, it carries in its womb a national
catastrophe ... Even an ignominious issue remains something other and more normal than the judgment
that now hangs over us, such as once fell on Sodom and Gomorrah ... That it approaches, that it
long since became inevitable: of that I cannot believe anybody still cherishes the smallest doubt.
... That it remains shrouded in silence is uncanny enough. It is already uncanny when among a
great host of the blind some few who have the use of their eyes must live with sealed lips. But
it becomes sheer horror, so it seems to me, when everybody knows and everybody is bound to silence,
while we read the truth from each other in eyes that stare or else shun a meeting.
Germany ... today, clung round by demons, a hand over one eye, with the other staring into
horrors, down she flings from despair to despair. When will she reach the bottom of the abyss?
When, out of uttermost hopelessness --- a miracle beyond the power of belief --- will the light
of hope dawn? A lonely man folds his hands and speaks: ``God be merciful to thy poor soul, my
friend, my Fatherland!''
-- Thomas Mann, Dr. Faustus (1947, written in 1945)
[excerpts from chapter 33 and the epilogue]
Democrats has a hidden pro-war bias
by: nbrown on Jun 12, 2006 12:37 AM
I know some people will dismiss my claim out of hand -- life's
easy that way -- but it won't stop me from expressing myself.
This article has a hidden pro-war bias. Its bias comes in the form of whitewashing the Democratic
Party's support for the Iraq war. By focusing only on the Repugs, the author encourages a shift of
power from one pro-war party to another. Thus, preserving the "war effort."
How does the Democratic Party support the war? you ask. Good question. Although a slight majority
of Dems voted against the Iraq invasion, that vote has since been overwritten by new ones that fund the war in Iraq.
And unfortunately, those votes are widly lopsided, sometimes even 100-0 in the US Senate to bomb
and destroy Iraq.
Some people say, "But Bush tricked the Dems into voting for the war!" Let's take that at face
value: George W. Bush, who is as dumb as a sack of rocks, "tricked" the Democrats? Have a little
self respect.
But then there's the problem of Hillary Clinton -- she voted FOR the war. If it's true Bush lied
about the intelligence, and Clinton knew otherwise, why did she vote for the war in Iraq? What a
sick and twisted bitch!
And then there's Ted Kennedy -- after deciding Iraq is "Bush's Vietnam," as he puts it, that's
when he started voting to fund the war in Iraq. What's that -- a Democrat voting for another Vietnam?
Please don't try to spin -- just admit Kennedy is either a liar or a lunatic or both.
I am not trying to divert the argument away from the insanity of the Republican Party. I merely
wish to point out that both parties are in league with eachother on the war.
The partisan connection people have to the Democratic Party is a tragedy for the antiwar movement.
It means there can be no serious resistance, and thus no end, to the war.
When I asked Ed, a 7 time Emmy winning actor, who has an inspired history of advocacy for progressive
social change, why he decided to play Old Man in this performance, he said the play "is a beautiful
indictment-a great amassing of a lot of information in the so-called liberal press." Long renowned
as a vocal, and muscular opponent of U.S. policy in Central America, and Iraq, a great civil libertarian,
a crusader to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, as well as one who supports, and contributes to Fresh Start,
a program to feed the homeless in Walnut Creek; Ed is no stranger to the struggle for truth and justice..
When asked if he thinks we can expect major change if Pelosi takes over as Speaker of the House,
and if he thinks the theatre is empowered to act as a catalyst for much-needed congressional investigations
into wrongdoing in Iraq, Ed responded "I don't think it's a play that's going to make Nancy Pelosi
come around. The play may motivate people to make bodies of others that will then motivate certain
committee chairmen of Congress; only through committee chair can we discover malfeasance and hopefully
those committee chairs will energize Pelosi to conduct further investigations and possibly impeachment."
On the couch in the lobby where we sat, Craig nursed a tepid cup of coffee; "My goal is to remind
people of the elegance of a society in which the law is above the king," he tells me. Barnes not
only wrote "A Nation Deceived," which premiered in Santa Fe in late September, but directed it, and
he plays Dick Cheney's lawyer, Samuel Pounder. A trial lawyer, an accomplished environmental law
specialist, author, playwright and essayist, he was involved, for more than 13 years, in negotiations
with the Soviet Union on issues of war and peace, the environment, and ethnic cleansing. Barnes even
ran for Congress, back in 1970, as a Democratic candidate from Colorado.
His play, a self-described "draft," is a work in progress not unlike the concept of democracy
itself. It is theatre with a clear-cut objective, which is for the viewer, or reader to share the
play with others, as well as participate in re-creating it. One can think of few nights better than
this, the night before an historic midterm election, to let one's imagination run wild, and entertain
thoughts of what it might be like if Congress were to be in the hands of those folks who ask the
hard questions, and are relentless in their pursuit of accountability. What better time, too, to
think about what it might be like if the people were, once again, to own the government.
The theme of "A Nation Deceived," the story of a trial that takes place in the Court of Common
Opinion, in which the defendants are President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld, who are tried as felons, and represented by their respective attorneys, Ranger, Pounder,
and Chance is that government belongs to the people who "never rest." . The prosecutor, Old Man,
a feisty, larger than life country lawyer, played passionately by Ed Asner, represents the will of
the people in challenging the big gun Washington defense team.
While the entire play takes place in court. it is, as Barnes writes, "one step in a program to
spread the arguments and information concerning the buildup to the war, its defenses, its contradictions,
and its claimed necessity to the country at large." The trial is based on tangible, documented evidence
which is part of the public record, and especially resonates in light of the recent announcement,
by Agence France Presse , that the Center for Constitutional Rights, along with other "civic groups,"
has initiated a criminal complaint in Germany, this week, against U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and others, on charges of "war crimes in the context of a war
on terror."
CCR is requesting that the German Federal Prosecutor do essentially as Old Man has, begin an inquiry,
and ultimately criminally prosecute heads of state for conduct unbecoming rules of engagement during
wartime. While there are major differences between a theatrical piece and the real life criminal
complaint against Donald Rumsfeld, the resemblance is stunning in that, if nothing else, it shows
that life and theatre often inhabit parallel universes ..
The world of "A Nation Deceived" has, as its nexus, the discovery of the "Black Gold Exhibit,"
a national security document, AKA "the Oil Exhibit," a list of 30 countries, excluding the U.S.,
lined up to benefit from Iraqi oil in the months before 9/11, thus "the motive" for the American
invasion of Iraq.. Old Man argues: "If something was not done to remove Saddam Hussein from power
every one of those 30 countries was in line ahead of the U.S. for the huge resources of Iraqi oil."
Ironically, but aptly, it is Bush's attorney, Ranger, who, in a fit of conscience, hands the Oil
Exhibit, a key piece of evidence for the prosecution, over to Old Man who asks: "What did this war
accomplish for democracy? Nothing. What did it accomplish for Halliburton? Well, it erased the 30
countries on the Black Gold list, that's what. And these three defendants (Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld)
are now in charge of who gets that oil. No failure in Iraq for them. That is a completely successful
result, if your purpose, all along, was only oil."
That the tenets and tenacity of these charges, and prosecution, are commonplace to the viewing
audience today attests to the potency of the Internet with respect to instant news. That said, anyone
who came to this performance expecting traditional theatre was in for a surprise. This piece is about
as much like other courtroom dramas as Brigitte Bardot is like Edi Amin; it is not speculative, but
exploratory in its insistence upon raising crucial, and compelling questions not only about the chicanery,
and incompetence behind the buildup to war, but the culture of intellectual lassitude that went along
for the ride. Moreover, among the play's conclusions is the prospect of yet another imminent pre-emptive
strike, in Iran, based on the manufacture of selectively deceptive intelligence. So it is, then,
that "A Nation Deceived" demands of us that we ask not only who lied, and why, but how we allowed
ourselves to be duped; there is an odor not just of "mendacity" here, but of complicity.
Importantly, Barnes' attitude toward his work is not proprietary; he welcomes collaboration from
the audience, and fellow performers. Sometimes, one feels as if he views history itself as his collaborator;
sometimes, we agree, if it can be argued that history, too, takes place inside an imaginary courtroom.
When I asked Craig why he chose to write plays, he told me "Telling stories is more important
as a catalyst for change than trying lawsuits." That said, "A Nation Deceived" is, in point of fact,
about a lawyer, for the people, who acts as prosecutor against the key deciders in any wartime scenario,
the president, vice president, and secretary of defense. The difference is that the courtroom, in
question, is "The Court of Common Opinion," not a federal court, and that all proceeds from the these
performances go towards spreading the discourse, and developing the Web site,
www.anationdeceived.org, where one may
also find the play.
Moreover, one of the principal virtues of "A Nation Deceived" is that it is protean, not something
static and fixed; a project rather than a finished product. And, as such, it is more than a referendum
on the legality of the Iraq war, but is an innovative, interactive approach to theatre. What's more,
as should come as no surprise, the dialogue was authentic; the acting dynamic with stellar performances
by Ed Asner, Craig Barnes, and Leith Burke.
"A Nation Deceived" may be seen as a dramatic investigation of prewar intelligence, an exploration
of probative arguments, as well as an indictment of a judicial system that stacks government heavyweights
against Everyman. But, in the final analysis, the play is a clever and conceptually compelling way
to obviate the charge, however reasonable, that it is little more than an exercise in political didacticism.
Instead, we, in the audience, get to look through a window at a system that is broken, yet still
manages to offer up the specter of social justice in lieu of religious redemption.
On the long drive back to Ventura from Venice, I found myself thinking about what Ed Asner meant
when he said that playing Old Man is one of his "geschrei (screams)," and how many more geschrei
it may take before "a nation deceived" becomes a nation relieved.
This content was written by a student and assessed as part of a university degree. E-IR publishes
student essays & dissertations to allow our readers to broaden their understanding of what is possible
when answering similar questions in their own studies.
Is a Soldier Who Fights Justly a
Moral Criminal for Fighting in a War That is Either Illegal or Unjust?
Is a soldier who fights justly a moral criminal for fighting in a war that is either illegal or
unjust? This question is at the centre of a new debate that pits a widely held and legally embedded
principle of war, that soldiers have equal rights and responsibilities regardless of whether they
are on the 'side of the just' or not, against a set of unusual new arguments (Rodin and Shue, 2008).
These arguments dispute the view that the rules governing the morality of going to war, jus ad
bellum, and the rules governing what soldiers can do in war, jus in bello, are logically
independent.
In this paper I will begin by outlining the traditional just war viewpoint before examining
certain arguments that have been offered in support of the idea that jus ad bellum and
jus in bello rules are connected in some way. I will then discuss the fundamental objections
to these arguments before challenging more directly the most prominent defender of them: Jeff McMahan.
The Traditional Theory of the Just War
As with so much in contemporary just war theory the starting point is Michael Walzer's eloquent
argument in Just and Unjust Wars. Here Walzer (2006a) outlines the traditional theory of the
just war asserting that it comprises two sets of principles: jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
For Walzer these two sets of principles are logically independent as it is perfectly possible for
a just war to be fought unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict accordance with the
rules (2006a).[1]
Walzer (2006a) asserts that this separation between jus ad bellum and jus in bello
has two important features. Firstly, soldiers have an equal right to kill enemy combatants (2006a).
Simply by fighting soldiers lose their right to life and liberty (2006a). Consequently a soldier
fighting for an unjust cause is not a moral criminal if he, by fighting justly, kills another combatant.
This view, which suggests that soldiers on both sides of any conflict have the same war rights is
referred to by Walzer as the moral equality of soldiers (2006a). The second feature is that non-combatants
retain their title to life and liberty and must not be attacked.
Traditional just war theory, as well as the current laws of armed conflict, therefore assumes
two theses:
1. The independence thesis which states that the jus in bellorights and obligations
of a combatant in war are independent of the jus ad bellum justice of the war in which
he or she fights.
2. The symmetry thesis which states that the content of jus in bello rights and obligations
are the same for combatants on both sides of any conflict. (Rodin, 2008)
The connection between these two theses is close and is of crucial import to the ethics of war
and its theoretical foundation (Rodin, 2008). Taken together the symmetry and independence theses
imply that a soldier fighting for an unjust cause is not a moral criminal if he fights justly.
However, both theses are subject to theoretical criticisms. These criticisms propose that the
norms of war should be reinterpreted in a way that is asymmetric, meaning that jus in bello
rights and obligations are not always the same for combatants on both sides of a conflict, and
dependent, suggesting that jus in bello rights are dependent on jus ad bellum justice
(Rodin, 2007). These two viewpoints are also closely connected. Consequently, although many authors
adopt more complex positions there is a natural juxtaposition between symmetry and independence on
the one hand with asymmetry and dependence on the other (Lichtenberg, 2008).[2]
Arguments against Symmetry
The most potent criticisms of the symmetry thesis concern the role of self-defence in the justification
of killing in war and the proper interpretation of jus in bello proportionality.
Self Defence
Just war theory states that it is justifiable for combatants to kill enemy soldiers because they
pose a threat to them (Walzer, 2006a). Since both just and unjust combatants pose a threat, it follows,
all combatants have an equal right to kill enemy soldiers. This also provides an explanation for
the principle of non-combatant immunity. As non-combatants pose no threat they are never legitimate
targets (Walzer, 2006a). However, asymmetry advocates assert that this explanation appears false
by normal standards of both individual self-defence and morality:
It is not true […] that one makes oneself liable to […] attack simply by posing a threat to
another. If that were true, those who engage in justified self-defence against a culpable attacker
would then lose their right not to be attacked by him […]. The correct criterion of liability
to attack […] is not posing a threat […] but moral responsibility for an unjust threat (McMahan,
2008b:21-22).
The crux of this argument is the concept of liability (Kutz, 2008). Merely posing a threat to
another is insufficient to establish liability to attack since the threat itself could be wholly
justified. An example often produced is that of a police officer using force to prevent a bank robbery
(Rodin and Shue, 2008). Asymmetry advocates assert that just warriors are morally equivalent to the
police officer using justified force (Rodin, 2008). Since these just warriors are not engaging in
unjustified action that could otherwise explain why they would be morally liable to attack, unjust
warriors have no moral right to attack them. Consequently, an unjust warrior commits a moral wrong
by killing a just combatant (McMahan, 2006).
Proportionality
Jus in bello proportionality holds that for the attainment of a military objective to be
permissible its 'bad effects' must not be out of proportion with its 'good effects' (McMahan, 2008a).
As with the notion of liability destabilising this concept can produce potent arguments for asymmetry:
It seems clear that obtaining […]'military advantage'[…] has no intrinsic moral value, but
obtains what value it has instrumentally from the broader project of which it is a part. This
seems to imply that the value of achieving a military objective is determined by the ad bellum
justice of the conflict of which it is a part […]. If the war is unjust, then achieving a
military outcome advantageous to its end is a moral disvalue (Rodin, 2008:53).
Consequently, all harmful military acts committed by unjust warriors are ipso facto disproportionate
and thus war crimes.
Objections to Asymmetry
The above arguments seem to create a compelling case against symmetry. However, the conclusions
regarding unjust warriors seem deeply implausible (Lichtenberg, 2008). How can it be that a soldier
fighting for an unjust cause is a moral criminal, even if he fights justly? Certainly we do not think
of the typical coalition soldier who fought in the Iraq conflict as a criminal. As such
"the apparently scholastic distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello,
which allows soldiers on each side to engage in attacks on the other, seems to track common sense"
(Lichtenberg 2008:113).
Keeping a common sense perspective brings us onto the most obvious and in this author's opinion
the most potent objection to asymmetry, that it would give rise to disastrous consequences if it
were to be implemented into a working regulatory regime of war (Rodin and Shue, 2008). This objection
is known as the pragmatic case for symmetry. It has a number of dimensions.
Epistemic Issues
The case for the equality of combatants begins with an observation of the epistemic constraints
under which soldiers fight (Lichtenberg, 2008). In the real world it is extremely difficult to decide
where jus ad bellum justice lies and even if there was an uncontroversial account of what
a just war is, the epistemic constraints are much greater for soldiers since they have less time
for consideration and can be subjected to deception (Rodin and Shue, 2008). Such uncertainties would
generate highly undesirable consequences. As almost all unjust combatants will believe or at least
claim to believe that their war is just they will claim whatever additional rights are granted to
just combatants (McMahan, 2008b). Consequently, the destructiveness of war would increase with no
advantage gained by the 'just side' (Roberts, 2008).
Moreover, several factors undermine the possibility of determining the culpability of unjust warriors
(Kutz, 2008). Firstly, jus ad bellum is constantly changing. This raises doubts as to whether
notice can be given to soldiers about the legality of their actions. Secondly, judgements regarding
whether military action can be justified are dependent on success. Success of course is often not
apparent until long after the war is over and can always be disputed. Finally, unjust combatants'
liability would need to be established on their role as either an accomplice or a co-conspirator.
Both of these areas of law are laden with difficulties. Overall, it appears that there are simply
not enough normative facts to verify the guilt of unjust combatants. Consequently, 'there is no justifiable
form that an institutionalised system of asymmetrically restricted privileges could take' (Kutz,
2008:83).
Victor's Justice
The victorious in war often exact revenge for harms suffered during the course of the conflict
(McMahan, 2008b). As such, accepting the view that unjust combatants may be liable to punishment
even if they fight justly will expose huge numbers of soldiers to unjust acts of revenge disguised
as punitive justice (Kutz, 2008).
Reduced Compliance Incentives
Furthermore, holding unjust combatants liable for fighting would paradoxically reduce their incentive
to adhere to jus in bello norms (Shue, 2008). Unjust warriors might conclude that because
they are already guilty of a war crime simply by fighting they may as well abandon all restraint
in an attempt to win the war as soon and resolutely as possible (Rodin and Shue, 2008).
Ex Ante Agreement
The laws of war depend on warring parties agreeing to them and to be effective such agreements
must be arrived at ex ante (Kutz, 2008). The current symmetrical laws of war have been extremely
effective in this regard, obtaining agreement between diverse ranges of parties, many of whom have
been hostile to one another.
This level of agreement would be unobtainable for asymmetrical rules for two reasons (Roberts,
2008). Firstly, history indicates that when the rules of war are couched in terms that appear to
benefit one side other parties often disregard the law (Roberts, 2008). Secondly, when "war is raging,
getting agreement among parties as to which side is the more legitimate […] has always been close
to impossible" (Roberts, 2008:248).
Law and Morality, Interwoven or Separate?
The pragmatic case for symmetry is highly compelling. Indeed the argument is so compelling that
it has forced the most prominent defender of asymmetry, Jeff McMahan, to cling to a somewhat dubious
'solution'. In an attempt to reconcile the case for asymmetry with the powerful pragmatic case against
it McMahan (2006; 2008b) proposes that there should be a thorough separation between the laws of
war and the morality of war. For McMahan (2008b) the laws of war have to be expressed in symmetrical
terms whilst the morality of war, which is concerned with the fundamental rights of combatants and
non-combatants, should be asymmetric.
However, there are authoritative objections to the idea that we can distinguish between the morality
of war and the laws of war. One such objection is that no war convention is accepted simply because
it is believed that it will be useful, it "must first be morally plausible [and] it must correspond
to our sense of what is right" (Walzer 2006a:133). Moreover, Shue (2008) asserts that McMahan's proposed
separation actually threatens the role of the laws of war themselves. If the morality and laws of
war are separate then there are bound to be instances whereby laws and morality conflict. The problem
with this is that McMahan's understanding of a morality of war often requires that the laws of war
be cast aside in favour of morality. For instance, the morality of war may require an attack on non-combatants
even though this violates the conventional requirement of discrimination (McMahan, 2006).
The Rules of Everyday Life and the Rules of War
Even if one accepts McMahan's dubious separation of the laws of war from the morality of war it
is still possible to question the morality of war itself, for it is based on undefended assumptions
of an implausibly close analogy between the rules of war and the rules of everyday life (Shue, 2008).
The crucial bridge by which McMahan attempts to connect the rules of war and the rules of everyday
life is " his insistence that moral liability to attack is a necessary condition of attack during
war" (Shue 2008:98). McMahan is thus attempting to inject into war a requirement for the determination
of individual moral liability. Combatants should therefore stop using the criteria for a legitimate
target embodied in the laws of armed conflict and switch to assessing the individual moral liability
of their adversaries (Shue, 2008). However, McMahan only assumes and never proves that in war some
kind of individual moral liability to attack, similar to the conception embodied in the moral rules
of everyday life, can be, and then ought to be employed rather than the concept of legitimate targets
that has evolved through the centuries (Shue, 2008).
McMahan's morality of war, his case for asymmetry, therefore "rests specifically upon the unsupported
transference into war of a requirement of individual moral liability to attack, analogous to the
requirement that holds generally in ordinary life for ordinary persons" (Shue, 2008:102). Consequently,
it is not comprehensible except as the morality of everyday life incorrectly applied to the fundamentally
different environment of war (Shue, 2008). As such we can conclude that McMahan's morality of war,
which lacks grounding and rests on dubious analogies, remains to be proven (Shue, 2008).
Essentially proponents of asymmetry such as McMahan are chasing a morally appealing yet unachievable
dream, a conception of war that does not violate rights, whereby only those morally liable to be
killed are killed (Shue, 2008). However, "there is no such kind of war in which death is […] allocated
so individually and discriminately' (Shue 2008:100). As such wars cannot be fought without violating
rights and the proposition that they can is, as we have seen, an intellectually incoherent and practically
impossible position (Rodin and Shue, 2008).
What is needed instead is the development of the morally best laws of war to govern war (Shue,
2008). Laws would be the morally best in that they would take into account fundamental moral considerations
whilst being able to function inside deadly combat (Shue, 2008). Moreover, when the laws of war are
not the morally best laws for war, the actual legal provisions should be changed (Shue, 2008). However,
there is no place for a residual morality of war as imagined by McMahan, which lingers in the shadows
continuously competing with the morally best laws of war (Shue, 2008). In essence "where the laws
of war are morally justified, there is no function to be performed by a competing 'morality of war'
consisting of alternative rules. We do not need a 'morality of war' if we can get a morally justified
set of laws of war" (Shue, 2008:89).
Inappropriate Asymmetry?
More fundamentally, McMahan's attempt to save asymmetry by separating the morality of war and
the laws of war brings in the question of whether criticism of the traditional approach is appropriate.
Did the proponents of symmetry think they were describing the morality of war? I think not. What
is more likely is that they were merely attempting to direct the behaviour of those who make war
(Lichtenberg, 2008). It therefore appears that the asymmetry thesis is somewhat uncalled for. By
way of conclusion the inappropriateness of the thesis is pulled more sharply into focus by Roberts
(2008:253-254):
"At a time when jus in bello is under considerable pressure…a philosophical-cum-legal
approach that provides some basis for relativising the application of the law on account of the
alleged justice of the cause could only too easily be misused […]. Even if this was in no way
the intention of those exploring the question of moral inequality on the battlefield, this could
be the unintended and unwelcome consequence."
References
Coady, T., 2008. The Status of Combatants. In D. Rodin & H. Shue, eds. 2008. Just and Unjust
Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford: OUP. Ch. 8.
Coates, A., 2008. Is the Independent Application of Jus in Bello the way to Limit War? In D. Rodin
& H. Shue, eds. 2008. Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford:
OUP. Ch. 9.
Kutz, C., 2005. The Difference Uniforms Make: Collective Violence in Criminal Law and War.
Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), pp. 148-180.
Kutz, C., 2008. Fearful Symmetry. In D. Rodin & H. Shue, eds. 2008. Just and Unjust Warriors:
The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford: OUP. Ch. 4.
Lichtenberg, J., 2008. How to Judge Soldiers Whose Cause in Unjust. In D. Rodin & H. Shue, eds.
2008. Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford: OUP. Ch. 6.
May, L., 2005. Collective Responsibility, Honor, and the Rules of War. Journal of Social Philosophy,36,pp.
289-304.
McMahan, J., 2006. The Ethics of Killing in War. Ethics,114, pp. 693-733.
McMahan, J., 2008a. Killing in War. Oxford: OUP 2009.
McMahan, J., 2008b. The Morality of War and the Law of War. In D. Rodin & H. Shue, eds. 2008.
Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford: OUP. Ch. 2.
McPherson, L., 2004. Innocence and Responsibility in War. Canadian Journal of Philosophy,34,
pp. 485-506.
Rawls, John., 1999. The Law of Peoples. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Reichberg, G., 2008. Just War and Regular War: Competing Paradigms. In D. Rodin & H. Shue, eds.
2008. Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford: OUP. Ch. 10
Roberts, A., 2008. The Principle of Equal Application of the Laws of War. In D. Rodin & H. Shue,
eds. 2008. Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford: OUP.
Ch. 12.
Rodin, D. & Shue, H. eds., 2008. Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers.
Oxford: OUP.
Rodin, D., 2002. War and Self-Defense. Oxford: Clarendon.
Rodin, D., 2007. The Liability of Ordinary Soldiers for Crimes of Aggression. Global Studies
Law Review, 6(3), pp. 591-607
Rodin, R., 2008. The Moral Inequality of Soldiers: Why Jus In Bello Asymmetry is Half Right. In
D. Rodin & H. Shue, eds. 2008. Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers.
Oxford: OUP. Ch. 3.
Ryan, C., 2008. Moral Equality, Victimhood and the Sovereignty Symmetry Problem. In D. Rodin &
H. Shue, eds. 2008. Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford:
OUP. Ch. 7
Shue, H., 2008. Do We Need a "Morality of War"? In D. Rodin & H. Shue, eds. 2008. Just and
Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford: OUP. Ch. 5.
Steinhoff, U., 2008. Debate: Jeff McMahan on the Moral Inequality of Combatants. Journal of
Political Philosophy, 16(2), pp. 220–226.
Walzer, M., 2006a. Just and Unjust Wars. 4th edn. New York: Basic Books.
Walzer, M., 2006b. Response to Jeff McMahan. Philosophia, 34(1), pp. 43-45.
Wertheimer, R., 2007. Reconnoitering Combatant Moral Equality. Journal of Military Ethics,
6(1), pp. 60-74.
Zupan, D., 2008. A Presumption of the Moral Equality of Combatants: a Citizen Soldier' Perspective.
In D. Rodin & H. Shue, eds. 2008. Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers.
Oxford: OUP. Ch. 11.
[1] For the sake of clarity let us say that those who fight in a just war are just combatants,
whilst those who fight in a war that is unjust because it lacks a just cause are unjust combatants
(McMahan, 2006).
[2] This paper shall keep in accordance with these juxtapositions. Thus, references to symmetry
refer to the symmetry and independence theses, whilst references to asymmetry refer to the asymmetry
and dependence theses.
-
Written by: James Bieda
Written at: The University of Manchester
Written for: Dr Mark Reiff
Written: May 2010
Army Overseer Tells of Ouster Over KBR Stir By JAMES RISEN
June 17, 2008 | The New York Times
WASHINGTON - The Army official who managed the Pentagon's largest contract in Iraq says he was
ousted from his job when he refused to approve paying more than $1 billion in questionable charges
to KBR, the Houston-based company that has provided food, housing and other services to American
troops....
A long time ago, Ezra Pound wrote an epitaph for the war dead of
the 20th century, and now it applies equally well to the war dead of the 21st.
They "walked eye-deep in hell believing in old men's lies, then unbelieving came home, home to
a lie, home to many deceits, home to old lies and new infamy, usury age-old and age-thick and liars
in public places. ... There died a myriad, and of the best, among them, for an old bitch gone in
the teeth, for a botched civilization."
That's what all the young men and now women are dying for - lies and a botched civilization. They
are not dying for freedom or to defend their homes and loved ones. They are dying so corporations
can make big profits, so evil old men who presume to re-arrange the world to suit their notions can
test their theories. They are dying for money, oil and ego, and none of it is worth the life of single
boy or girl.
Ernest Hemingway said it best when he said, "War itself is a crime against humanity." The people
who deserve to be tried as war criminals are the politicians on both sides who start the wars. To
think of the millions of young people, all the joys of life still ahead of them, who have died for
scabrous ideologies, political stupidity and the greed of people far from the sound of the guns should
turn everyone into an isolationist.
But lies are powerful, and people are easy to manipulate. One of the Nazis said all you
have to do is have an enemy at the gate and then suggest that anyone who opposes you is unpatriotic.
That is precisely the game plan the Bush administration has employed.
What's actually unpatriotic is to support wars started by crooks and liars for reasons they hide
from the public. What's unpatriotic is for old men who won't be within 7,000 miles of the sight of
blood to be cheerleaders for the war du jour. What's unpatriotic is for the press to act as a conduit
for propaganda rather than independently developing information the people need to know.
It's painful to acknowledge that these young people, so idealistic, were and are being lied to
so that they die not for their ideals, but for the sordid schemes of lying politicians, corporations
and special-interest groups. No wonder the Bush administration doesn't want photographs of the coffins
and tries to blame the press for bad news even though, God knows, the American media rub every story
with Clorox and censor the photographs like they were some Puritan in pursuit of sin. No wonder the
Bush administration has a murderous hatred for Al-Jazeera, the Arab television station that shows
the reality of the war with all its stink, filth and blood.
American society today is a house of lies. People are continuously being lied to for commercial,
political and ideological reasons. They are lied to about the environment, the war, foreign policy,
the economy, agriculture and public health. You name it, and the Establishment has a set of lies
all ready to dupe the public into supporting its selfish aims.
I advise every parent to actively discourage his or her children from joining the military until
we have cleaned up the political mess in Washington. Idealistic young men and women should not be
sent to do the work of mercenaries.
For the kind of murder Mr. Bush wants to commit, he should form an American version of the French
Foreign Legion and pay the market price for mercenaries. There are enough heartless psychopaths in
the world to do that kind of work without killing, maiming and scarring the souls of America's best
young people.
If you want to support the troops, put pressure on the spineless, lying politicians to bring them
home. Don't worry about Iraq going to hell. It's already there.
Few meetings ever started with dimmer prospects for success than the recent meeting between Presidents
Obama and Putin.
The real call for the meeting stemmed from the EU refugee crisis. With a human catastrophe brewing
in Europe and the Middle East, EU leaders are urgently demanding that the U.S. and Russia set aside
their differences and begin to work together in an effort to resolve the Syrian conflict, the major
cause of the massive movement of people seeking sanctuary.
Now, U.S./EU leaders are no longer insisting on the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
from office as a pre-condition to negotiations over a new government, although the U.S. continues
to insist that al-Assad's removal
become part of any final settlement.
But how can such fundamental differences be set aside when the two sides can't even agree on the
enemy they're fighting? The U.S. and its allies have defined the Syrian conflict as a civil war against
a despotic regime. The Russians define the conflict as an invasion by foreign Islamic radicals, paid
and supported by U.S.' Middle Eastern allies.
The EU has made its demands clear: solve the problem, we don't particularly care how, but it has
to be done quickly. From that point of view, the U.S. and Russian leaders have little choice but
to answer the call.
Russia is attempting to form and lead a
UN authorized coalition against ISIL, the radical jihadists' adversaries that conquered large
parts of Syria and Iraq, while threatening to engulf the entire region.
Obama has stated publicly that he
welcomes help
from Russia and Iran in the fight against radical jihadists, ISIL, in Syria, while still insisting
that al-Assad must go. On their side, the Russians have made no secret of their strong objections
to NATO-led regime change, citing the results of failed states in Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt.
In a recent New York Times article, an Administration insider stated that the President believes
Syria is a lost cause, one that U.S. military presence could only worsen.
Obama has also shown little reluctance to lead from behind, when supporting NATO partners, particularly
with a U.S. public largely opposed to America's military engagement in any further Mideast wars.
But Russia is not NATO, and it's clear that the U.S. has no intention of following the Kremlin's
lead in Syria, as its veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the UN Security Council clearly shows.
Adding to that was the
United States'strong condemnation of the Russian air attack on its first day of operations in
Syria.
The urgency of the moment favors cooperation, while geography gives Russia major advantages in
leading the fight. Russia's relationship with Iran, already fighting on the ground in Iraq, with
its ally Hezbollah fighting in Syria, provides Russia with a readymade army to complement its air
attacks.
With the Russians initiating air strikes against ISIL in Syria, the great fear of world leaders
is that an accidental collision between opposing U.S. and Russian forces raises the risks of war
between the two nuclear powers.
While both sides deny any intent at military collaboration or sharing of military intelligence
in Syria, the two Presidents have agreed to meetings of their military leaders, ostensibly aimed
at reducing the risk of accidental conflicts between them. How that can be done without shared military
intelligence about troop movements, and planned air attacks remains a mystery.
Adding to the confusion is the increasingly cordial meetings between Russian and Saudi leaders.
Many believe that the Saudis, and their Gulf Kingdom partners, hold the key to resolving the conflict,
as the major backers of the 'moderate Islamic' rebels fighting the Syrian Government forces.
The Saudis have largely refrained from criticizing the Russian military buildup in Syria, even
though it bolsters the Assad regime, and the Kingdom continues to hold its cards close to its vest
regarding their position on the new Russian military initiative in Syria.
At the same time, there were conflicting signals in regards to the relationship between Iran and
Russia. Reports
surfaced in late September that the two countries, along with Syria and Iraq, were coordinating
military efforts against the ISIL. But at the UN meeting, Iran's President Rouhani made the surprising
statement
that Iran saw no need to coordinate military efforts in Syria, with the Russian goal to support its
embattled ally in Syria, while Iran's goal is eradicate ISIL.
It's widely recognized that since the Iran nuclear deal, Iran and the U.S. have sought to move
closer in other important areas. Still, Rouhani's UN statement seemed to belie the recent agreements
between Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria to build an information center in Baghdad to share battlefield
reconnaissance against ISIL.
That also falls in line with the new agreement with Iran, Iraq, and Syria to provide an air corridor
for Russian military flyovers to Syria for Russian fighter planes and transport aircraft.
To observers, these agreements certainly smack of military coordination with Russia. Iran's need
to distance itself from Russia seems to be made with an eye on the U.S., where hardline Presidential
candidates threaten to tear up the nuclear agreement.
The highly charged political atmosphere in the U.S., in the midst of a Presidential election,
only adds to the fog of war in Syria, forcing public denials and secret agreements where there needs
to be utmost clarity, making military cooperation in Syria almost impossible, while raising the risks
of accidental conflicts between so-called partners.
What then of western sanctions against Russia? In the eyes of the west, the Syrian conflict is
beginning to eclipse Ukraine in importance. The U.S. seems satisfied to leave the Ukraine issue to
Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine for settlement.
The EU is most likely to be the first mover to ease sanctions, realizing, as a
number of EU leaders have stated, that it is fundamentally incompatible to rely on Russia's military
might while starving the Russian economy.
In January, the EU sanctions are set to expire, requiring a unanimous vote of all member states
for extension. The odds are rising that the EU will allow sanctions to expire.
If so, major global business will once again flock to Russia. That would include the return of
major western energy companies that have played a critical part in Russian energy development. Once
that starts, it will become far more difficult to reverse the momentum or re-impose sanctions.
Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions in
place.
Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 5:31 am
Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions
in place.
Here you mean "Given the political instructions to Washington from Tel Aviv". I don't see any
general feeling in the American people that demands ongoing conflict with Iran. This is not politics
at all – just pure old tail wagging the dog.
JeffC -> Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 11:18 am
Sanctions against Russia, not Iran.
Older & Wiser, October 7, 2015 at 6:48 am
The un-named 1800 lb Mr. and Mrs. Gorilla couple in the room are oil & gas.
Pipelines anyone ?
Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 2:56 pm
Are there really pipelines in Syria? I thought it was through Iraq and Turkey.
ambrit, October 7, 2015 at 7:13 am
Given Russias' long term relationship with Syria, I'm bemused that any Neo of any stripe could
with a straight face suggest that the Russians would abandon the Syrian Government to a bunch
of Western backed wreckers.
Maintaining a foothold in the Middle East is basic Grand Strategy. America does it with Israel,
so Russia does it with Syria.
In the long run, the Middle East is beginning a shake up. The post WW1 borders were incompatible
with the ethnic groupings of the region. Now those old 'drawn on a map' borders are being broken
apart and the pieces reassembled. This process can take years or decades to work out. The time
frame depends on how 'responsible' the Great Powers are in dealing with the realignment process.
Do notice the framing of the issue in the MSM. "Irresponsible Russia" and "Assad Must Go" are
everywhere proclaimed. Like the magicians they are, the MSMs rely on misdirection to try to pull
off the 'trick.' While the West tries to browbeat the Russians, the Russians are persistently
acting in their, and in the Syrian Governments, perceived best interests.
On the air front, the Russian "incursions" look to be standard battlefield intelligence work.
Send a plane or two 'over the border' and see what sorts of anti air radars 'lock on' to your
aircraft. This is something any competent air commander would want to discover. This is also a
thinly veiled threat to the West; "Look! Anyone can play this game!" The basic point being; there
is no such thing as a 'no fly zone,' if you are willing to fight.
The Russian message is basic; "Put up, or shut up."
NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 9:05 am
The post WWI borders are fairly similar to Ottoman administrative districts. The Kuwait
city-state answered to the governor of Baghdad within their framework. The issue has been foreign
powers using sectarian ties to divide the little people from cooperation which was achievable
under the Sultan for 500 years. Even Hussein found the Shiites to be exceptionally loyal during
the Iran-Iraq War.
The rise of the Saudis, allowing the Israelis to knock over Lebanon and run an apartheid state,
and supporting oppressive regimes which would have fallen or reformed (pretty much all the Gulf
states which also have ancient borders) are major issues. There have always been states centered
around the modern cities (Ur and Babylon were replaced by Baghdad) or provinces. I believe
the creative borders argument was always a "White Man's Burden" excuse to justify control. "Professor
Scott, why do they fight in the Middle East?" Excuses about unfortunate cartography sound better
than "I needed to build a railroad and did the want to pay the locals, so I cooked up a rape story
in one village, handed out guns, and slaughtered the adult males in the other village."
On the other hand, Africa was carved up bizarrely based on rail and ship movements.
todde, October 7, 2015 at 8:11 am
KSA claims Assad must go and I doubt they will support Russia.
Who is supporting IS? I find it hard to believe they can maintain armed conflict on several
fronts without a state backer.
Where are the 10s of billions of dollars in turkeys central bank in accounts called unknown
foreign sources and errors and adjustments?
Iran will support Assad regardless of American actions.
blert, October 7, 2015 at 5:54 pm
Two factors.
Iran was using Turkey as a front, Ankara collected its 'cut.' Turkey was laundering monies
from the Gulf, too, probably Golden Chain funding for the fanatics in Syria. Erdogan has more
side action than Rick's Cafe American.
Eureka Springs, October 7, 2015 at 9:02 am
Madness R U.S. US, Saudi, Turks and Israeli's must be held at bay at the very least. It's
(Russia, Iran, Syria) who are the only entities resembling a possible humanitarian, rule of law
base of action now or possibly working towards that kind of end game.
That's how low we are, R or D, … the creators and perpetrators of al Q and all of their newly
named lackeys doing our dirty work continuously since the 1980's. It's not impossible to know
who we are and what we have long done… Reading Obama's words and Putin's it is clear Putin
is being far more honest and consistent in both action and words.
Maybe we should stop blowing up hospitals and imprison leaders who order or even allow it to
happen. Nah, there are too many unarmed citizens in wheelchairs who must be shot.
blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:02 pm
Bin Laden has gone on record - time and time, again - denouncing your thesis. He never needed
American funding - ever. He would never, ever, grovel to the kafir.
It's only recently that 0bama started funding AQ's front organs, al Nusrah inparticular. BOTH
ISIS and al Nusrah are joined at the hip and are al Qaeda fronts. They only had a falling out,
circa 2011.
The FSA is a total fiction. It's a Western media construct. Syria is a fight between brutal
Assad and two feral al Qaeda fronts… that can't be controlled. The UK, US and Jordan trained most
of ISIS' cadres in the Jordanian desert back in 2011-12. They then went rogue. That (mostly Jordanian)
force is still the dominant core of ISIS. Our crass media is complicit in covering up a reality
that the rest of the planet is hip to.
Eureka Springs , October 7, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Agree with you after your first three lines. I guess those shoulder fired missiles which al
Q used to take out Russian helicopters in Afghanistan during the '80's were Costa Rican made and
supplied.
Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 8:29 pm
So Bin Laden was actually giving money and guns to Zbigniew Brzezinski instead of the other
way around?
You have seen that famous photo of Bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski right? Just google it.
A retired Army Colonel who served under Colin Powell actually says he's afraid of a future Israeli
false-flag operation that will start a US war with Iran
– move the cursor to 15 mins...
Steven, October 7, 2015 at 11:10 am
Somewhere I remember reading an analysis of the Syrian conflict along the following lines:
It does indeed involve geopolitics – with the aim being to replace Europe's dependence
on Russian oil and gas with that from U.S. Middle-eastern 'allies'. To do that it is necessary
to build a pipeline across Syria – and insure the Syrian government is firmly in the pocket
of the U.S. and its allies.
Without wishing to denigrate the influence of AIPAC, this conflict has far more to
do with preserving and possibly extending US global hegemony (with a continuing full-employment
program for the country's Congressional military-industrial complex) than it does Israel's
inordinate control over US foreign policy. All the blather about democracy vs. dictatorship
and/or Sunni vs. Shia vs. Sunni is just offal fed to the cannon fodder used by powers great
and small to get it to sacrifice itself for their ambitions.
Like ambrit said, this is just "basic Grand Strategy". It is way past time for US 'leaders'
to recognize the full spectrum dominance they enjoyed in the aftermath of WWII was (charitably)
an accident of history and come to terms with a multi-polar world and the concept of collective
security to which they gave so much word of mouth to a population disgusted with the carnage
and destruction of the second "war to end all wars".
Hespeler1, October 7, 2015 at 4:19 pm
Steven, Pepe Escobar has written extensively about the "pipeline wars" ("pipelinestan"),
the Empire is trying to starve Russia's finances in part by bypassing Russia's pipelines. Greece
was pressured into refusing to be the Turkish Stream's terminus and distribution hub for Southern
Europe. We all know how much they needed the revenue from that, but TPTB said no. Grand Strategy=break
up Russia, steal her resources, put pressure on China. I fear that the Empire won't stop until
they accomplish this, or are buried.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, October 7, 2015 at 12:11 pm
Sometimes things are just so obvious. US "veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the
UN Security Council". Could be because the US wants to lead a bigger, better coalition, maybe
ours will include Samoa or something. Or, um, duh, could be because US doesn't really want to
fight ISIS since that's our dog in this fight. Funny how a few days bombing by Russia has had
a real impact on actual ISIS fighters…whereas US bombing tends to be on stuff like bridges and
power plants and hospitals that hurt Assad more than they hurt ISIS.
I mean how bleeding obvious when we get John McCain high fiving ISIS…and our grand plan
was to find "moderate" maniacs that would do our bidding. "OK everybody, form a line, if you're
an extremist take the T-shirt on the left, if you're a moderate take a T-shirt on the right".
That strategy has worked out so well for us in the past, we spent $500M and trained precisely
"4 or 5" guys.
Is it not most edifying that Iraq is now apparently allowing Russian cruise missiles to fly
over its territory, or at least not objecting? (Not that Iraq could do much about it…)
Harry, October 7, 2015 at 5:20 pm
Iraq is part of the Russian coalition as well as China and you probably do know that Iraqi
prime-minister already made a statement that he would not object against Russians decimating ISIS
on the Iraqi territory. And look, oil prices are already going up – that's what Putin really needed
and this is one of the eight reasons why he started a war in the Middle East.
NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 8:52 pm
Started a war? You do realize training a day arming rebels is an act of war even if Congress
hides the funding in the classified budget or if it's done by the CIA instead of corporate approved
soldiers. The U.S. government has started numerous wars without Congressional approval, mostly
because Congress is still afraid of elections. Russia is allied with Syria. If anything Putin
has shown remarkable constraint.
Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 1:06 pm
There are three sides to Syria:
1. New Caliphate – Includes Turkey & Saudi Arabia – Look at a map and think contiguous empire
-ISIS is their tool.
2. US dislike of Assad, and allied with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but dislikes New Caliphate
and ISIS.
3. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah etc, dislike New Calipahe, becue of potential threat to Russia
from Muslim arc from Iran through to China (the Stans).
Which leaves the US's allies in direct opposition to the US' goals, and leads to lies, deceit
and deception from parties (1) and (2).
The role of ISIS is to destabilize Syria and Iran, to create an opportunity for Turkish Troops
(500,000 man army), and Saudi money to enter, the region "to keep the peace," thus furthering
their imperial ambitions.
The US is trying to eliminate Assad, but not enable a new Caliphate, and undermine Russia's
and Iran's influence in the area, because Oil and exceptionalism (for exceptionalism see collective
ego, or stunning arragance).
Russia and Iran see the solution to a New Caliphate as Assad in power, and a weakening of US
influence.
aka: Quagmire
NotTimothyGeithner -> Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 8:56 pm
The U.S. government's side* is childish at best. The only real plan was Sunni elements
of the army would assume power when Assad was removed from power with a little Saber rattling
much like Libya with the GNC. Obama's ego prevents him from recognizing what a stupid idea this
was and how radically different types Assad a day Gaddafi's power bases were.
*They are hiding behind the war powers act and approval from post 9/11 legislation. Congress
an otherwise President are too cowardly to call our actions acts of war which is what they are.
washunate, October 7, 2015 at 1:40 pm
No.
But seriously, it is interesting seeing what the Oilprice guys think their audience wants
to hear. They are clearly inside the MSM echo chamber. You have everything from dichotomous balance
(because truth has two sides) to the charged political atmosphere (which sadly forces otherwise
honest and transparent leaders to engage in secrecy and deception against their will).
I particularly love how casual the author is with the notion that the President of the
United States has an explicit policy goal of deposing the leader of a sovereign nation. Ho hum,
just another head of state that must go.
susan the other, October 7, 2015 at 2:15 pm
This summary by Berke also reflects my puzzled observations. It wasn't that long ago that we
worried about a fundamentalist insurrection in SA and so we politely made ourselves scarce to
help the Saudis out.
There's probably now a pre-arranged trade off for the Saudis and Iran: SA gets to take over
Yemen; Iran gets to create a corridor through Syria. Who knows. I thought the meeting at the UN
between Obama and Putin was such thinly disguised cooperation that surely some MSM would comment
– but none did.
And the EU has stated (above) that sanctions against Russia are incompatible because the EU
is "relying on Russia's military might" and shouldn't therefore starve the Russian economy. Wow,
let's hear the story on that please.
So did Holland send in the French bombers to help out Russia? Maybe SA and RU are chummy because
Russia is going to get the contract to build the new pipeline from the Gulf to Europe.
blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Actually all of the load growth, for OPEC, is towards India and points east. American fracking
has released a glut of oil into the Atlantic Ocean market space.
Nigeria essentially lost North America as a customer - all together. If Libya and Venezuela get
their act together, the glut becomes even more pronounced. Then toss in Brazil's new out put.
Brian M, October 7, 2015 at 8:10 pm
many of the fracked wells will fail amazingly quickly. So, this may not be true for long...
skippy, October 7, 2015 at 8:14 pm
A giddy operator with the rights to a gas-rich parcel of land can't just drill willy-nilly.
Well design considerations are very complex and attention to detail must span the construction,
testing phase, and decommissioning of the well post-production. Moreover, drilling wells are often
constructed uniquely with regard to the geology and geography of the specific location. For instance,
because much of the shale formation in Pennsylvania lies beneath a shallower gas formation, it
is easier for the shallower gas to escape during the initial drilling process. This in turn has
made it difficult for drillers to design failproof wells that can be sealed off from the younger
deposits completely.
At this point in the Syrian crisis it appears that the national security network (several hundred
high-level military, intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement agencies) are still debating
among themselves what the U.S. response will be to Russian military initiatives in Syria and potentially
Iraq.
For all Bernie Sanders supporters, it will be interesting to see what his stance on Syria will
be. Will he break( at least rhetorically) with these national security elites( who since WWII
have basically dictated Presidential moves in the national security arena) or will he cave to
this present structure of networked power despite his "democratic socialist" credentials.
Will Sanders maintain this continuity of American foreign policy that so shocked Obama supporters?
Will the United State continue on its path of greater centralization, less accountability and
emergent autocracy despite whoever wins the increasingly powerless Presidencyj?
RUKidding, October 7, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Here's my bet for the answer to your last 2 Q:
1. Yes
2. Yes
James Levy, October 7, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Unfortunately, I concur.
The amazing thing is watching the utter horror and confusion of the MSM and the Talking Heads
as the Russians do things (bombing ISIS! Firing cruise missiles!!!) that the US does just about
every other Tuesday, as if these things are some kind of massive breach of the peace on the order
of Hitler invading Poland. The lack of any self-awareness is stunning.
Oregoncharles, October 7, 2015 at 2:55 pm
"Russia is attempting to form and lead a UN authorized coalition against ISIL"
The obvious solution, especially if it does not include the US. I'm anti-interventionist in
general, but ISIL poses us the problem the Nazis did: this cannot be allowed to stand. They're
actually taking us back to the 7th Century, morally, and for that matter doing things Mohammed
probably wouldn't have stood for. Except in degree, most of their actions are not unprecedented,
even in modern times; what's unprecedented is their extreme openness about it. Hypocrisy is an
acknowledgment of morality; these people are trying to CHANGE morality, reversing hundreds of
years of hard-won progress. They're a kind of monster we thought we were rid of. And they've been
successful enough militarily, at least in that deeply destabilized region, to present a real threat.
Ultimately, they will have to be suppressed; it won't be easy or bloodless. The Russians'
proposal may be self-interested, but it's the only approach likely to work. American bombing certainly
won't.
ISIL's PR skills bother me on another level: they're extremely convenient for the interventionists.
They've even got me going. And there are real connections between it and the US authorities, especially
in Iraq, to say nothing of the Saudis. I can't help but wonder whether it's a CIA operation, either
run amok or conceivably still under control. (If you aren't paranoid, you aren't paying attention.)
Steven, October 7, 2015 at 4:17 pm
I keep wondering how much of what goes on here in the commentariat of Naked Capitalism
is just preaching to the choir and how much represents (well deserved) contempt for the official
government / MSM (but I repeat myself) line among the population at large. That contempt – if
it exists – is in my humble opinion – a national security issue / crisis.
JTMcPhee, October 7, 2015 at 7:46 pm
Quoting the captain of the Titanic, "More steam! Full speed ahead! We gotta show the world
what this baby will do!"
"... Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking
straight up plain international law truth. Theyve come to the aid of the recognized government of
Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states,
and Turkey, in violation of international law. ..."
"... They are defending principles of
international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and
its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that dont want to
take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other
jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest.
..."
"... in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria
has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using
Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world. ..."
"... there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies,
even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own
kind of agenda. And theres nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their
own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light
this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists,
the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that
would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war
that the United States wanted them to fight. ..."
"... And although that warning didnt cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists,
it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think thats why he backed off from bombing Syria
that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon
brass are lying about the kinds of reports that theyve been given, reports about the growing strength
of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split
in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary
Clinton was secretary of state. ..."
BALL: So what is going on here? It almost sounds like a neo-Cold War indirect conflict of superpowers
vying for colonial control over their property, or a fight over whose anti-Assad allies should be
supported. What is going on?
FORD: Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking
straight up plain international law truth. They've come to the aid of the recognized government of
Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states,
and Turkey, in violation of international law. And the Russians say that they are not just defending
the government that they have had relations with for decades. They are defending principles of
international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and
its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that don't want to
take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other
jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest.
BALL: But again, for those of us who have varying understandings of what's happening here,
it would seem like the U.S. would not have a problem with Assad's territory being bombed, given that
the U.S. and Obama's administration in particular is no fan of Bashar al-Assad and his leadership
there in Syria. Why then are they having a problem with what Russia's doing, and to what extent are
the problems that are claimed to be addressed there actually caused in their origin by the United
States and its policies?
FORD: Well, the United States has, and Obama knows the United States has, problems that go beyond
the Russian intervention. They have problems with their own policy, which has brought them to this
state of affairs. And in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria
has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using
Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world.
And the reason that I say another chance is because it was the Russians back in 2012 who gave
President Obama a similar opportunity to re-think that jihadist 35-year-old policy when they proposed
that the international community supervise the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. That was
back in 2012. And that allowed President Obama to back off from his threat to attack Syria, to bomb
the Syrian government. I think that President Obama backed off on that threat not because of domestic
or international opposition. The United States acts unilaterally all the time, I think he could have
gotten away with it. I think that Obama was genuinely afraid of what would happen if the Syrian government
collapsed. And make no mistake about it, if the United States had attacked the Syrian government
directly the dynamic of the situation would have compelled the United States to keep on attacking
until that government was totally destroyed, just like they did to Col. Gaddafi's government in Libya
only one year before.
But it is very clear, now quite clear in hindsight but I think it was visible back then, that
there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies,
even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own
kind of agenda. And there's nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their
own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light
this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists,
the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that
would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war
that the United States wanted them to fight.
And although that warning didn't cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists,
it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think that's why he backed off from bombing Syria
that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon
brass are lying about the kinds of reports that they've been given, reports about the growing strength
of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split
in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary
Clinton was secretary of state.
So the Russian intervention is now forcing Obama's hand. He's going to have to decide if he's
going to continue this policy with the jihadists, or if he's going to go for some kind of containment
or stabilization of the battle lines in Syria. We know it's quite obvious that Turkey and Saudi Arabia
and the Gulf states wanted an all-out offensive to take out the Assad government once and for all,
but that has been checked definitively by the Russians. And that gives Obama another chance to cooperate
with the people in the region, with Syria and with Iran, and with the government of Iraq, as well
as with the Russians. He has that chance again, if he takes it.
"... If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly. ..."
"... The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth. ..."
"... "......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police. They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces ..."
"... USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors. ..."
"... It was America and its proxies which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today by supporting those opposed to the government. ..."
"... It's hard not to conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a leader that isn't one of their puppets. ..."
"... The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign. According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched. ..."
"... Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words. ..."
"... whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults. ..."
"... the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. ..."
"... The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force. ..."
"... The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys). ..."
Russia had to step in and bring attention to the proxy groups operating in Syria under US support.
After years of lies the divide and conquer, regime change to puppet government plan has been exposed.
The US support of these groups against Assad coincides with Israeli security concerns which
deem a destabilized Middle East a boost to Israel's security. This unprecedented foreign state
influence starts in Washington with Congress, various advisers, think tanks, lobby groups, and
full media support.
It's interesting to see how Russia acts to pursue state interests without being hobbled by
the concerns and questionable influence of another country that does not have similar foreign
policy interests as the USA. Time for a change in US policy, it's long overdue.
mgeary 2 Oct 2015 12:56
Sadly, as always in war the truth is amongst the first victims.
This conflict is another product of the old "divide and conquer" tactic, adapted to the current
reality. When you do not like a nation`s leadership, you find a group of dissidents, train them,
arm them and let them loose.
The civilians, women and children killed, the lives ruined and the homes lost are just collateral
damage.
The situation in Syria is by the making of the powers involved, so complicated, with so many
factions involved, that we should be very careful when we pass judgement.
Several of the people commenting here and some reporters have already done so with bias, according
to their interests.
Thomas Hood -> eelolondon 2 Oct 2015 12:44
If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly.
Glauber Brito 2 Oct 2015 11:25
It is difficult to criticize Russian involvement in the Syria, when considering that it has
been the US invasion and occupation in Iraq, which incidentally claimed well over 100,000 civilian
lives, that sent the entire Middle East into turmoil.
The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and
civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting
is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous
in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth.
Which is exactly what the Russians are telling their viewers and listeners. It would be utterly
refreshing, if the media would start demonstrating the same critical bias towards the government
and the use of language, as they do of the Russians.
Madranon LaterNow 2 Oct 2015 09:16
I suspect that this is all about the House of Saud's internal war manifesting in proxy wars
destabilising the region in some sick power struggle between the royal families.
Besides, the only real victims in this are the non Sunnis, the groups that Saudi Arabia has long
persecuted within its own borders for decades. The aim, i believe is a totally Sunni middle east
with all other sects and religions driven out or exterminated. With the help of western weapons,
Britain likes to make a few bob out of any civil war and regional horror.
WhetherbyPond -> diddoit 2 Oct 2015 03:13
"the term Ziocons is offensive."
I meant to give offence. Being violently nationalistic, expansionist, racist and corrupt is
offensive. If the apartheid state of Israel was any other country the west would be up in arms
and calling for sanctions and regime change; however, because of the vile actions of the Nazi's
and others, and the fact that the west did very little to help the poor souls who were being persecuted
and murdered, the Ziocons use the guilt that is rightly felt in the west as a shield to cover
their actions and silence their critics.
The figures about casualties comes from The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (OSDH) is an
agency close to the rebels financed by Arab monarchies and Western states and headquartered in
London. It publishes its toll of months of war Syria. These macabre figures reveal surprising
dishonesty of traditional media and contradict the pro-interventionist propaganda. Note that Reuters
was not allowed to check their figures.
The OSDH announced that there would have been 220,271 deaths.
Nearly half of the victims of war are soldiers and loyalist militiamen.
The number of "Bashar soldiers" killed is higher than the number of civilians killed. On the
other hand, the Syrian Arab army is essentially composed of conscripts, that is to say citizens
who defend their country, their institutions and their government, we can say that the army is
inseparable from the Syrian people.
Therefore, it is also dishonest to hold Assad responsible for the deaths of more than 220,000
Syrians as do the media and provocative militants since the first victim of the war in Syria is
the army, so the people in uniform, so the "people pro-Assad".
Let us turn now to the number of civilian casualties. The OSDH counted 104,629 killed.
This figure does not distinguish the Syrians that could be broadly described as "pro-government"
or "pro-rebellion".
The number of civilians, including women and children, which can be in the pro-Assad camp of
anti-rebel or neutral is probably extremely high especially if one takes into account the mass
killings which occurred by terrorist groups in the Kurdish areas of the north of the country,
in neighborhoods and Shiite villages and Christian and among the Sunni patriots all over the country.
The anti-government armed groups have also claimed hundreds of executions of civilians including
children, suspected of sympathy with the Syrian regime.
As for victims of the armed opposition, the OSDH recorded 37,336 killed, twice less than killed
Syrian soldiers (90,000) and one fifth of the total number of victims of war (220,271).
These armed groups are themselves engaged in wars that cause the death of many pro-rebel fighters
and their families. Thus among the 104,629 civilian victims of the Syrian confit, it should take
into account hundreds of rebels killed by pro-rebel civilians.
On reading the tragic toll of the OSDH, the Syrian situation shows that this is not Bashar,
but the rebellion that is killing the Syrian people. Therefore, the Syrian state is right to fight
against terrorism to restore peace in the country like any other state in the world
I agree and disagree.
The protests began in Daraa. Where the protesters did an idiotic thing. The region was suffering
from a severe drought. Now instead of protesting for relief aid, they were protesting for the
downfall of the regime?????
There was nothing at all peaceful in the protests of Hama and Homs in 2011 where protestors
deliberately murdered policemen and women and the Muslim Botherhood was busy already chanting
'Alawites in Coffins and Christians to Beirut'. A very dangerous chant in the two cities where
minorities made up more than a third of the population.
I am sorry, if a bunch of Islammist nutjobs start talking of putting my people in coffins and
deporting my allies to Beirut, I would have leveled them to the Ground. Have you seen the Old
City of Homs? That would have been anyone's reaction.
Sparingpartner 1 Oct 2015 20:45
If you can't own the economy, fuck the place up! Great policy in the so called propagation
of democratic freedoms... and while you are at it, explain to me once gain why Australia needs
to not only be involved in this inglorious cluster-fuck but want to urge the Americans to step
it up - like they're not doing enough?
Sweet Jesus in heaven save me from the do-gooders in this world!
buildabridge -> Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 20:34
Or a deliberate cunning foreign policy to divide and create chaos?
Back in 2005 Bashra under occupation by British forces:
"......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the
occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police.
They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police
and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this
is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now
clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces"
Not so sure. USA is still the strongest military power with the furthest reach by miles. It
has the smartest and best funded Foreign Offices and Spy Networks, human and electronic. This
chaos in the Middle East, any slowly further North, is US foreign policy firing on all cylinders,
to create chaos in Eurasia to prevent Eurasia from settling down and trading peacefully with each
other, and so USA becoming sidelined. USA is succeeding and winning with minimal loss, far away
from Eurasia. USA remains strong and Eurasia becomes weaker fighting with itself, just like WW1
and WW2.
USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong
at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors.
mandzorp -> eelolondon 1 Oct 2015 18:06
Russia are bombing in support of the government of Syria. It was America and its proxies
which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today
by supporting those opposed to the government.
cherryredguitar -> tubes99 1 Oct 2015 17:47
Just making the point that the US/UK are on the same side as Islamic nutters who eat dead people's
internal organs.
TheChillZone -> LoveisEternal 1 Oct 2015 17:26
Yeah, whereas the West's nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc has gone soon well.
Russia can't do any worse than us....and at least hey are doing something to fight isis and the
legions of terrorsst groups that are lining up to take control of Syria. It's hard not to
conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a
leader that isn't one of their puppets.
KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:07
As a matter of fact the Russian intervention at Syria's invitation was necessary because of
the failure of the US to halt ISIS. Yes, the same ISIS that the USA originally armed ( to fight
Assad). Syrian Government forces currently control territory that holds 80% of the Syrian population
and you can be sure that ISIS are now doomed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq and
others, with or without the support of the outmaneuvered (again) USA.
The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign.
According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even
reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched.
Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution
to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's
attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's press
in the US and UK.
retsdon 1 Oct 2015 17:20
whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force
fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to shore up his position and stave off demands that he step
down.
Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians
are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their
little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words.
Here, try the truth.
whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force
fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the
pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults.
You just can't bring yourselves to admit that your neo-liberal masters have cocked their little
adventure up completely this time, can you? Eh?
Realworldview 1 Oct 2015 17:04
Wake-up call on Syrian army weakness prompted Russian intervention
Very true, the collapse of the Syrian army was looking increasingly likely. This interesting
article on the Saker website adds further clarity, by discussing what will not happen, what will
happen, what has already happened, and what might happen.
Finally some clarity about the Russian plans about Syria that ends with this paragraph, which
raises the prospect of some "interesting times" in Syria and the wider Middle East:
Of course, I am under no illusions about any real change of heart in the imperial "deep
state". What we see now is just a tactical adaptation to a situation which the US could not
control, not a deep strategic shift. The rabid Russophobes in the West are still out there
(albeit some have left in disgust ) and they will now have the chance to blame Russia for anything
and everything in Syria, especially if something goes really wrong. Yes, Putin has just won
another major victory against the Empire (where are those who claimed that Russia had "sold
out" Syria?!), but now Russia will have to manage this potentially "dangerous victory".
If nothing else, it explains the wall to wall media propaganda blitz that started with the
first Russian air strikes.
KriticalThinkingUK -> psygone 1 Oct 2015 16:45
Wake up psygoon...
the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight
Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds
provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. Its a fact whether you like
it or not...the US propaganda offensive to try and cover up their stupidity will go nowhere. The
truth will out and the terrorists will be destroyed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran and
Iraq etc, with or without the support of the USA. The Russian intervention against ISIS has massive
support in Europe, who can take no more refugees. Europe, the whole of the middle east, Russia
and above all the Syrian people (especially the Kurd and Christian minority communities) all need
a stable government in Syria, not another failed state like Libya and Iraq.
Abiesalba -> Jack Seaton 1 Oct 2015 16:02
As for ISIS being a threat to Russia, does anyone seriously believe that ISIS are going
to get anywhere near those maps you linked to?
Yes. The media in the European countries which are on the ISIS map reported about this map
with concern already when it was published a year ago. (One of the links to ISIS maps in my previous
post goes to Slovenia's national broadcaster, the other to an Austrian newspaper - both Slovenia
and Austria are on the ISIS map).
Because unlike you, we understand that ISIS does not have to physically occupy all these countries.
Its strategy is to first have groups pledging allegiance to ISIS in these countries. And in this
respect, ISIS is VERY successful and has in only one year spread its influence into rather many
countries. Besides, it has also claimed incredibly much territory in Syria and Iraq, while the
US-led coalition (comprising very mighty armies) claim they are fighting against them!
Russian security forces have foiled a terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to ISIS
in Ingushetia, in the Northern Caucasus, according to the National Anti-Terror Committee (NAC).
Security forces seized explosives, weapons and over 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
-
- How Russian Militants Declared A New ISIS 'State' In Russia's North
Caucasus
(26 June 2015)
The Islamic State group announced the creation of its northernmost province this week, after
accepting a formal pledge of allegiance from former al Qaeda militants in the North Caucasus region
of Russia.
Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 16:01
The west is physiologically defunct. Fact. Their fragile idealistic bits-and-pieces approach
to having a belief system, full of irrational claptrap is being so painfully allowing the Syrian
conflict to run and run.
However terrifying the reality becomes the west withdraws into a sort of elitist denial and
always seem to have international law on their side however many times they break it!
It seems a long time ago now that anyone in the West thought and articulated with such clarity,
realism, and sense as the Russians. The political correct bigots in the West created this situation
, one where no-one dare talk sense for fear of ridicule. Long live Putin.
AgeingAlbion 1 Oct 2015 15:30
Putin at least has been consistent throughout. He has backed Assad from day one.
The west first thought it was going to be another wonderful Arab Spring, then thought they
could manage to back the "right" rebels as opposed to Isis, then said chemical weapons were a
"red line" them failed to do anything when the red line was crossed then said Assad must go before
negotiations and now meekly accept he might have to be part of the solution.
How much has that dithering achieved and how many lives has it cost? If Russia moves in directly
and uses the Red Army to destroy Isis will it really be worse than our messing around?
SHappens 1 Oct 2015 15:26
Good summary. As an add on from Dr Bachar al-Jaafari, permanent syrian UN delegate 16/09/2015
- In the North, there are outlawed groups of called armed terrorists " Armed with the conquest
" [Jaďch al-Fath], financed by Qatar and Turkey, that sends every day thousands of shells on Aleppo,
killing hundreds and mutilating thousands of our citizens, preventing them from meeting their
elementary needs on a daily basis.
In the South, rages another terrorist army financed by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, member state
of this organization, country brother and neighbor of Syria. An army which proceeds in the same
way by despicable terrorist acts against our citizens in this region.
In the suburbs of Damascus(damask), rages another army from the city of the Duma, a group of
terrorists financed by Saudi Arabia, called up " Armed with the Islam " [Aich al Islam].
There are three terrorists groups who are armed, the first under the command of Turkey, the
second in command of the Jordan, the third under the command of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Backed
up by the US, UK and France.
The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory
but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra
on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force.
The US coalition's airstrikes look like at best a gesture, at worst a smokescreen for future
bombing campaign against Syria. The war prevented on September 2013 would be triggered under a
new guise. But Russia took the ground. The priority is the fight against jihadism, associated
with integrating the power of the political opposition, elections and a regional peace conference.
The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows
of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans
will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half
a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys).
Russia is about to put an end to this circus, hopefully with little collateral damage (thus
beware of western propaganda on civilians toll) having high weapons tech to select targets accurately
as mentioned in this article.
Abiesalba -> KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:22
Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution
to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's
attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's
press in the US and UK.
Very true. Here is Slovenia, the public opinion seems to be very strongly siding with Russia
and against the insane US (judging from comments on forums).
And the US/UK media are truly an amazing brainwashing propaganda machine, straight from Orwell's
1984.
Jan Burton 1 Oct 2015 14:47
Russia isn't dumb or dishonest enough to make the meaningless distinctions between ISIS and
other Islamist groups that the west insists on making. They're all out for the same thing and
only differ on the details.
Putin in merely doing what needs to be done.
cherryredguitar 1 Oct 2015 14:48
Given that the so-called moderate rebels have a leader who videoed himself cutting a dead person's
body open and eating one of the guys internal organs, the Russians are right not to differentiate
between them and Isis.
Destroy all the extremists, even the ones that the Americans and Saudis like.
Abiesalba -> RobertNeville 1 Oct 2015 14:46
the Russians are allowed to fly the skies of Syria and the US is not.
Yes. Because the Syrian government asked Russia for a military intervention, whereas the US
apparently have some superior right to illegally breach international borders as they wish and
bomb whomever they like (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan).
By the way, the very fact that Iraqi government asked for a military intervention is used by
the US-led coalition to justify their strikes in Iraq.
jvillain -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:44
The US, France and finally to a slightly lesser degree the UK want Assad gone more than they
want ISIS, Al Quaida or the Army of God gone. If Assad falls all his weapons will belong to ISIS
and crew as well as having total control of a state. The so called rebels are only 5% or so of
the people fighting. All the other opposition groups have either merged with ISIS or been eliminated.
If Assad falls there will no longer be a choice but to put western boots on the ground in Syria
in a big way.
WhetherbyPond 1 Oct 2015 14:43
The Ziocons in the US are very upset that their geopolitical game is being thwarted by Russia.
Abiesalba -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:41
It surely is interesting how the Anglo-American media today went all hysterical about the alleged
civilian casualties in Russian air strikes.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, June 2015
-
SOHR documented the death of 2896 people at least since the beginning of the U.S led coalition
air strikes on Syria in 23/Sep until this morning, while hundreds others were wounded, vast majority
IS extremists.
The number of civilians who were killed in the coalition airstrikes on oil areas, where there
are oil refineries, oil wells, building and vehicles, in the provinces of al- Hasakah, Deir Ezzor,
al- Raqqa, Aleppo and Idlib has risen to 162, including 51 children and 35 women.
Among the deaths, there are a family of a man, his wife and their 5 children killed due in
US- led coalition airstrikes on the village of Dali Hasan in east of the town of Serrin in northeast
of Aleppo and 64 civilians killed by a massacre committed by the U.S led coalition warplanes on
Friday's night in 04/30/2015 when they targeted Bir Mahli village near the town of Serrin in Aleppo
with several air strikes, and the death toll of this massacre includes:
– 31 children under the age of 16 including ( 16 females and 15 males ).
– 19 women above the age of 18.
– 13 men above the age of 18.
– A 18 years old boy.
-
-
For more about civilian casualties due to the US-led coalition strikes in Syria and Iraq, see
the Airwars website:
To date, the international coalition has only conceded two "likely" deaths, from an event in
early November 2014. It is also presently investigating seven further incidents of concern; is
carrying out credibility assessments on a further 13; and has concluded three more investigations
– having found no 'preponderance of evidence' to support civilian casualty claims.
"... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. ..."
"... Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise. ..."
"... Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection? ..."
"... I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding. ..."
"... You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue with their nefarious plans. ..."
"... The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking." ..."
"... And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one. Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either. ..."
"... The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. ..."
"... The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach. ..."
"... Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?). ..."
"... McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only against Damascus, but also against Moscow. ..."
"... America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil. ..."
"... For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football. ..."
"... The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between Iran and the Mediterranean. ..."
"... But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers with beards and Saudi accents. ..."
"... Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics, psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in fighting the war on terror. Hilarious. ..."
Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think
they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)
strannick
Like the US, these vile medieval "regional allies" try to frame their propaganda to show
that this is about removing the dictator Assad, who actually is one of the most benign in that
demented region. Its not.
They want him out because he opposed their pipeline, favoring instead the Iraqi Iran Shiite
pipeline, which all three nations agreed to create. So much for national self determination.
Otherwise they wouldnt give a shit what deranged lunatic ran Syria, or if Syria was ruled by
some king as demented and tyranical and genocidal as they, -the Saudis and Qataris- are themselves.
Winston Churchill
Its not about an indefencible gas pipline at all.
By deception we wage war.
Its about potable water in south Lebanon.
Without that Israel is a failed desert state within ten years.
Go do the research yourself, all the data has been out there for nearly fifty years.
Hidden in plain sight.
swmnguy
Israel has to have the Litani river from source to outlet.
The pipeline from Qatar is a real project too, though.
Captain Debtcrash
Saudis' won't mess with Russia because they know the US probably wouldn't intervene on their
behalf, we don't want to mess with Russia either and vice versa. It was already agreed we would
let them do what they want and talk a good game in opposition.
That said, if I'm wrong, I don't think we will have to worry about low oil prices any more.
Oracle of Kypseli
Desal water is much more expensive than oil.
And... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. The Jordan river is now a small
slow moving creek.
Winston Churchill
The Litani is part of the headwaters of the river Jordan.
The Golan overlooks the Jordan.Whick looks like a stream in comparison to what is was fifty
ago, and a dried up mud hole relative to 150yrs ago. I wish I could post a photo from the 1860's
I have of the Jordan, its a glass plate negative taken by my great grandfather.
Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise.
If, as reported yesterday, Putin is going to supply Hezbollah direct with armaments, Putin
will have a Israels balls in a vice, no wonder Nutjob is going apeshit..
Jack Burton
Good point Winston. I have always been dubious about the Pipeline argument. As you say, even
if built, this pipeline would run through very hostile places, sure to be hit over and over again.
Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater
Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed
a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection?
Israel must, with in a decade take and hold souther Lebanon of perish. The only water left
is there, Israel must have it. So they will take it, to hold it, they need Syria dead and Lebanon
a failed stated.
I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding.
the Qatar pipeline argument never made any sense because:
1] you don't build a pipeline through chaos which will last years, which is precisely what
Israel, most of all wants - a bloodletting that destroys another regional economic, and to an
extent military rival.
2] Cost/benefit wise it doesn't make sense to spend this sort of money and time to go through
Syria - look at a map.
3] Israel's Leviathan find, it's plans to ethnically cleanse the remainder of Palestine, and
find/create pretexts to attack and invade more of Lebanon, Syria, and Sinai. It's plans to steal
the gas that, if international law applied to the Jewish State, Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon.
This is a load of crap. I lived in the Caribbean and our source of water was desalinization
plant. It wasn't as expansive as you say, even the poorest locals could easily afford it. The
problem with desalinization plants was that intake valves would clog up with seaweed during storms!
There is no evidence whatsoever that Israel is planning any aggression towards its neighbors.
It's also no secret that ALL of Israel air strikes into Syria involved intercepts of weapons shipments
from Iran; that's clearly stated in mainstream media reporting!
You must be a deluded old twig, if you even attempt to compare Nazi Germany Lebensraum policies
of total liquidation of local populations to modern Israeli politics of settler land grab in the
West Bank.
Winston Churchill
I'm old like you Jack, but travelled extensively throughout the MENA, a family tradition you
could say, my great grandfather and grandfather were involved in opening up tourism/biz to a lot
of the area.Long before oil was discovered. Have some 'wrong side of the blanket' relatives who
I keep in contact with as well.
SWRichmond
Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think
they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)
Putin is confident in his backing at home. Russian people are, for lack of a better way to
put it, accustomed to "doing without" while supporting the motherland. Saudi, on the other hand,
has completely spoilt their home population with their temporary wealth (now in doubt), paying
them just to live, making them soft and expectant, petulant, self indulgent (sound familiar?).
Putin is quite obviously "going for it", pressing his position, because he believes he will prevail.
The gloves are off. USA is broke, and Putin knows it. Petrodollar is on its death bed, and he
knows it, and he is willing to overtly hasten its death.
Final question, for bonus points: how do nations traditionally finance wars?
Answer: BY DEBASING THEIR CURRENCIES.
PacOps
Didn't someone pull some kind of shit like that on the Soviet Union a few decades back? ;-)
Sun, 10/04/2015 - 11:48 | 6628206 swmnguy
The Russian people can feed themselves. Not lavishly; cabbage and "cole" vegetables; potatoes;
a little meat, fish and poultry; cold-weather grains; but they can feed themselves. Not so much
for the Saudis and Qataris etc. Also, the Russians make their own stuff. They don't have to import
slaves who outnumber them.
Yes, if the luxury is suddenly removed from their lives, the Russian people wouldn't notice,
never having had much in the first place. But the Saudis and Qataris can't survive in their current
arrangements.
kananga
"So, millions of Saudi refugees invading Europe?"
More like, 100 Saudi Royals invading Monaco.
lincolnsteffens
You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle
to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue
with their nefarious plans.
Sir Edge
Yes...
Plus One Kabillion SWR... Perfectly Said...
"USA is preparing to rip itself apart. For some reason Americans believe they can foist death,
destruction, mayhem and hopelessness upon the entire rest of the planet, while somehow remaining
immune from it themselves. The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask
Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking."
strannick
Exactly.
How dare Russia and Iran tinker with America and Suadis bombed out, fucked up Shangrala that
is their legacy in the Middle East.
researchfix
They know what´s coming. Iran and Russia will chase ISIS to the Saudi border. And then they
stop the chase. And then the next chapter enfolds.
cosmyccowboy
Stick with the small bucket, I do not believe that the Saudi little boy lovers and women beaters
sill last long against the Russians, Syrians and Iranians. Their mercenaries will flee from a
real fighting force!
HowdyDoody
Saudi are being setup as Zion's stooges. If they win - ZIon gets lebensraum to the north of
Israel, if they lose - lebensraum to the south. The inevitable public reason for the land grab
- poor defenseless little Israel needs a buffer zone between it and the Muslims.
LetThemEatRand
And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our
good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one.
Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA
controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced
the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the
US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the
Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either.
Bendromeda Strain
And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our
good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Do not fail to miss the "go to" interview with the demon worshipper at The European Council
of Foreign Relations. Saudi Arabia's interest just happens to *currently* align with the globalists.
Convenient for them - for now.
TheReplacement
I disagree. I think the drivers are unnamed and the royals of KSA are both a faction and a
pawn. They would look at themselves and see a faction. When looked down upon by TPTB they are
pawns (like 99.999999% of humanity).
I also do not see most Americans cheering for Putin. I see most Americans are absolutely ignorant
and clueless as per usual. Some think they are informed and think evil Putin grasping at empire.
I cannot speak to Putin's motives and I do hold suspicion of anybody who has maintained power
like his as long as that man. Still, I have to ask them what exactly Putin has done.
"Invaded Ukraine."
Really? Show me pictures and video that isn't years old and taken from a completely different
country while I show you pictures and video of the US State Department funding and fomenting a
violent uprising by neo nazis against a constitutionally elected government (this is not to say
that I disagree in any way with Ukrainians taking action of their own volition but that isn't
what happened).
"Well, he shot down that jetliner."
Proof? The west has all the evidence and we have no proof. You do realize the official report
only confirmed that the jet was in fact shotdown. They have presented no evidence that either
confirms nor denies any particular faction did in fact shoot it down.
"He's invading Syria."
Putin was invited by the Syrian government because ISIS and their allies were starting to win
the war despite our forces supposedly bombing them all year. If we were bombing and droning them,
in addition to the fighting by the Iraqis, Syrians, and Kurds, then why were they still winning?
If Russia, Syria, and Iran all want to defeat ISIS then who is it that wants ISIS to win - who
is supporting the bad guys in black if all the other bad guys are trying to kill them?
"I don't know. You wanna watch the Redsox?"
JustObserving
The corrupt, criminal, cruel cabal that rules Saudi Arabia should have collapsed years ago.
So let them start another war and collapse now. Karma is a bitch. Hope ISIS are pushed into Saudi
Arabia and Turkey.
The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded
ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. Was the US dropping care packages and videos made in Langley?
The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion
in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror
group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach.
I question that narrative. Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but
those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is
as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the
operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die
but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?).
JustObserving
Does the Doomsday clock have a seconds hand ?
Does it have a nanosecond hand?
Threat of wider war mounts as Russia continues airstrikes in Syria
More prominent are voices calling for an even more reckless US policy of escalation against
both Assad and Putin. They speak for powerful sections of the foreign policy and military-intelligence
establishment that are implacably hostile to the nuclear deal with Iran and bent on war with Russia
and China.
John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke for this
faction Wednesday. He declared from the Senate floor, "Into the wreckage of this administration's
Middle East policy has now stepped Putin. As in Ukraine and elsewhere, he perceives the administration's
inaction and caution as weakness, and he is taking advantage."
On Thursday, McCain told CNN that he could "absolutely confirm" that the initial Russian strikes
were "against our Free Syrian Army or groups that have been armed and trained by the CIA…"
McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the
Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that
allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks
US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only
against Damascus, but also against Moscow.
That the Sunni clans find the Russian Iran entente a threat to their creationist minded ideology
is understandable--to the extent that Turkey has reverted to obscurantist logic and effaced Ataturk's
legacy from its current political inclination-- and that Saud and Qatar, as inheritors of the
Pax Americana Oil protected legacy, have reverted to the same ideological stance in a regressional
spiral that shocks the word-- is one thing ; that the West adheres to this same logic is another.
The history of the wahhabist arabs monarchies is diametrically opposed to that of the West in
terms of political priorities.
The latter trend, of regression to neo-feudal ideology, is a betrayal of western values that
are the bedrocks of our society.
There is no excuse for this regression, now brought out to the open by a Shia theocracy aligned
with a autocratic Russia, which make the so called democratic West look like the new Evil Empire.
We are now in a spiral in West that will bring down democracy and replace it by a neo-feudal
autocracy that will have nothing to envy the most evil traits of the Spanish Inquisition.
America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as
incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil.
Even Putin and Khameini look like moderates!
ThroxxOfVron
Russia is not allied with Iran.
That both Russia and Iran perceive that it is in their individual interestes to intervene in
Syria does not make them allies.
The only reason that Russia and Iran welcome the others intervention is that it temporarily
relieves each of them of the full weight of the financing costs of their respective interventions
which would be higher if undertaken alone, and relieves both of some amount of the international
political pressures being manifest by the US/Zio powers opposed to their interventions.
Russia and Iran do not share the same goals and will not employ the same methods.
Any appearance of mutual support is tangenital and temporary. It will dissipate rapidly when
their true divergent interests become apparent in due course and as their opportunities in the
Trans-Syrian theater evolves.
Likely the two will immediately become opponents in Syria as other forces are ejected from
the theater in much the same manner as Russia and the British/US did in Germany when Berlin fell
at the end of the WW2.
What I do not think is being spoken of publicly is the fact that Iraq is effectively being
carved up while the focus is on Syria.
I do not think Iraq will exist, or certainly will not exist with the same territorial boundaries,
when the Trans-Syrian ( Great Sunni/Shia ) War is concluded.
swmnguy
I would guess Kurdish leaders are doing everything they can to get an audience in the Kremlin
about now. This is their best chance ever at an independent Kurdistan, protected by Iran and Russia.
There won't ever be a better moment for them. The US has been using them as we used the Hmong
in Laos in the Vietnam War. Time for the Kurds to get out of the firing line and into an arrangement
with local regional powers who will actually pay them in the coin of their choosing in return
for their services.
swmnguy
I don't think Saudi Arabia can do anything more than transfer some ancient handheld anti-arcraft
missiles to their Syrian proxies, through third-parties. I can't imagine the Saudis openly attacking
the Russians. I doubt they'd ship anything directly traceable back to them.
For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually
intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh
off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the
Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason
for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the
GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football.
But if you look at the atlas, and at Russian behavior since the 1970s, it's pretty obvious
why they aren't going to tolerate radical insane Sunni mercenary armies running around in their
backyard. In Syria, different from Ukraine, the local recognized government can invite them in.
Now it looks like the local recognized government in Iraq has invited them in, too.
The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken
a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between
Iran and the Mediterranean.
The Saudis will whine and cry, but not do much. Israel is going to get real quiet. I'd guess
the US will cut bait on their proxies. But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang
Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will
be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers
with beards and Saudi accents.
45North1
All this crap really ramped up about the time Libya was destroyed by NATO. Civilian deaths
certainly have soared from 2011 to now.
Not saying there is a coincidence with respect to Libya being destroyed , but I can't help
but think there is some link between liberated Libyan weapon staches and the accelerated actions
of the various iterations of Syrian Rebels and re-labeled Terrorists in Syria. Syrian People have
subsequently suffered. Infrastructure has been destroyed, Syria risks a future as a failed state
(ala Libya) if overrun. I am sure Syria can take some comfort in knowiing that Libya got a new
Central Bank as NATO munitions were still landing.)
Hopefully Policies of other players in the Syrian mess don't adopt the in for a penny , in
for a pound approach to this debacle.... but I have my doubts.
Islam needs to get itself together if there is ever to be peace in the Middle East.
Pigs will probably fly first.
Atticus Finch
Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics,
psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in
fighting the war on terror. Hilarious.
Paracelsus
Correct. Gaddafi would have had tons of munitions.These were transported with US help thru
Turkey into Syria.With the Iraq war destabilizing the entire region,
The Kurds were able to establish there own mini-state with the bonus of oil in the ground.
Turkey has always been the weak man in the area politically, and has always opposed an
independent Kurdish nation.
I am waiting for the first Russian warplane to be brought down and the pilot roasted in a cage
(on video). I can't see where the Russkies would be very happy with the CIA/Mercs who provided
the ManPads for this event. The Russkies are very good at the airpower thing. The Iranians are
tough on the ground. The Russkies seem to want to get this over in months or less.
Funny how they don't seem to worry about any UN Security Council condemnation. Chinese Veto?
Well, death of the PetroDollar system. History in front of our eyes.. The only wildcard is
the Israelis threat to use nukes if they don't get their way. Aside from the PetroDollar collapse,
there exists a strong threat of China and others dumping Treasuries on the finance markets (if
they are unhappy with US foreign policy).
SA worried that the "coalition of the good and honest" Russia/Syria/Iran and Iraq will corner
ISIS and force them south thru western Iraq/eastern Jordan into Saudi Arabia itself. The Royal
Family, beheaders in chief, will receive the goes around.
Here some social media statements by members of the "moderate islamic opposition" that Barack
Obama and his two piece of shit (Cameron and Hollande) are supporting.
From wikipedia
In response to reports of Russian intervention, the
Army of Conquest's
Liwa al-Haqq
commander Abu Abdullah Taftanaz posted a tweet addressing the "infidel Russians", inviting them
to send troops to Syria and saying that "we have thousands like
Khattab" who would
"slaughter your pigs".[76][77]
Abu Abdullah Taftanaz also tweeted Russian military terms for Syrian rebels to familiarize themselves
with if they intercepted Russian radio chatter.[78][79][80][81][82]
Reportedly Chechen and Caucasian foreign fighters have begun flocking to the coastal regions of
Syria where the Russians are based in order to seek them out.[83]
Ahmad Eissa al-Sheikh, a commander in Turkish/Saudi-backed
Ahrar ash-Sham,[84]
threatened to bring upon "Russian hell in a Levantine flavor" if they encountered the Russians.[85][86]Harakat
Fajr ash-Sham al-Islamiya leader Abu Abdullah ash-Shami tweeted about the "globalization"
of the "Levantine Jihad".[87][88]
He also tweeted that on the Russians and said that "The Levant will become their graveyard, with
the permission of Allah".[89]
The Al-Qaeda-linked
Al-Nusra Front[90]
has set a reward for the seizure of Russian soldiers of 2,500,000
Syrian pounds (approximately
US$13,000).[91][92]
The Syria based, Al-Qaeda linked Saudi cleric Abdallah Muhammad Al-Muhaysini threatened that
Syria would be a "tomb for its invaders" or "graveyard for invaders" in response to the Russian
intervention and brought up the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[93][94][95]
Syria Update# Air Duel
between the Sukhoi Su - 30 Russian SM and Israeli F-15 Tags:
Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole Sukhoi SU - 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell
Douglas F-15's fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast.The Israeli F 15 warplanes
have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in particular the coast of Latakia, which
is now the bridgehead of the Russian forces in Syria.
The Israeli jets would generally follow
a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea
On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the
Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the
four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.
Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of
the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high
speed over the Lebanon.
The mighty Israeli military doesn't do so well against opponents who can actually fight back!
They'll probably bomb Gaza again so they can feel butch about themselves!
"on November 2, 1917, British imperialism in Palestine began when Lord Balfour, the then British
foreign secretary and former prime minister, sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, one of the leaders
of the Zionist movement. This letter became known as the "Balfour Declaration".
In that letter, Balfour promised British support for the Zionist programme of establishing
a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This pledge of support was made without
consulting the indigenous Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinian people.
And it was made before British troops had even conquered the land.
Balfour, on behalf of Britain, promised Palestine – over which Britain had no legal right –
to a people who did not even live there (of the very small community of Palestinian Jews in Palestine
in 1917, very few were Zionists). And he did so with the worst of intentions: to discourage Jewish
immigration to Britain. No wonder Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, opposed
the declaration.
And yet, just two years earlier, Britain had committed herself to assisting the Arab nations
in achieving their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Arab fighters all over the region, including
thousands of Palestinians, fought for their freedom, allowing Britain to establish her mandate
in Palestine. "
With respect to the total mess in Syria, to my knowledge there has been only one recent poll
conducted across Syria (see below). The pollsters say that the poll is representative of the people
of Syria. A similar poll was also conducted in Iraq. Both polls were conducted in June-July 2015:
-
82% of Syrians agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (17% disagree).
85% of Iraqis agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (10% disagree).
-
-
Among the warring sides in Syria, Assad has the highest (!) support – 47% of Syrians think he
has a POSITIVE influence (50% negative) .
Compare to the groups which the US 'coalition' and the Anglo-Americans media claim we should
all support:
Free Syrian Army – 35% positive, 63% negative
Syrian Opposition Coalition – 26% positive, 72% negative
-
Considering the polling results, anyone claiming that Assad should be removed is working AGAINST
half of the Syrians. Putin is right – Assad has to be included in any solution to the war. Else,
there will immediately a rebellion of half of Syrians against FOREIGN powers toppling Assad.
Assad will not come to the negotiating table without Putin.
Besides, it is clear that for Syrians (and Iraqis), the truly BAD guys are the Americans.
-
-
PUBLIC OPINION IN SYRIA
-
Fieldwork: June 10 to July 2
Respondents: 1,365 Syrians from all 14 governorates of the country
-
-
Thinking about the persons and the groups which are working now in Syria, Generally, do you think
that their influence is negative or positive on the matters in Syria
-
Positive … Negative
-
47% … 50% … Bashar al-Asad
43% … 55% … Iran
37% … 55% … Arab Gulf Countries
35% … 63% … Nusra Front
35% … 63% … Free Syrian Army
26% … 72% … Syrian Opposition Coalition
21% … 76% … Islamic State
-
-
There are many reasons around to explain the presence of ISIL in Iraq/Syria, please tell me if
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or a strongly disagree for the reason that
explains the presence of ISIL?
-
Agree … Disagree
-
82% … 17% … ISIL is foreign made by the US
59% … 40% … As a result of widespread sectarian politics in the Arab countries and in Turkey
55% … 44% …ISIL is made by some Arab regimes
50% … 48% … ISIL is created by foreign countries to find a balance with Iran
44% … 55% … Wrong policies pursued by the Syrian government
42% … 56% … Syrian regime made ISIL for marking the opposition to terrorism
39% … 57% … Iran is supporting this organization to weaken Iraq and take it under its control
22% … 76% … Sectarian congestion that has arisen in Syria
-
-
Do you support or oppose the international coalition airstrikes in Syria?
-
Support … Oppose
47% … 50%
-
-
According to your view, which of the following represent the best solution for the crisis which
Syria is in today?
-
51% … Political solution
37% … Military solution
-
-
Note: The poll has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.
Sources:
Polls Show Syrians Overwhelmingly Blame U.S. for ISIS (16 September 2015)
Full polling reports by the British ORB International (affiliate of WIN/Gallup International):
"... The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly
within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in terms
of a counter-escalation ..."
"... Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that may
limit both their military and financial resources. ..."
Regional powers have quietly, but effectively, channelled funds, weapons and other support to
rebel groups making the biggest inroads against the forces from Damascus. In doing so, they are investing
heavily in a conflict which they see as part of a wider regional struggle for influence with bitter
rival Iran.
In a week when Russia made dozens of bombing raids, those countries have made it clear that they
remain at least as committed to removing Assad as Moscow is to preserving him.
"There is no future for Assad in Syria," Saudi foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir warned, a few hours
before the first Russian bombing sorties began. If that was not blunt enough, he spelled out that
if the president did not step down as part of a political transition, his country would embrace a
military option, "which also would end with the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power".
... ... ...
"The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly
within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in
terms of a counter-escalation," said Julien Barnes-Dacey, senior policy fellow at the European
Council on Foreign Relations.
... ... ...
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that
may limit both their military and financial resources.
What appears to have happened here is this: Vladimir Putin has
exploited both the fight against ISIS and Iran's need to preserve the
regional balance of power on the way to enhancing Russia's influence over
Mid-East affairs which in turn helps to ensure that Gazprom's interests
are protected going forward.
Thanks to the
awkward position the US has gotten itself in by covertly allying itself
with various Sunni extremist groups, Washington is for all intents and
purposes powerless to stop Putin lest the public should suddenly get wise
to the fact that combating Russia's resurgence and preventing Iran from
expanding its interests are more important than fighting terror.
In short, Washington gambled on a dangerous game of geopolitical chess, lost, and now faces
two rather terrifyingly disastrous outcomes: 1) China establishing a presence in the Mid-East in
concert with Russia and Iran, and 2) seeing Iraq effectively ceded to the Quds Force and
ultimately, to the Russian army.
Pope Francis' address to Congress was almost certainly not what John Boehner, Mitch McConnell,
and other congressional leaders had in mind when they invited the pope to speak.
It probably wasn't what they were all thinking about during the last standing ovations. But here
was Pope Francis, revered as the People's Pope, calling out war profiteers and demanding an end to
the arms trade. Just as simple and as powerful as that.
... ... ...
"Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in
the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world," the pope said. Then he asked
the critical question: "Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering
on individuals and society?"
He answered it himself: "Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply
for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and
culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade."
Stop the arms trade. What a simple, clear call.
That means the ending things like the
$60 billion arms deal
the US made a few years back with Saudi Arabia, where those weapons are, in the pope's words, "inflicting
untold suffering on individuals and society," especially in Syria and Yemen. It means ending things
like the
$45 billion in new military aid – mostly in the form of advanced new weapons – the Israeli government
has requested from Washington between now and 2028. It means ending the provision of new arms to
scores of unaccountable militias in Syria, where
even the White House admits a nonmilitary solution is needed. And it means ending things like
the $1.1 billion in
arms sales the United States has made to Mexico this year alone.
And, of course, it means no longer diverting
at least 54 cents of every discretionary taxpayer dollar in the federal budget to the US military.
Actually, members of Congress – so many of whom rely on
huge campaign donations
from arms manufacturers, and so many of whom refuse to vote against military procurement because
often just a few dozen jobs connected to it might be in their district – really should have expected
the pope to say exactly what he did.
It was only last May, after all, that Pope Francis told a group of schoolchildren visiting the
Vatican that the arms trade is the "industry
of death." When a kid asked why so many powerful people don't want peace, the pope answered simply,
"because they live off wars!" Francis explained how people become rich by producing and selling weapons.
"And this is why so many people do not want peace. They make more money with the war!"
The pope's speech to Congress was quite extraordinary on a number of fronts.
... ... ...
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of the forthcoming
Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror: A Primer. Manuel Perez-Rocha is an associate
fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Reprinted with permission from
Foreign Policy In Focus.
"... The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother. I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand, you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my kingdom, if your grace commands me! ..."
Never let it be said that Britain's leaders miss an opportunity to inflame
fear and loathing towards migrants and refugees. First David Cameron warned
of the threat posed by "a swarm of people" who were "coming across the Mediterranean
… wanting to come to Britain". Then his foreign secretary Philip Hammond upped
the ante.
The chaos at the Channel tunnel in Calais, he declared, was caused by "marauding"
migrants who posed an existential threat. Cheer-led by the conservative press,
he warned that Europe would not be able to "protect itself and preserve its
standard of living" if it had to "absorb millions of migrants from Africa".
With nightly television coverage of refugees from the world's worst conflicts
risking their lives to break into lorries and trains heading for Britain, this
was rhetoric designed to stoke visceral fears of the wretched of the Earth emerging
from its depths.
Barely a hint of humanity towards those who have died in Calais this summer
has escaped ministers' lips. But in reality the French port is a sideshow, home
to a few thousand migrants unable to pay traffickers for more promising routes
around Britain's border controls.
Europe's real refugee crisis is in the Mediterranean. More than 180,000 have
reached Italy and Greece by sea alone this year, and more than 2,000 have died
making the crossing, mostly from war-ravaged Libya. The impact on Greece, already
wracked with crisis, is at tipping point.
On the Greek island of Kos, 2,000 mostly Syrian and Afghan refugees were
rounded up on Tuesday and locked in a sports stadium after clashes with riot
police, who used stun grenades to maintain order. Numbers reaching the Greek
islands have quadrupled since last year.
But nothing in Europe matches the millions who have been driven to seek refuge
in Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan or Jordan. Set against such a global drama, Calais
is little more than deathly theatre. Britain is not one of the main destinations
for either refugees or illegal migrants – the vast majority of whom overstay
their visas, rather than stow away in the Channel tunnel.
Last year 25,870 sought asylum in the UK and only 10,050 were accepted. By
contrast, Sweden accepted three times as many and Germany had more than 200,000
asylum and new asylum applicants. Nor is Britain's asylum seeker's benefit rate,
at Ł36.95 a week, remotely the magnet it is portrayed. France pays Ł41.42; in
Norway it's Ł88.65.
What does suck overwhelmingly legal migrant workers into Britain is a highly
deregulated labour market, where workplace protection is often not enforced
and which both gangmasters and large private companies are able ruthlessly to
exploit.
The case, reported in the Guardian, of the entirely legal Lithuanian farm
workers – who are suing a Kent-based gangmaster supplying high street supermarkets
over inhuman working conditions, debt bondage and violent intimidation – is
only the extreme end of a growing underbelly of harsh and insecure employment.
If ministers were remotely concerned about "rogue employers driving down
wages" by using illegal migrants, as they claim, they would be strengthening
trade unions and rights at work. But they're doing the opposite. And they're
using the language of dehumanisation to justify slashing support for asylum
seekers' children, locking up refused applicants indefinitely and targeting
illegal workers far more enthusiastically than the employers who exploit them.
But what risks dividing communities can also turn them against such anti-migrant
crackdowns. In recent months, flash protests have erupted in London and other
cities against UK Border Agency attempts to arrest failed asylum seekers or
undocumented migrant workers. In areas such as Elephant and Castle, riot police
have been called in after UKBA vans were surrounded and pelted with eggs by
angry locals and activists trying to prevent the detention of people seen as
part of the community.
The chaos at Calais and the far larger-scale upheaval and suffering across
Europe could be brought under control by the kind of managed processing that
northern European governments, such as Britain's, are so keen to avoid.
'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues,
expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.'
'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues,
expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.' Photograph:
Yahya Arhab/EPA
But that would only be a temporary fix for a refugee crisis driven by war
and state disintegration – and Britain, France and their allies have played
a central role in most of the wars that are fuelling it. The refugees arriving
in Europe come from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia
and Eritrea.
With the recent exception of the dictatorial Eritrean regime, those are a
roll-call of more than a decade of disastrous western-led wars and interventions.
In the case of Libya, the British and French-led bombing campaign in 2011 led
directly to the civil war and social breakdown that has made the country the
main conduit for refugee trafficking from Africa. And in Syria, the western
funding, arming and training of opposition groups – while fuelling the rise
of Isis – has played a crucial role in the country's destruction.
If the current American and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen
continues, expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months
to come. So the first longer term contribution Britain and its allies could
make to staunching the flow of refugees would be to stop waging open and covert
wars in the Middle East and north Africa. That is actual marauding.
The second would be a major shift in policy towards African development.
Africa may not be leading the current refugee crisis, and African migrants certainly
don't threaten European living standards. But as a group of global poverty NGOs
argued this week, Africa is being drained of resources through western corporate
profit extraction, extortionate debt repayments and one-sided trade "partnership"
deals. If that plunder continues and absolute numbers in poverty go on rising
as climate change bites deeper, migration pressures to the wealthy north can
only grow.
There is a genuine migration crisis driven by war and neoliberal globalisation.
Despite the scaremongering, it hasn't yet reached Britain. But it's a fantasy
to imagine that fences, deportations and better security can protect fortress
Europe. An end to the real plunder and marauding would be more effective.
ID0049691 nadel 13 Aug 2015 10:55
Why don't you start with yourself? How many of your ancestors like millions
of other Europeans, went to Africa, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand
and elsewhere to "settle" there over the past centuries? Now that the tide
is turning you and your likes do nothing but whine and accuse others of
being "left wingers". The left wingers seem to be the only people left with
human feelings.
Beastcheeks 13 Aug 2015 10:55
Thank you Seamus - a beacon of light amongst the marauding dirge of mass
media ignorance and hatred that characterises the current mainstream British
position. When I read many of responses to your reasoned arguments - I hang
my head in shame. Mass delusion and hatred not dissimilar to Nazi Germany
I'm afraid. The very fact you have to spell out the obvious truth - that
you can't bomb the hell out of people and then cry foul when they come to
us for safe refuge - beggars belief. I am well and truly disgusted and am
in the process of relinquishing my British nationality. No longer am I willing
to tolerate such ignorant intolerance in my name.
rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:51
Shias are not joining ISIS ... but the vast majority of Sunnis are not
joining it, either !?
Kurds are Sunnis - they're fighting ISIS.
Sunni tribes in Iraq are collaborating with Shia (often Iranian) militias
to fight ISIS.
Even fellow Sunni Jihadists in the al-Nusra Front (& affiliated brigades)
regard ISIS as ignorant nihilists and want to have nothing to do with them.
Your thesis about a Shia + Sunni conflict driving the wave of migration
into Europe is, simply, flawed.
Its utter nonsence, in fact.
Moreover, Shia and Sunni have lived amongst each other, largely, in peace
during that 1400 years. Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, most
suburbs of Baghdad were mixed and a significant proportion of families shared
a dual Shia + Sunni tradition.
Rj H 13 Aug 2015 10:42
There are some good and bad points to all this as demonstrated on this
comments thread. There seems to be no real consensus and blame is shifted
from one side to the other (whether political, social, class or economic).
The only thing we (indigenous population) might all agree upon is; upon
stepping back and looking at the current state of the UK (formally Great
Britain) most of us will come to the conclusion that something has gone
wrong and the country and the UK is not enjoying good health. That fact
alone should demonstrate that those in charge are not doing their jobs properly.
Poor leadership across 40 years has damaged this country. A country that
once governed FOR its people now governs contrary to the majority of its
people's wishes. Those at the top are not capable (or indeed willing) to
look out for those at the bottom. We as a population are being hit and abused
by a government that cares only for the wealth and power of a select few.
Never have so many been owed so much by so few. The government has reduced
the people's voice to a hoarse whisper. We need to regain our voice and
SHOUT back that we won't stand for this situation any longer.
blueanchor rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:36
"How is Islam responsible ...?".
Aren't the battlelines across swathes of Islam's heartland in the Middle-East
drawn up broadly on Sunni v Shia lines? For instance I don't think you'll
find any Shia joining Isis. What you have now is an eruption of the Islamic
sectarian dispute which has been running on and off for 1,400 years, and
people are fleeing to escape it.
musolen David Hicks 13 Aug 2015 10:35
No, you're right, of course we don't, that's the point.
One sided trade deals are negotiated with massive distortion favouring
the big multinational corporations but listen to the IMF and all you hear
is we have to 'open up our markets to enable free trade'.
The US has more trade embargoes in place than any other nation and EU
is close behind and the irony doesn't even register on the faces at IMF
and World Bank trampling the world spreading their Neo-Liberal rubbish.
My point was that to have capitalism, if you are an advocate of capitalism
you have to accept those free movements of goods, money and people.
Paul Torgerson Rob99 13 Aug 2015 10:35
Well at least there is one person on here who has not swallowed the right
wing xenophobic crap. But the right wing press is doing a great job of brain
washing the populace. Examining the facts indicates a humanitarian problem
that will not in any way disadvantage Europe even if they allow ALL these
people to settle in Europe
wasson Bicbiro 13 Aug 2015 10:34
So you think if the UK minimum wage was lower than Poland they'd still
come? I'm afraid I'm going to have to to disagree with you there bic. They
come because they can earn in a week what they earn in 3 months in Poland.
Simple as.
rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:32
If you know anything about Lawrence of Arabia (since you brought him
up), you would know that the British were collaborating against the Ottomans
by inciting Arab tribes to revolt against them.
The Ottoman state was seen as an Islamist bulwark against European colonialism,
especially, British imperialism.
So i'm not sure why you think the British would have undermined the Saudis
and handed territories they had seized back to the Ottoman Turks - against
whom the British were collaborating - (using the Saudis) !?
You need to understand and embrace this part of recent British history.
Because anyone that doesn't understand (or acknowledge) their history is
not to be trusted with the present.
bugiolacchi dragonpiwo 13 Aug 2015 10:28
UK is not part of Shengen. Non-EU migrants who work, live, travel freely,
and prosper in the rest of Europe need a visa to cross the few miles of
water between us and the continent.
As per the ID cards, every time they interview an 'illegal' immigrant,
one of the reasons given for coming here is that it is the only country
(in the world?) where one does no need to identify themselves when asked
(a 'utility bill' my socks...) and can drive without a driving licence or
car documentations with them, but to 'present' them later. A Christmas invitation
if one wants to 'blend' in the background'. Again, a 'utility bill' as an
idea.. hilarious!
rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:19
The 'Gazzeteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman & Central Arabia' authored by
John Gordon Lorimer has now been declassified by the British government
and provides significant insight into the relationship between Abdulaziz
al Saud and the British colonial authorities.
The memoirs of HRP Dickson in his 1951 book "Kuwait and Her Neighbours"
provides further details on how Britain supported the rise of the Saudi
monarchy as de facto colonial agents of Pax Britannica.
Dickson was British envoy to the Gulf emirates and an aide to British
High Commissioner for Iraq - Sir Percy Cox
Dickson recounts this exchange between Sir Percy and Abdelaziz al Saud
during the conference in al-Aqeer in November 1922:
The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British
High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started
begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother.
I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand,
you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give
up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my
kingdom, if your grace commands me!"
And at some point, all empires crumble
on their own excess, stretched to the breaking point by over-extending a military industrial
complex with sophisticated equipment, hundreds of bases in as many countries, and never-ending wars
that wrack up mind boggling levels of debt. This cost has been magnified by the relationship it shares
with the money system, who have common owners and shareholders behind the scenes.
As the hidden costs of war and the enormity of the black budget swell to record levels,
the true total of its price comes in the form of the distortion it has caused in other dimensions of
life; the numbers have been so thoroughly fudged for so long now, as Wall Street banks offset
laundering activities and indulge in derivatives and quasi-official market rigging, the Federal Reserve
policy holds the noble lie together.
Seen from the proper angle, the
dollar is revealed to be a paper thin instrument of warfare, a ripple effect on the
people, a twisted illusion, a weaponized money now engaged in a covert economic warfare
that threatens their very livelihood.
The former Congressman and presidential candidate explained:
Almost all wars have been paid for through inflation… the practice always ends badly
as currency becomes debased leading to upward pressure on prices.
"Almost all wars, in a hundred years or so, have been paid for through inflation,
that is debasing the currency," he said, adding that this has been
going on "for hundreds, if not thousands of years."
"I don't know if we ever had a war paid though tax payers. The only thing where
they must have been literally paid for, was when they depended on the looting. They would
go in and take over a country, and they would loot and take their gold, and they would
pay for the war."
As inflation has debased the currency, other shady Wall Street tactics have driven
Americans into a corner, overwhelmed with debt, and gamed by rigged markets in which
Americans must make a living. The economic prosperity, adjusted for the kind of reality
that doesn't factor into government reports, can't match the costs of a military
industrial complex that has transformed society into a domestic police state, and slapped
Americans with the bill for their own enslavement.
Dr. Paul notes the mutual interest in keeping the lie going for as long as the public
can stand it… and as long as the gravy keeps rolling in:
They're going to continue to finance all these warmongering, and letting
the military industrial complex to make a lot of money, before it's admitted that it
doesn't work, and the whole system comes down because of the debt burden, which would be
unsustainable."
Unsustainable might be putting it lightly. The entire thing is in shambles from
the second the coyote looks down and sees that he's run out over a cliff.
Which sounds better, to "die for your government", or "give your life for your country"? The
first could be interpreted, after a mountain of bodies pile up, as a mistake. As something
that would seem to require scrutiny, admissions of having been wrong, of blame to be placed.
Dying for a government, or more precisely, dying for a select group of political figures at a certain
moment in time for very specific reasons, doesn't hide behind a fluttering flag quite as well as
"dying for country". Which is why we never hear it. War, in the mind of the Middle America
that still thinks on it, is shrouded in a sepia-toned composite of images and sounds, stories of
soldiers, duty to country, service, songs, movies, and myth that give politicians far more leverage
than they would otherwise have, when executing another war. No, "service to country" is the
emotional and moral narcotic we administer to ourselves, almost automatically, at the inception of
a new war. War is all wrapped up in our American Mythos so tight that it seems astonishing
that we haven't descended utterly into a pure American-style fascism. Maybe a few more 9/11-style
attacks and the transformation would be complete. 9/11 was an unparalleled opportunity for
the explosion of government growth, and as much as "war is the health of the State", so are foreign
attacks on the home State, attacks that can be perfectly molded so as to stoke the maximum amount
of nationalist rage from the citizens. Those attacks were a godsend for a government that had
been starved of an actual threat for far too long. And they took full advantage of the opportunity.
Fourteen years later, the Warfare State is petering out from the evaporating fumes of 9/11, and their
looking for a new fix.
But what of those who lied the country into igniting a regional dumpster fire after 9/11?
Once the war hysteria evaporates, where are What would it really take to hold any one politician
for a military disaster halfway around the world? It is blindingly obvious that there will
never be a reckoning for those who hustled us into the Iraq war. What about Libya? Syria?
How bad does it have to get for there to be something resembling accountability? War atrocities
seem to have become less of a chance for justice and lessons learned than as a new precedent that
the progenitors of the next war can point to when their war goes bad. And creators of war did
learn a few things from Iraq and Afghanistan. They learned that flag-draped coffins do focus
the attention of the citizenry. And drone strikes don't, really.
That hazy collage of feel-good nationalism is trotted out every election year, and every candidate
engages in it to one degree or another. Peace is a hard sell next to the belligerent effusions
of a Donald Trump. His crazed rantings against immigrants, his bizarre fantasies as to how
he would handle world leaders via telephone call, as well as his boorishness in general, has thousands
flocking to hear him speak. But what they're cheering is an avatar of a blood-soaked ideology,
one that cloaks itself in the native symbols and culture, breeding hate and intolerance, until the
bilious nationalism reaches just the right temperature and then boils over into lawless fascism.
As Jeffrey Tucker
points out,
Trump is nothing new. The graveyard of twentieth century tyrannies is a testament to just how
much death and destruction can be induced by a charismatic parasite bellowing the tenets of a flag-wrapped
tyranny. Most of what we hear coming from leaders today is fascism to a greater or lesser extent.
If what we mean by fascism to be a Religion of the State, a militant nationalism taken to its logical
conclusion, then every leader engages in it, because it ignites something primitive and sinister
in the minds of voters.
We understand war theoretically, and distantly, but what of those who are forced to carry out
the fever dreams of politicians? Blindly thanking veterans for their service, we feel a sense
of duty discharged, and never think to look more deeply into their traumas, or the scheme they were
tricked into executing. Military recruiters, the unscrupulous peddlers of military slavery,
are treated as a benign influence on young people today. Their pushy, overindulgent attitude
toward our 18-year olds should piss us off more than it does, since what they are conning the young
into is becoming the expendable plaything for the whims of the current Administration.
War is the pith of total government. The source of all its power, war and the threat of
war provide the excuse for every injustice, every outrage, every restriction of liberty or further
bilking of the citizen-hosts. As the Warfare State trots out the familiar sermons of threats
from abroad, potential greatness at home, and wars to be fought, one would do well to reflect that
war enriches the State at the expense of the rest of us. It consumes our lives, our liberty,
our wallets, and the future of our children and grandchildren. The current crop of candidates
who peddle military greatness are the enemy of peace and prosperity, and when they so openly declaim
their lust for war, we should frankly believe what they say. And after hearing them, we should
recognize the would-be tyrant in our midst, hawking hyper-militarism under the guise of national
greatness, and treat them like the vermin they clearly are.
Shane Smith lives in Norman, Oklahoma and writes for
Red Dirt Report.
Exclusive: Ukraine's post-coup regime is now melding neo-Nazi storm troopers
with Islamic militants – called "brothers" of the hyper-violent Islamic State – stirring up a hellish
"death squad" brew to kill ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, on Russia's border, reports Robert
Parry.
In a curiously upbeat account, The New York Times reports that Islamic militants have joined with
Ukraine's far-right and neo-Nazi battalions to fight ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. It
appears that no combination of violent extremists is too wretched to celebrate as long as they're
killing Russ-kies.
The
article by Andrew E. Kramer reports that there are now three Islamic battalions "deployed
to the hottest zones," such as around the port city of Mariupol. One of the battalions is headed
by a former Chechen warlord who goes by the name "Muslim," Kramer wrote, adding:
"The Chechen commands the Sheikh Mansur group, named for an 18th-century Chechen resistance
figure. It is subordinate to the nationalist Right Sector, a Ukrainian militia. … Right Sector
… formed during last year's street protests in Kiev from a half-dozen fringe Ukrainian nationalist
groups like White Hammer and the
Trident of Stepan Bandera.
"Another, the
Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi, using the 'Wolf's
Hook' symbol associated with the [Nazi] SS. Without addressing the issue of the Nazi symbol,
the Chechen said he got along well with the nationalists because, like him, they loved their homeland
and hated the Russians."
As casually as Kramer acknowledges the key front-line role of neo-Nazis and white supremacists
fighting for the U.S.-backed Kiev regime, his article does mark an aberration for the Times and the
rest of the mainstream U.S. news media, which usually dismiss any mention of this Nazi taint as "Russian
propaganda."
During the February 2014 coup that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych, the late fascist
Stepan Bandera was one of the Ukrainian icons celebrated by the Maidan protesters. During World War
II, Bandera headed the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-B, a radical paramilitary movement
that sought to transform Ukraine into a racially pure state. At times coordinating with Adolf Hitler's
SS, OUN-B took part in the expulsion and extermination of tens of thousands of Jews and Poles.
Though most of the Maidan protesters in 2013-14 appeared motivated by anger over political corruption
and by a desire to join the European Union, neo-Nazis made up a significant number and spearheaded
much of the violence against the police. Storm troopers from the Right Sektor and Svoboda party seized
government buildings and decked them out with Nazi insignias and
a Confederate battle flag, the universal symbol of white supremacy.
Then, as the protests turned bloodier from Feb. 20-22, the neo-Nazis surged to the forefront.
Their well-trained militias, organized in 100-man brigades called "sotins" or "the hundreds," led
the final assaults against police and forced Yanukovych and many of his officials to flee for their
lives.
In the days after the coup, as the neo-Nazi militias effectively controlled the government, European
and U.S. diplomats scrambled to help the shaken parliament put together the semblance of a respectable
regime, although four ministries,
including national security, were awarded to the right-wing extremists in recognition of their crucial
role in ousting Yanukovych.
At that point, virtually the entire U.S. news media put on blinders about the neo-Nazi role, all
the better to sell the coup to the American public as an inspirational story of reform-minded "freedom
fighters" standing up to "Russian aggression." The U.S. media delicately stepped around the neo-Nazi
reality by keeping out relevant context, such as the background of national security chief Andriy
Parubiy, who founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991, blending radical Ukrainian nationalism
with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy was commandant of the Maidan's "self-defense forces."
Barbarians at the Gate
At times, the mainstream media's black-out of the brown shirts was almost comical. Last February,
almost a year after the coup, a New York Times
article about the government's defenders of Mariupol hailed the crucial role played
by the Azov battalion but managed to avoid noting its well-documented Nazi connections.
That article by Rick Lyman presented the situation in Mariupol as if the advance by ethnic Russian
rebels amounted to the barbarians at the gate while the inhabitants were being bravely defended by
the forces of civilization, the Azov battalion. In such an inspirational context, it presumably wasn't
considered appropriate to mention the Swastikas and SS markings.
Now, the Kiev regime has added to those "forces of civilization" - resisting the Russkie barbarians
- Islamic militants with ties to terrorism. Last September, Marcin Mamon, a reporter for the Intercept,
reached
a vanguard group of these Islamic fighters in Ukraine through the help of his "contact in Turkey
with the Islamic State [who] had told me his 'brothers' were in Ukraine, and I could trust them."
The new Times article avoids delving into the terrorist connections of these Islamist fighters.
But Kramer does bluntly acknowledge the Nazi truth about the Azov fighters. He also notes that American
military advisers in Ukraine "are specifically prohibited from giving instruction to members of the
Azov group."
While the U.S. advisers are under orders to keep their distance from the neo-Nazis, the Kiev regime
is quite open about its approval of the central military role played by these extremists – whether
neo-Nazis, white supremacists or Islamic militants. These extremists are considered very aggressive
and effective in killing ethnic Russians.
The regime has shown little concern about widespread reports of "death squad" operations targeting
suspected pro-Russian sympathizers in government-controlled towns. But such human rights violations
should come as no surprise given the Nazi heritage of these units and the connection of the Islamic
militants to hyper-violent terrorist movements in the Middle East.
But the Times treats this lethal mixture of neo-Nazis and Islamic extremists as a good thing.
After all, they are targeting opponents of the "white-hatted" Kiev regime, while the ethnic Russian
rebels and the Russian government wear the "black hats."
As an example of that tone, Kramer wrote:
"Even for Ukrainians hardened by more than a year of war here against Russian-backed separatists,
the appearance of Islamic combatants, mostly Chechens, in towns near the front lines comes as
something of a surprise - and for many of the Ukrainians, a welcome one. … Anticipating an attack
in the coming months, the Ukrainians are happy for all the help they can get."
So, the underlying message seems to be that it's time for the American people and the European
public to step up their financial and military support for a Ukrainian regime that has unleashed
on ethnic Russians a combined force of Nazis, white supremacists and Islamic militants (considered
"brothers" of the Islamic State).
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many
of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). 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.
Dulce et decorum est … to stop believing the "old lie" that appears so promiscuously on Union
and Confederate war memorials. If men on all sides always die for country, who puts them up to
it?
JonF, July 3, 2015 at 10:44 am
Re: But it is also, crucially, a matter of shared bloodlines, language, history, literature,
and cuisine, things that originated long before the time of Rousseau and Voltaire.
At yet France is a glued-together-at-the-seams country too. The whole South of France once spoke
a different language, in which the troubadours sang, and which still survives in the local dialects
of the inhabitants. Burgundy was once a sovereign and very wealthy duchy whose duke controlled
almost the entire Rhineland all the way to the Netherlands. Brittany too was its own nation, albeit
torn between France and England. And the English ruled Gascony for 300 years, and were preferred
as rulers to the Valois kings so that the Gascons promptly revolted when the French took the land
back. The Pope ruled (and for a time dwelt) in Avignon. The Provence was a county of the Holy
Roman Empire. Louis XIV knit these disparate lands together by corralling their nobility into
velvet captivity at Versailles. The Revolutionaries added an ideology and a national anthem (and
spilled the blood of the dissenters) and Napoleon gave the mix a mythology of glory. But the seams
are still there under the surface. And indeed, you can find similar fissures in many other European
countries too.
Connecticut Farmer, July 3, 2015 at 10:47 am
The concept of a country linked together by a common set of laws was never intended by our
revered Founders to be anything more or less than an experiment. An experiment that had never
been tried before. Arguably the United States Constitution that was drafted during the height
of the Enlightenment and, together with the America's so-called "birth certificate", Jefferson's
Declaration, may be considered that era's greatest accomplishment…a little Locke here, a dash
of Montesquieu there and…Voila! In that respect "United" States are in no way "united", in the
strictest sense of the word, except through the Constitution. And I suspect that is about all
the Founders could have hoped for. From the beginning America was– and remains– a culturally Balkanized
and, now more than ever, polyglot landmass more reminiscent of pre-World War One Austria-Hungary.
The late Speaker of The House, Tip O'Neill-a Boston Irishman I might add–is reputed to have once
said "All politics is local." He got it half right. What he should have said is "All LOYALTY is
local". I am also reminded of a line in The Godfather when Sonny Cordleone says to his brother
Fredo "Your country ain't your blood".
Patriotism indeed begins on the local level, whether geographical, cultural, familial–or some
combination thereof. The author is spot-on.
Gregory, July 3, 2015 at 8:28 pm
That line in Wilfred Owen's poem is supposed to be ironic…
TB, July 3, 2015 at 9:08 pm
"Patriotism Begins With Localism"
_________
I think the last refuge of the scoundrel begins with tribalism fear which, is the cultural anthropologist's
way of saying "localism".
Fran Macadam, July 3, 2015 at 11:57 pm
Well written, but full of unexamined assumptions that are more comforting myth than truth.
Like the girls who didn't stay thin, exactly.
"I'd wager that all of us on the roof that night were grateful to live in a place where
we can vote, start a business, and express ourselves freely, and grateful towards the ungodly
number of young men shot and shredded and killed in our name."
Yet voting's never meant less as policies are completely untethered from public opinion, except
as it can be manufactured through what crony capitalism calls PR, more honest oligarchies call
propaganda. And participation in voting is a minority activity, meaning real democracy's already
given the process a vote of no confidence.
We can express ourselves freely, if we're not among those with proscribed views, but those
in charge aren't interested in what we have to say. The main corporate media, the gateways through
which most people get their filtered news, prints all the news that fits their status quo interests.
No genuinely alternative political opinions that challenge the duopoly establishment are able
to be considered, though the corporate donorist class has no solutions to the ill which ail us,
except for mendacity. Certainly there have been an ungodly number of young men killed in our name,
and an even more ungodly number of foreign civilians of all ages and sexes whom they have killed,
also in our name. But truth be told, our name being invoked was our only connection to the purpose
of the wars, which wasn't for our interests at all; none of the foreign wars of choice have secured
our liberties, only debased them – and violated those of others. Far from making us secure, our
very democracy has been endangered by their unaccountable and unconstitutional means, perhaps
fatally. Perhaps only the young now can be so deceived, without experience, with heavy student
debt focusing their thoughts on more immediate personal concerns, with their docile, untenured
instructors carrying their own debt loads, unwilling to intellectually challenge the status quo.
What business will you be grateful to start? In the post-industrial economic desert of America
that the donorist elites leveled to keep more of business' rewards for themselves, it's unlikely
to be able to provide the stable, well-paying work that manufacturing used to.
I think Pat Buchanan said it best. We're no longer a nation in any traditional sense of the
word. We are an economy. The best definition of a nation would be Michael Savage's definition
of borders, language and culture but more important than all of this would be religion. Unless
a nation has a commonly shared faith it can never truly be one. The Russians know this and that
is why the Kremlin has thrown its support behind the Russian Orthodox Church. The West used to
know this and that is why Europe was up until this last century identifiably Christian civilization
with the biggest differances largely arising from the Catholic-Protestant divide.
For awhile America reflected Christian Europe but now we reflect Babylon and our elites are
largely cynical atheists who look down on people of faith. Such a house could have never withstood
a Great Depression let alone a Soviet style collapse.
"...Russian-backed aggression, relentless propaganda and meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics
have pushed many Ukrainians to adopt a deeply polarized worldview, in which constructive criticism,
dissenting views, and even observable facts are rejected out of hand if they are seen as harmful to
Ukraine. This phenomenon might be termed the new Ukrainian exceptionalism, and it is worrisome because
it threatens the very democratic values Ukrainians espouse, while weakening Ukraine's case for international
support." . "...The same goes for the country's far right political forces. Cite the rise of Praviy Sektor,
or Right Sector, during and after the Euro-Maidan, and many Ukrainians will point to the radical right
movement's poor performance in last year's presidential and parliamentary elections. Point to the resurgence
of symbols and slogans of the Second World War ultra-nationalist Union of Ukrainian Nationalists, OUN,
or the newly passed laws banning "Soviet symbols," canonizing controversial Ukrainian nationalist figures
Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, and they will say that Ukraine has every right to define its own
history, even if it does so with blatant disregard and disrespect for that of millions of its citizens
now living under Russian occupation or otherwise not fully represented in the government. The new Ukrainian
exceptionalism makes it possible for undercurrents of intolerance and extreme nationalism to cohabit
with stated commitments to pluralism and democracy." . "...These steps set a dangerous precedent for limitation of human rights without wide public
discussion. Exceptionalism effectively gives carte-blanche to the government to act in the name of Ukraine's
security"
Ukrainian leaders, under siege from Russian and separatist forces, resist constructive criticism
Russia on the dock, Ukraine not without blemish: Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko, left, walks
past Russian President Vladimir Putin during an international gathering (top); bellicose Ukrainian
Semen Semenchenko grandstanding
WASHINGTON: The slow boiling war in Southeastern Ukraine is by now well known to the world. It has
been projected in stark moral and political terms and in gruesome detail by the international press,
Ukrainian and Western political leaders, and ordinary Ukrainian citizens. Indeed, it is no exaggeration
to say that Ukraine is engaged in a struggle not only for its sovereignty, but for its very survival
as a nation-state.
In this hour of need, every Ukrainian citizen and every self-described friend of Ukraine in the international
community should not only speak but act in support of Ukraine. But speaking out and taking action
in support of Ukraine have become increasingly fraught in recent months. Russian-backed aggression,
relentless propaganda and meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics have pushed many Ukrainians
to adopt a deeply polarized worldview, in which constructive criticism, dissenting views, and even
observable facts are rejected out of hand if they are seen as harmful to Ukraine. This phenomenon
might be termed the new Ukrainian exceptionalism, and it is worrisome because it threatens the
very democratic values Ukrainians espouse, while weakening Ukraine's case for international support.
The new Ukrainian exceptionalism comes at a high price for Ukrainian civil society and for the international
community focused on helping Ukraine. There have already been cases in which prominent Ukrainian
thought leaders have been threatened and even attacked for expressing views critical of the government,
nationalist politicians, or volunteer militias. Likewise, among Ukraine's friends abroad there is
precious little tolerance for views that dissent from the dominant party line that Ukraine's current
government is the best it has ever had, and that the West must provide not only political and financial
support, but also supply it with lethal weapons to fight the Russians in Donbas.
There is little tolerance for views that dissent from the dominant party line in Ukraine.
This exceptionalist worldview is nowhere more evident than in the discourse around Ukraine's President
Petro Poroshenko. Poroshenko is a billionaire confectionary baron who also owns banking and agricultural
assets, and several influential media platforms, most notably Ukraine's Fifth Channel, and who served
in high government posts, including as Yanukovych's minister of economic development and minister
of foreign affairs under Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Today, Poroshenko presides over a state
and a government that has committed to a reform campaign it styles as "de-oligrachization."
Yet when queried about whether, as an oligarch himself, Poroshenko can be effective in removing
oligarchic influence from Ukraine's politics and economy, many Ukrainians feel compelled to defend
their wartime leader by denying that he is, in fact, an oligarch in the first place. Or if he is
one, they say, he's a different kind of oligarch, certainly the best of the bunch. After all, they
reason, he has used his wealth and influence to help Ukraine and fight Russia, and anyway, his business
interests are more transparent and of more value to the country than those of his rivals. Instead
of selling his businesses, as he promised to do during last year's presidential campaign, Poroshenko
has held onto them, demonstrating that even in the new Ukraine, politics and the private sector remain
inseparable.
Exceptionalists argue: While oligarchy in general might be bad, Ukraine's patriotic oligarchs
are not.
The exceptionalism does not stop with Poroshenko. In fact, the same tortured logic extends to
support for other "good" oligarchs: Lviv's mayor Andriy Sadovyi, who has run that city for nearly
a decade, owns major media, electrical utility and financial assets, and has backed his own party
in the national parliament, is described as having made Lviv a "lighthouse" for Ukrainian reform,
on the model of neighboring Poland. Even Dnipropetrovsk's Ihor Kolomoiskiy, who himself embraces
the oligarch moniker, has spent millions in defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression, served
as governor of a vulnerable frontline region and held it together, and besides, his Privat Bank group
is a pillar of Ukraine's financial stability. So, while oligarchy in general might be bad, Ukraine's
most patriotic oligarchs, the exceptionalists argue, are not.
The same goes for the country's far right political forces. Cite the rise of Praviy Sektor,
or Right Sector, during and after the Euro-Maidan, and many Ukrainians will point to the radical
right movement's poor performance in last year's presidential and parliamentary elections. Point
to the resurgence of symbols and slogans of the Second World War ultra-nationalist Union of Ukrainian
Nationalists, OUN, or the newly passed laws banning "Soviet symbols," canonizing controversial Ukrainian
nationalist figures Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, and they will say that Ukraine has every
right to define its own history, even if it does so with blatant disregard and disrespect for that
of millions of its citizens now living under Russian occupation or otherwise not fully represented
in the government. The new Ukrainian exceptionalism makes it possible for undercurrents of intolerance
and extreme nationalism to cohabit with stated commitments to pluralism and democracy.
New Ukrainian exceptionalism: Undercurrents of intolerance cohabit with commitments
to democracy.
The Euro-Maidan was dubbed a Revolution of Dignity because it represented the victory of the people
in defense of basic human rights and human dignity. But a year after that victory, the parliament
has approved a decree limiting Ukraine's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So far, the decree applies only to
portions of the two oblasts, or regions, of Donetsk and Luhansk where the war is going on, but it
has been accompanied by allegations of torture and unlawful detention by Ukrainian authorities.
These steps set a dangerous precedent for limitation of human rights without wide public discussion.
Exceptionalism effectively gives carte-blanche to the government to act in the name of Ukraine's
security, while it fragments and diminishes the human rights activist community that was once
a bulwark of the new Ukraine.
Finally, raise the problem of private armies in Ukraine, and one is told that the famous "volunteer
battalions" are actually completely legal and legitimate police, interior ministry or army units
that have been integrated under a single, responsible national command. This would be a reasonable
position and an extremely important step to constrain possible future internecine violence, corporate
raiding and other abuses in Ukraine, if only it were true.
The same goes for so-called soldier deputies, commanders of the volunteer battalions elected to the
parliament last October, many of whom still appear in uniform and demonstrate scant regard for the
boundaries between civilian and military authority. Dashing but bellicose figures like Serhii Melnychuk,
Semen Semenchenko and Dmytro Yarosh, we are told, are not really soldiers any more, their grandstanding
is just a PR exercise. Maybe so, but their message hardly confirms Ukraine's commitment to rule of
law, civilian control of the military, and national reconciliation. With prominent exceptions like
these in the new Ukraine, it is increasingly difficult to identify the rule.
Without a doubt, Ukraine now faces its most severe crisis of the post-1991 period. In the face of
attacks by Russia and its separatist allies, Ukraine deserves the support of its citizens and the
wider world. Yet the enthusiasm of the world to help Ukraine will be diminished and the damage from
Russian aggression magnified if Ukrainians succumb to the kind of exceptionalism described above.
Instead, Ukrainians should seek to preserve what have actually been their most exceptional characteristics
– a rare and genuine commitment to pluralism, civic freedom, and human dignity that make Ukraine
a cause worth fighting for.
Matthew Rojansky is director of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington,
DC; Mykhailo Minakov is associate professor/docent in philosophy and religious studies at the National
University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and was a Fulbright-Kennan Scholar in 2012-13.
Selected Skeptical Comments
Western Educated Russian, my 5 cents, 28 June 2015
That is not today Ukrainians decided to find a way to differentiate themselves from Russians.
That is the way how ethnic genesis works. So in the situation when multinational state (USSR)
collapsed, Ukrainian national elites became interested in doing so even more. What could be a
difference to strong order of Moscow, the answer is illusory freedom.
Consequentially, Ukrainian mass media and even academic sources such as Yale draw a picture
of Russia as a place where there is a fallout of human rights, corruption, and democracy and at
the same time whitening Ukrainian far right guys as a fighters against "double evil" of communists
and fascists.
The reality of course is different. Russia is just a powerful player that is emerged after
collapse of Soviet Union while Ukraine failed to do so. Russians respect Ukrainians and Ukrainian
language, and what is more important overall have more freedoms that even Westerns do. The only
thing Russians care about is comparative advantage. Ukrainian politics is irresponsible, and thus
destabilize the whole region of Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union.
It is actually not so funny because the US thinks about itself as a warrant of stability. In
reality stability of many Eurasian territories in the hands of Russia. We should not forget civil
war in Tadjikistan, war between Georgia and Ossetia, Armenia and Azerbaidjan. All those conflicts
were stopped because of Russia's actions. If Ukraine won (= lose anyway), there will be hundreds
of different uncontrolled conflicts, economic downfall and millions of additional immigrants to
Europe.
Whether Europeans like it or not, it is better to have strong Russia with good relationship
that can guarantee stability over many territories than one more Africa with nuclear weapon on
the backyard and Greece (sorry Ukraine).
Jim Kovpak , OUN, 28 June 2015
The OUN thing pisses me off when they say Ukraine has the right to define its own heroes- excuse
me, but when did these "heroes" represent Ukraine? The OUN and UPA never attracted more than a
fraction of Ukrainians even in the region where it was most popular, and even then many people
were conscripted into its ranks. Later, many of them deserted in droves, including a large number
who switched to the Soviet side.
But it is not simply to appease the population in the East that these organizations should
be condemned. They have a clear connection to the Holocaust via the role the OUN-B played in organizing
the militia and Ukrainian police who took part in pogroms that killed thousands of Jews. Many
of those police personnel then ended up in the ranks of the UPA. Add to that the ethnic cleansing
of Poles and you see why these thugs, which DO NOT represent Ukraine, don't deserve to be called
heroes.
Eastern Ukrainians are always told they need to give up the past, so why can't these other
people give up that past, which in most cases doesn't have anything to do with them?
Of course many Ukrainians I talk to swear up and down that Bandera and the OUN aren't really
so popular in post-Maidan Ukraine -- okay then, watch what happens when someone says people ought
not to fly the flags and there shouldn't be memorials to the OUN and UPA. Suddenly the Bandera-cultists
emerge from the woodwork, enraged. It's a lot like defenders of the Confederate flag in the US.
"...Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers."
... Ever since 9/11, the American people have operated under the quaint notion that all the violence
that the Pentagon and the CIA have been inflicting on people in foreign nations has an adverse effect
only over there. The idea has been that as long as all the death, torture, assassinations, bombings,
shootings, and mayhem were in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, Americans could
go pleasantly on with their lives, going to work, church, and fun sporting events where everyone
could praise and pray for the troops for "defending our freedoms" and "keeping us safe."
Through it all, the national-security state, with the cooperation of the mainstream media, has
done its best to immunize Americans from all the violence, death, and mayhem that they've been wreaking
on people over there.
Don't show the American people photographs of wedding parties in which brides and grooms and
flower girls have been blown to bits by a U.S. bomb or missile.
Hide those torture records at Abu Ghraib. Lock them away in a secret vault forever.
Destroy those torture videos and redact that torture report.
And above all, don't even think of keeping count of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Anything and everything to keep the American people from having to confront, assimilate, and process
the ongoing culture of violence that the national-security state has brought to people in other parts
of the world.
Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers.
As an aside, have you ever noticed that Switzerland, which is one of the most armed societies
in the world, is not besieged by a "war on terrorism" and by gun massacres? I wonder if it has anything
to do with the fact that the Swiss government isn't involved in an ongoing crusade to violently remake
the world in its image.
Ask any American whether all that death and destruction at the hands of the military and the CIA
is necessary, and he's likely to say, "Well, of course it is. People all over the world hate us for
our freedom and values. We've got to kill them over there before they come over here to kill us.
The war on terrorism goes on forever. I'm a patriot! Praise the troops!"
The thought that the entire scheme of ongoing violence is just one great big racket just doesn't
even occur to them. That's what a mindset of deference to authority does to people.
All that ongoing violence that has formed the foundation of America's governmental structure since
the totalitarian structure known as the national-security state came into existence after World War
II is at the core of the national sickness to which Rand Paul alludes.
And so is the extreme deference to authority paid to the national-security establishment by all
too many Americans who have converted the Pentagon and the CIA into their god - one who can do no
wrong as it stomps around the world killing, torturing, bombing, shooting, invading, maiming, and
occupying, all in the name of "national security," a ridiculous term if there ever was one, a term
not even found in the U.S. Constitution.
As I have long written, the national-security establishment has warped and perverted the values,
morals, and principles of the American people. This totalitarian structure that was grafted onto
our governmental system after World War II to oppose America's World War II partner and ally the
Soviet Union has stultified the consciences of the American people, causing them to subordinate themselves
to the will and judgment of the military (including the NSA) and the CIA and, of course, to surrender
their fundamental God-given rights to liberty and privacy in the quest to be "kept safe" from whoever
happens to be the official enemy of the day.
The discomforting fact is that the American people have not been spared the horrific consequences
of the ongoing culture of violence that the U.S. national-security establishment has brought to foreign
lands. The ongoing culture of violence that forms the foundation of the national security state -
killing untold numbers of people on a perpetual basis - has been a rotting and corrosive cancer that
has been destroying America from within and that continues to do so.
It's that ongoing culture of violence that brings out the crazies and the loonies, who see nothing
wrong with killing people for no good reason at all. In ordinary societies, the crazies and the loonies
usually just stay below the radar screen and live out their lives in a fairly abnormal but peaceful
manner. But in dysfunctional societies, such as ones where the government is based on killing, torturing,
maiming, and destroying people on a constant basis, the crazies and the loonies come onto the radar
screen and commit their crazy and loony acts of violence.
"... t's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is. ..."
Jeb Bush
made a familiar assertion during his visit to Poland:
Bush seemed to suggest he would endorse a more muscular foreign policy, saying the perception
of American retreat from the global stage in recent years had emboldened Russian President Vladimir
Putin to commit aggression in Ukraine.
"When there's doubt, when there's uncertainty, when we pull back, it creates less chance of
a more peaceful world," Bush told reporters. "You're seeing the impact of that in Ukraine right
now."
Bush's remarks are what we expect from hawks, but they are useful in showing how they indulge
in a sort of magical thinking when it comes to the U.S. role in the world. They take for granted
that an activist and meddlesome U.S. foreign policy is stabilizing and contributes to peace and security,
and so whenever there is conflict or upheaval somewhere it is attributed to insufficient U.S. meddling
or to so-called "retreat." According to this view, the conflict in Ukraine didn't happen because
the Ukrainian government was overthrown in an uprising and Russia then illegally seized territory
in response, but because the U.S. was perceived to be "retreating" and this "emboldened" Russia.
It's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention
in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been
more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would
not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is.
This both greatly overrates the power and influence that the U.S. has over the events in other
parts of the world, and it tries to reduce every foreign crisis or conflict to how it relates to
others' perceptions of U.S. "leadership." Hawks always dismiss claims that other states are responding
to past and present U.S. actions, but they are absolutely certain that other states' actions are
invited by U.S. "inaction" or "retreat," even when the evidence for said "retreat" is completely
lacking. The possibility that assertive U.S. actions may have made a conflict more likely or worse
than it would otherwise be is simply never admitted. The idea that the U.S. role in the world had
little or nothing to do with a conflict seems to be almost inconceivable to them.
One of the many flaws with this way of looking at the world is that it holds the U.S. most responsible
for conflicts that it did not magically prevent while refusing to accept any responsibility for the
consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done. Viewing the world this way inevitably fails
to take local conditions into account, it ignores the agency of the local actors, and it imagines
that the U.S. possesses a degree of control over the rest of the world that it doesn't and can't
have. Unsurprisingly, this distorted view of the world reliably produces very poor policy choices.
Nixon's and Kissinger's dangerous games in the Vietnam War – The Madman strategy
Recent documents show that the hardcore branch of the US policy during the Vietnam war, was
playing dangerous games with North Vietnam and the Soviets, in order to drag the other side to
negotiations.
We see today a similar game played by the neocons in Ukraine and Asia-Pacific. In the new Cold
War, neocons are playing more dangerous games with Russia and China, as they try to persuade that
they will not hesitate to proceed in a nuclear strike against both their rivals, because they see
that the Sino-Russian bloc threatens the US global sovereignty.
From National Security Archive:
"Nixon's and Kissinger's Madman strategy during the Vietnam War included veiled nuclear
threats intended to intimidate Hanoi and its patrons in Moscow. The story is recounted in a new
book, Nixon's Nuclear Specter: The Secret Alert of 1969, Madman Diplomacy, and the Vietnam War,
co-authored by Jeffrey Kimball, Miami University professor emeritus, and William Burr, who
directs the Archive's Nuclear History Documentation Project. Research for the book, which
uncovers the inside story of White House Vietnam policymaking during Nixon's first year in
office, drew on hundreds of formerly top secret and secret records obtained by the authors as
well as interviews with former government officials."
"With Madman diplomacy, Nixon and Kissinger strove to end the Vietnam War on the most
favorable terms possible in the shortest period of time practicable, an effort that culminated in
a secret global nuclear alert in October of that year. Nixon's Nuclear Specter provides the most
comprehensive account to date of the origins, inception, policy context, and execution of 'JCS
Readiness Test' -the equivalent of a worldwide nuclear alert that was intended to signal
Washington's anger at Moscow's support of North Vietnam and to jar the Soviet leadership into
using their leverage to induce Hanoi to make diplomatic concessions. Carried out between 13 and
30 October 1969, it involved military operations around the world, the continental United States,
Western Europe, the Middle East, the Atlantic, Pacific, and the Sea of Japan. The operations
included strategic bombers, tactical air, and a variety of naval operations, from movements of
aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines to the shadowing of Soviet merchant ships
heading toward Haiphong."
"The authors also recount secret military operations that were part of the lead-up to the
global alert, including a top secret mining readiness test that took place during the spring and
summer of 1969. This mining readiness test was a ruse intended to signal Hanoi that the US was
preparing to mine Haiphong harbor and the coast of North Vietnam. It is revealed for the first
time in this book."
"Another revelation has to do with the fabled DUCK HOOK operation, a plan for which was
initially drafted in July 1969 as a mining-only operation. It soon evolved into a
mining-and-bombing, shock-and-awe plan scheduled to be launched in early November, but which
Nixon aborted in October, substituting the global nuclear alert in its place. The failure of
Nixon's and Kissinger's 1969 Madman diplomacy marked a turning point in their initial exit
strategy of winning a favorable armistice agreement by the end of the year 1969. Subsequently,
they would follow a so-called long-route strategy of withdrawing U.S. troops while attempting to
strengthen South Vietnam's armed forces, although not necessarily counting on Saigon's long-term
survival."
"In 1969, the Nixon's administrations long-term goal was to provide President Nguyen Van
Thieus government in Saigon with a decent chance of surviving for a reasonable interval of two to
five years following the sought-after mutual exit of US and North Vietnamese forces from South
Vietnam. They would have preferred that President Thieu and South Vietnam survive indefinitely,
and they would do what they could to maintain South Vietnam as a separate political entity. But
they were realistic enough to appreciate that such a goal was unlikely and beyond their power to
achieve by a military victory on the ground or from the air in Vietnam."
"Giving Thieu a decent chance to survive, even for just a decent interval, however, rested
primarily on persuading Hanoi to withdraw its troops from the South or, if that failed,
prolonging the war in order to give time for Vietnamization to take hold in order to enable Thieu
to fight the war on his own for a reasonable period of time after the US exited Indochina. In
1969, Nixon and Kissinger hoped that their Madman threat strategy, coupled with linkage
diplomacy, could persuade Hanoi to agree to mutual withdrawal at the negotiating table or lever
Moscows cooperation in persuading Hanoi to do so. In this respect, Nixon's Nuclear Specter is an
attempt to contribute to better understanding of Nixon and Kissinger's Vietnam diplomacy as a
whole."
"...His partner in this long-running routine, Sen. Lindsey Graham, also reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove's
Mr. President, we must not
allow a mineshaft gap!" "
. "...It's a deadly fandango that places national security in the balance, while lawmakers play rhetorical
games, often crossing,
if not leaping, the usual boundaries of diplomatic propriety and control."
John McCain and Lindsey Graham try to rewrite history to vindicate the Iraq war, and blame
Obama for ISIS.
...McCain's widely known and tolerated flair for the dramatic now
places an "episode" that most Americans could not rightly pin down, much less explain without
the aid of Google, alongside slavery, the Trail of Tears, the federal crackdown on World War I-era
Bonus
Marchers, and the entire Vietnam War.
His partner in this long-running routine, Sen. Lindsey
Graham, also reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove's
Mr. President, we must
not allow a mineshaft gap!", laid out the latest talking points in an
interview about the ISIS
takeover of Ramadi in Iraq this month:
It's a predictable outcome of withdrawing all forces back in 2011…The military advised [Obama]
to leave 10,000 troops. When he refused to take their advice, everything you see before you is
a result of that big mistake.
Graham, McCain, and their fellow Republican hawks, energized by an election over a year away,
are once again using foreign policy overseas to bludgeon Obama, presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton, and by extension, the whole Democratic Party in the arena of domestic politics here
at home. It's a deadly fandango that places national security in the balance, while lawmakers
play rhetorical games,
often crossing,
if not leaping, the usual boundaries of diplomatic propriety and control.
"Imperial senators, basically that's what they are … playing this real life version of
Risk," said Matthew Hoh, an Iraq War veteran, referring to the strategy board game in an interview
with TAC.
Hoh was the highest U.S. official to resign in protest of the Afghanistan war policy when he
quit his State Department post in 2009.
Hoh says playing "real life Risk" is all about deception, and in the case of Iraq, a larder of
revisionist history, which, as McCain and Graham have demonstrated, involves an elaborate tweaking
of the story of how the U.S. withdrew from Iraq in 2011, and why. It also requires the ambitious
assumption that a) American forces had every right and opportunity to stay there indefinitely, and
b) there would be no consequences if they did so
...Negotiations reportedly wore on until the eleventh hour, but finally broke down when Maliki
could not promise criminal immunity for U.S. troops there. "Frankly, given that less than 20
percent of the Iraqi public wanted American troops to stay, and given the great resentment in the
Iraqi population …there wasn't much sympathy to grant Americans full legal immunities in the Iraqi
parliament," said former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey
in 2014. The withdrawal was complete in 2011.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter and TAC contributing
editor. Follow her on Twitter.
[May 28, 2015] Ukraine financial catastrophe of 2014 2015
Notable quotes:
"... According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day. ..."
"... So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty". ..."
"... "What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services, and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education. If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute poverty," ..."
"... Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012, according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day. ..."
According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food
less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined
in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day.
So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend
an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty".
"What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services,
and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education.
If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute
poverty," stressed Shipko.
According to the Deputy, the minimum wage in Ukraine at the current exchange rate of the national
Bank should be approximately 3750 UAH - the only way the Ukrainians will be able at least get requred
$5 a day.
Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012,
according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day.
Ukrainian women do not want to bear children through insecurity and inability to pay for the hospital
and diaper.
The West scored major geopolitical victory against Russia: As Paul said (see below): "My limited
knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not?
That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake."
Poor Ukrainian citizen. Poor Ukrainian pensioners existing on a $1 a day or less (with exchange
rate around 26.5 hrivna per dollar, pension around 900 hrivna is around $1 per day. Some pensioners
get less then that ( miserable 1500 hrivna per month considered to be "decent" pension and monthly salary
4000 hrivna is a "good" salary by Ukrainian standards).
The last thing EU wants is an additional stream of refugees from Ukraine escaping miserable salaries
and lack of decently paying jobs and pressure of Ukrainian migrant workers on unqualified job market
positions.... So far the main hit for this was not in Western but in Russian job market, but that may
change. At the same time making the Ukraine enemy of Russia is a definitive geopolitical victory, achieved
with relatively modest financial infusions (USA estimate is 5 billions, the EU is probably a half of
that) and indirect support of Western Ukrainian nationalists.
One year ago there was a hope the Donetsk problem will be solved. Now in 2016 this civil war entered
the third year -- Kiev government can't squash unrecognized Donetsk Republic with military force and
it does not want to switch to federal state to accommodate their pretty modest demands: initially use
of Russian language and reverse of "creeping cultural colonization" of this region by Western Ukraine.
Initially the official language question was the one of the most important and Kiev Provisional government
rejected Canadian variant of using the same language as its powerful, dominant neighbor and unleashed
a civil war (with full blessing of the USA, which pursue "divide and conquer strategy in this region
from the moment of dissolution of the USSR). Now after so much bloodshed the positions are hardened...
Imagine that the Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada by French supported and financed coup,
and instantly outlawed the English language for official usage and in schools and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved? ..."
"... That has surely been largely achieved. ..."
"... That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR. ..."
"... Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. ..."
"... They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. ..."
"... I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond. ..."
"... If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat. ..."
"... Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained. ..."
"... It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia. ..."
"... True, but again a very short term achievement. ..."
"... NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible ..."
"... The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either. ..."
"... [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term. ..."
"... Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. ..."
"... All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment. ..."
"... As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical. ..."
"... To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done. ..."
"... No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. ..."
"... As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it. ..."
"... If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. ..."
"... I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. ..."
"... As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does. ..."
"... Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially. ..."
"... The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar. ..."
"... And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage? ..."
"... Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies. ..."
"... NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage. ..."
"... I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. ..."
"... NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was. ..."
"... My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake. ..."
"... My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do. ..."
"... The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth. ..."
"... There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children ..."
"... Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg. ..."
"... To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. ..."
"... Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there. ..."
"... Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays. ..."
"... I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN. ..."
"... Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia ..."
"... The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles. ..."
"... This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'? ..."
The premise that the West must be losing is a bit simplistic. If you made a list of perhaps
ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been
achieved?
For example, one goal was to destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that
were oriented towards Russia. That has surely been largely achieved.
Another goal was to radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. That has largely
happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into
the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR.
Another goal was to stress the Russian military with having to respond to too many problems
in a short period of time, which may be relevant if and when the West hits on several fronts
at once.
Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western
corporations is about to begin. Doubt Russia can stop that.
Not denying that Putin and his circle have survived, and that the Russian economy is in better
shape than most expected, but we should try to think long and hard about the pros and cons of
the Kremlin's approaches.
They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. Approximately
zero soft power in a place that it should have been straightforward to create.
People have been writing novels and articles for a long time about how the West could gin up
a war in the Ukraine to start an attack on Russia or otherwise break the establishment in Moscow.
It was fairly obvious.
I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it
very hard for Russia to respond.
Kiev would start a major offensive against Donetsk and Lugansk.
Transdnistria is currently blockaded by Moldova and Ukraine with no food supplies allowed
to pass. Moldovan military operation might follow and Russia would be mostly unable to respond
by other means than missile strikes against Moldova – which Russia under extremely cautious
Putin would never do.
Azerbaijan would launch an offensive against Armenia in Nagarno-Karabakh. Russia lacks
common border with Armenia so Russia's options would again be limited.
Albanian proxies, supported and trained by the West, would start military and terrorist
attacks against Macedonian authorities.
NATO would start to bomb Syrian military and capital to oust and kill Assad.
Georgia might start another military operation against South Ossetia in parallel with others
if it thinks Russia is too preoccupied to respond.
NATO-funded and -trained Islamic militants would attack authorities in Central Asian countries
like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either
capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with
conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major
geopolitical defeat.
Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability
is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago,
and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained.
The Moldovan army is not capable of defeating Transdnistria by itself, so victory would
require NATO troops to join in the attack. And if it comes to the point where NATO is willing
to directly assault Russian forces, then there's no reason to hold back anyway.
The West plays the short game, so initially it may look
like they have achieved much, much like their foreign policy successes at first, which then turn
out to be disasters with the West reduced to firefighting.
1:..destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented
towards Russia.This has not succeeded. It has without doubt caused problems and will
affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some
products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production
of components to Russia.
2: ..radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia.True, but again
a very short term achievement. Food on plates and jobs don't grow on trees. What we do have
is the ones in the middle who gravitated to the traditional Russophobes, aka swing voters,
but things are only going to get worse in the Ukraine and the Nazi junta cannot deliver. Those
swing voter will swing the other way, not a Russia love in, but a pragmatic middle ground. That
is where they started.
3: Another goal was to stress the Russian military..What evidence is there of
this? Apart from quite a number of massive snap military exercises that Russia has pulled off
and impressed even the Russo-skeptic military crowd at RUSI and other MIX fronts, it is quite
efficient to fly 50 year old Tu-95 bombers around Europe wearing out expensive western military
equipment that will need to be replaced much sooner now than later. All those austerity plans
that call for holding off on major defense spending in Europe are messed up. Money going in to
weapons is money going away from jobs and the economy. Ukraine's rocket cooperation with Brazil
is dead (now switched to Russia) and also with other partners. So far the US has not actively
banned commercial satellites from being launched from Russian rockets, but the US cannot get its
billion dollar spy sats in to space without Russian rocket engines. No-one has yet pulled the
plug
NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible.
It's one thing to scream and shout, its another to drop their trousers. It is quite the paper
tiger. The USAF is set to rapidly shrink according to their own admission. The F-35 is designed
to replace 5 aircraft – hubris or what? The F-15, F16, AV-8B, A-10 & the F-18. It's a pig of an
aircraft that will perform those missions worse, in most cases, than those designed in the late
1960s early 1970s. The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to
make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either.
4:the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations
is about to begin. [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable,
but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than
just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium
to long term.
This is exactly what almost happened to Russia and then look how things turned out. Ukraine
is of course a different case and the West will certainly try and manage it to their advantage,
but it won't work if it is not for sustained profit. Either way it is the West to whom the
Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. This is long before we throw
any legal questions in to the mix. Whoever is in power now will pay the political price in future
sooner or later. All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right
moment.
As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit
harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as
much as possible, only intervening when critical.
Part of the problem with western politics and the Pork Pie News Networks of the last 25 years
is the we must do something now mentality. Let's put it this way, you go in to hospital
for a non-critical undiagnosed condition. Would you a) want to have the tests done and the best
course of action chosen with your consent, or b) panic & be rushed to the operating theater so
that they can just have a look around?
To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative.
If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must
be done.
In short, as it is written on the cover of the good book, DON'T PANIC!
No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has
played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. The
science of mind manipulation has made great progress over the last century. It is a big mistake
to just deal on an oligarchic level. Ukrainians have a legitimate gripe that their country is
insanely corrupt and they can easily blame Moscow. That being the case, measures needed to be
taken. And not creating any semblance of a pro-Russian political or intellectual class was similarly
stupid.
As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to
your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just
smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the
Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop
a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the
Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it.
If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems
on the periphery as possible. Could be Georgia; could be Central Asia; could be Transnistria.
What would be your advice to those in US think tanks who are trying to keep domination of the
world? What would be a good strategy? And, for what it is worth, I wouldn't take the problems
with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. That
is where all the money and technology have gone for the last 30 years. Do you really think the
US would struggle to get to the Moon now and did it in 1969? Be serious – all technology is tremendously
better today.
As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia
occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last
a lot longer than the Ukraine does.
Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's
where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the
US to over-extend itself politically & financially.
The US want to do more but it can't
do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to
give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move
of some oil trading out of the US dollar.
And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created?
For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will
bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the
West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem
on their plate they can't quite manage?
I have no doubt that the US has been trying to tie up Russia, but it is just more frenetic
than before, the main planks of NATO enlargement (and weakening) resolved, but the rest has gone
a bit wrong. The West is growing increasingly desperate and is trying all sorts of things to undermine
Russia, but it could be much, much worse from a sanctions point of view. Level heads in the West
understand that trying to pull the rug out completely from under Russia is a massive risk and
one they are very careful in making.
As for their wonder-weapons, the US cannot afford enough of them or make them cheap enough
for their allies to buy in sufficient numbers. It is much easier and cheaper to upgrade the sensors
and missiles on a SAM system than to design and bring to production standard a brand new wonder-weapon.
The old days of easily blinding air-defenses are almost over when you can have a lot of cheap
distributed sensors providing the information, passively & actively. The countermeasure is a lot
cheaper.
In al, Money Money Money – and every passing day the US has less to leverage and has to spread
it far and wide:
Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment,
and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away,
that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago,
that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies.
NATO has
not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit,
but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm
in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much
of anything but manage.
I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and
a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern
borders. The part that NATO is having trouble with is getting Russia to destroy it, so that
it will be in the minds of Ukrainians for generations who did this to them.
NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know
how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians
what a failure the promise of western largesse was.
That's all reasonable, though it is hard to believe that there isn't a lot more than just some
black earth to expropriate.
My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do
blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made
a mistake.
That's true enough, and it appears there has always been a certain amount of hostility to Russia
west of the Dneipr, so they perhaps did not need too much coaxing. My main point in rubbing
the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early
days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do.
The country it said it would confidently bat aside in its confident stroll to victory has not
only weathered western attempts to crush its economy and put in place safeguards which will hurt
western business opportunities in future, it has strengthened a powerful alliance with Asia and
garnered considerable international sympathy, which implies increased hostility toward the west.
Meanwhile, the country the west bragged it would snatch from Russia's orbit and make a model of
a prosperous western democracy is miserable, poor and angry.
The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally
this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond
lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with
plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs
in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth.
There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve
a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. Many such opportunities
rely on western interests taking over Ukrainian businesses and asset-stripping them like crazy;
however, the main buyer in many cases would be Russia, which has no interest in making western
businesses rich, or other western buyers who would have to take over and run a Ukrainian business
in a very uncertain environment in which its biggest market is Russia.
A copypaste from Auslander (formelry of MPnet), originally from Saker's blog:
"This is not the first time such atrocities [the mutilated rebel prisoner] have happened
in this conflict and it will not be the last.
The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains
of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building
on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right
sector called their own during the maidan debacle.
The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll
there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children.
I know the official death toll and I know the real death toll. We also lost a friend in that
atrocity, not in the building but at the far end of the square, beaten to death because he
was walking home from work at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why was he beaten to death?
He had a speech impediment and when he got nervous he literally could not talk. Since he could
not say 'salo yucrane' 5 right sector boys beat him to death in broad daylight.
Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned
to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed
in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were
too few to defend the berg.
The killings of innocents and not so innocents have been ongoing since the beginning and
well before the beginning of the conflict that let to what is now Novorossiya. One can not
morally justify killing all the UAF because of the acts of a relative few, but you can rest
assured that documentations are being kept for all who can be identified as committing either
individual or mass atrocities.
To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who
when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands
of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay
for their crimes. Do you think all those 'people' who commit atrocities and then post
photos of the atrocities and openly brag about them on social media will walk away unscathed?
Again, no hardly. Do you think we don't know who was and is abducting young women and even
girl children for their use and then killed and discarded them like less than animals? They
are known.
I can go on for reams but you get the idea. These are crimes being committed by a relative
few of UAF, and for the record anyone fighting for Ukraine against Novorossiya is a member
of UAF, their military unit does not matter. In the end justice will be done, by the law and
with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice,
like revenge, is a dish best served cold.
As for those few of you who are still aghast at the total and deafening silence from USEU
over these ongoing atrocities and crimes, I urge you to forget any chance of anything being
said about we untermenschen being slaughtered by those civilized denizens of USEU. It is not
going to happen so stop complaining about it. Never forget, never forgive, always remember,
but don't complain, it's useless."
Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment
because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine
and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there.
Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited
to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And
it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev
or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays.
He says "In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible.
Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold."
I do believe various people involved in Odessa have disappeared – or turned up. Dead. Some have
had to go to ground. Some have "died" under unbelievable circumstances, but their new name will
probably still have the same face. The biggest obstacle will be all this wearing of masks, but
with more recent atrocities, where they are garrisoned in the cities for months, they'd be known
anyway..
The spirit of Novorossiya will be expanding (not yet). Things may slowly go back towards normal.
But fully normal it can never be, while murderers and torturers walk free by the hundreds. It
is going to be a very long headache for Ukraine.
I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that
hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged,
but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought
the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather
than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register
on those who get all their news from CNN.
Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other
who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate
proof that Tupak is alive
in Serbia
The election of Poland's new president spells
big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just
recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who
forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200
thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles.
Of course J Hawk's take is probably on the money. J.Hawk's Comment:
Not so fast. I'm not so sure that Duda wants to do any of the things described above. One
of the major reasons Duda won is the defection of the rural voters, whose average income declined
by 14% in 2014 in large measure due to Russian food embargo. Since Duda knows on which side
his bread is buttered (no pun intended), deep down he also realizes the importance of that
embargo lifting. His UPA criticism may well be only an excuse, a pretext to allow himself to
maneuver out of his election campaign pro-Ukraine position while saving face. Because, ultimately,
what is the likelihood that the Rada will actually pass a law that "de-heroizes" UPA to a sufficient
degree? And even if it does, will Bandera monuments start disappearing from Lvov and other
parts of Western Ukraine?
This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk
the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective
in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the
preservation of ill-gotten capital!'?
"... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit
to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on
the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in
the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known
as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given
the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly
complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize
them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even
less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine
is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with
scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
... ... ...
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly
voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict
is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive
"within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.
... ... ...
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's)
preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely,
that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities
to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no
agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple,
undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick
in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous
military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass
- despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between
two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war
that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.
Igor
Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist
of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian
army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple
things...
Imba > Igor
Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West,
while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring
articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
Please respect him ;)
Dima Lauri > Imba
I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin
troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.
folktruther
a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event
of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq.
Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe,
especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese
bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.
Hersh's latest is a ten thousand-word piece in the London Review of Books in which he explains
that everything the government told you about the killing of Osama bin Laden is a lie. A few of the
highlights are: (1) The government of Pakistan knew exactly where Bin Laden was, (2) Saudi Arabia
was paying Pakistan to keep Bin Laden in his safe house compound, (3) America found out where Bin
Laden was not by tracking an Al Qaeda courier or by torturing people, but because a disgruntled Pakistani
intelligence officer wanted to claim the $25 million dollar reward, (4) America was going to make
it appear as if Bin Laden had been killed in a drone strike, but switched courses at the last minute
after one of the SEAL's helicopters crashed, (5) The American and Pakistani government colluded to
lie to the public about how Bin Laden was found and killed.
Predictably, many in the media have rushed to the government's defense. Hersh's anonymous sources
rankle them. The story itself, which is so far removed from the official narrative and implicates
corruption at the highest levels of government, has a dreamlike aura. Never mind that the account
the government gave has been deteriorating from the start, and the glaring contradictions between
the official versions as related by the Pakistani and American governments. Put aside the fact that
someone else using different sources reported a version of Hersh's story in 2011, or that NBC, within
a day, had already confirmed a key point of Hersh's narrative. If Hersh's critics actually did submerge
themselves in a detailed re-reporting of his allegations, the process would subjugate the American
ruling class to deeper scrutiny than usual. [...]
This piece is proposing a bit of a conspiracy theory; but also making a solid prediction,
that can proved or disproved in the short term.
The theory is this:
One of Vickie Nuland's tasks, in her recent trip to Kiev, was to groom a man named Sergei
Levochkin for the Prime Minister job. (to replace Yats).
Levochkin is a former Party of Regions type who was in Yanukovych government. Now he is
head of the so-called "Opposition Bloc".
Levochkin confirmed that, yes, he met with Nuland; and, yes, they discussed regulation of
the crisis in Donbass.
The theory is that Americans have not placed all their eggs in one basket; and that Opp Bloc
of former Regions is being groomed to take over Ukie government, since Porky & Co have failed
miserably. Nuland is said to be auditioning replacements for both Porky and Yats.
Again, this is all provable/disprovable, we just wait to see if it happens.
The more interesting aspect is: What will Russia do? Is Kremlin in on this conspiracy to throw
Porky under the bus (if indeed such a conspiracy exists)?
Everybody knows that Russia wasted years of time supporting Yanukovych government, and in fact
it was Russia that put all its eggs in Party of Regions basket. Will Russia now accept the return
of a basically Regions government; and if so, will they throw independent Donbass under the bus?
These are all questions that we await eagerly to see the answers.
The concept of American exceptionalism is as old as the United States, and it implies that the
country has a qualitative difference from other nations. This notion of being special gives Americans
the sense that playing a lead role in world affair is part of their natural historic calling. However
there is nothing historically exceptional about this: the Roman empire also viewed itself as a system
superior to other nations and, more recently, so did the British and the French empires.
On the topic of American exceptionalism, which he often called "Americanism", Seymour Martin Lipset
noted that "America's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarism, individualism,
populism and laissez-faire. The revolutionary ideology, which became American creed, is liberalism
in its eighteenth and nineteenth-century meaning. It departed from conservatism Toryism, statist
communitarianism, mercantilism and noblesse-oblige dominant in monarchical state-church formed cultures."
Naturally identifying America's system as a unique ideology, just like calling its successful colonial
war against Britain a revolution, is a fallacy. For one, America was never based on social equality,
as rigid class distinctions always remained through US history.
In reality, the US has never broken from European social models. American exceptionalism implies
a sense of superiority, just like in the case of the British empire, the French empire and the Roman
empire. In such imperialist systems, class inequality was never challenged and, as matter of fact,
served as cornerstone of the imperial structure. In American history, the only exception to this
system based on social inequality was during the post World War II era of the economic "miracle".
The period from 1945 to the mid 1970s was characterized by major economic growth, an absence of big
economic downturns, and a much higher level of social mobility on a massive scale. This time frame
saw a tremendous expansion of higher education: from 2.5 million people to 12 million going to colleges
and universities, and this education explosion, naturally, fostered this upward mobility where the
American dream became possible for the middle class.
Regardless of real domestic social progress made in the United States after the birth of the empire
in 1945, for the proponents of American exceptionalism - this includes the entire political class
- the myth of the US being defined as a "shining city on a hill" has always been a rationale to justify
the pursuit of imperialism. For example, when President Barack Obama addressed the nation to justify
the US military intervention in Libya, he said that "America is different", as if the US has a special
role in history as a force for good. In a speech on US foreign policy, at West Point on May 28, 2014,
Obama bluntly stated:
"In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.
Those who argue otherwise - who suggest that America is in decline or has seen its global leadership
slip away are misreading history. Our military has no peer…. I believe in American exceptionalism
with every fiber of my being."
In his book, Democracy In America, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville was lyrical in his propaganda-like
adulation of American exceptionalism, defining it almost as divine providence.
"When the earth was given to men by the Creator, the earth was inexhaustible. But men were
weak and ignorant, and when they had learned to take advantage of the treasures which it contained,
they already covered its surface and were soon obliged to earn by the sword an asylum for repose
and freedom. Just then North America was discovered, as if it had been kept in reserve by the
Deity and had risen from beneath the waters of the deluge", wrote de Tocqueville.
This notion, originated by the French author, and amplified ever since, which defined the US as
the "divine gift" of a moral and virtuous land, is a cruel fairy tale. It is mainly convenient to
ease up America's profound guilt. After all, the brutal birth of this nation took place under the
curse of two cardinal sins: the theft of Native American lands after committing a genocide of their
population; and the hideous crime of slavery, with slaves building an immense wealth for the few,
in a new feudal system, with their sweat, tears and blood.
YAVORIV, Ukraine - The exercise, one of the most fundamental in the military handbook, came off
without a hitch. A soldier carrying a length of rope and a grappling hook ran to within 20 feet or
so of a coil of concertina wire and stopped.
For a moment, he twirled the rope in his hands like a lasso, then threw the hook over the wire,
and tugged hard, testing for explosives.
When nothing happened he signaled two comrades, who ran up and started snipping the wire with
cutters.
Although this was a typical training exercise for raw recruits in an elemental soldierly skill,
there was nothing typical about the scene. Far from enlistees, these soldiers were regulars in the
Ukrainian National Guard, presumably battle-hardened after months on the front lines in eastern
Ukraine. And the trainer was an American military instructor, drilling troops for battle with
the United States' former Cold War foe, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists.
... ... ...
The training included simulations of a suspect's detention. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The
New York Times
The course on cutting wire is one of 63 classes of remedial military instruction being provided
by 300
United States Army trainers in three consecutive two-month courses.
Here in western
Ukraine, they are far from the fighting, and their job is to instill some basic military know-how
in Ukrainian soldiers, who the trainers have discovered are woefully unprepared. The largely unschooled
troops are learning such basic skills as how to use an encrypted walkie-talkie; how to break open
a door with a sledgehammer and a crowbar; and how to drag a wounded colleague across a field while
holding a rifle at the ready.
... ... ...
The United States is also providing advanced courses for military professionals known as forward
observers - the ones who call in targets - to improve the accuracy of artillery fire, making it more
lethal for the enemy and less so for civilians.
Photo
The training also included simulations of a home raid. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York
Times
Oleksandr I. Leshchenko, the deputy director for training in the National Guard, was somewhat
skeptical about the value of the training, saying that "99 percent" of the men in the course had
already been in combat.
... ... ...
American officers described the course work as equivalent to the latter months of basic training
in the United States. The courses will train 705 Ukrainian soldiers at a cost of $19 million over
six months. The Ukrainian National Guard is rotating from the front what units it can spare for the
training. American instructors intend to recommend top performers to serve as trainers within other
Ukrainian units, and in this way spread the instruction more broadly.
"... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
"... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
"... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
"... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
"... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
"... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
"... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
"... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
"... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
"... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating
openly in Ukraine.
Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think
about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.
At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American
media not saying much about it. Two facts.
Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.
One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President
Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama
said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."
Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly
what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless
or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?
The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.
The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of
the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are
getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.
And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started
arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.
In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring,
if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot
of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.
Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil.
There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an
American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.
"According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three
Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication
reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."
This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in
each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when
referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.
Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting
military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this
paragraph. Speechless.
It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty
of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than
"National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly
put it at the time.
The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it
always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950.
(Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)
Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched
to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.
I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave
these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.
Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become
the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of
intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)
To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day
of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be
"modest" in every mention.
The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces
Near Ukraine, U.S. Says."
Read the thing here.
The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how
many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story.
This is what we mean by aggression these days.
In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that
300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it,
there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation,
a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.
At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint
in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever
number on the border in question.
The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the
Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.
In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.
Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not
in American media. Not a word in the Times.
The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who
can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture
in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving
idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.
These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these
extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official
ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla
and the colonels.
The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament
have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker
named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will
neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."
Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic,
rights-trampling regime that does what it says.
And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.
* * *
I end this week's column with a tribute.
A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the
Times' Marlise Simons is
here.
Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this
one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over
many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew
in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.
Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the
file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was
not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all
scholars are intellectuals.
Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last,
"The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.
Farewell from a friend, Bill.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from
1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and
has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter,
@thefloutist.More Patrick L. Smith.
"... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
"... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
"... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
"... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
"... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
"... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
"... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
"... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
"... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
"... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating
openly in Ukraine.
Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think
about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.
At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American
media not saying much about it. Two facts.
Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.
One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President
Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama
said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."
Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly
what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless
or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?
The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.
The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of
the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are
getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.
And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started
arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.
In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring,
if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot
of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.
Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil.
There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an
American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.
"According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three
Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication
reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."
This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in
each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when
referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.
Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting
military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this
paragraph. Speechless.
It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty
of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than
"National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly
put it at the time.
The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it
always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950.
(Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)
Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched
to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.
I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave
these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.
Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become
the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of
intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)
To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day
of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be
"modest" in every mention.
The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces
Near Ukraine, U.S. Says."
Read the thing here.
The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how
many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story.
This is what we mean by aggression these days.
In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that
300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it,
there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation,
a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.
At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint
in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever
number on the border in question.
The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the
Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.
In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.
Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not
in American media. Not a word in the Times.
The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who
can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture
in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving
idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.
These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these
extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official
ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla
and the colonels.
The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament
have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker
named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will
neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."
Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic,
rights-trampling regime that does what it says.
And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.
* * *
I end this week's column with a tribute.
A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the
Times' Marlise Simons is
here.
Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this
one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over
many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew
in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.
Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the
file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was
not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all
scholars are intellectuals.
Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last,
"The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.
Farewell from a friend, Bill.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from
1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and
has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter,
@thefloutist.More Patrick L. Smith.
Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian.
This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions
seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.
Balazs Jarabik, who is associated with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and who
focuses on Ukraine, has an
article titled "Ukraine: The War Must Go On?". It's a pertinent article because both sides are
re-arming and both sides are more skilled now at war. Renewed fighting, if serious war breaks out
again, will be more devastating than the earlier engagements. It will likely enter new areas and,
in the process, undermine Ukraine altogether.
Jarabik writes "As terrible as it sounds, Kyiv's endless dysfunction is the Kremlin's most powerful
ally in the current crisis-a point that is glossed over in Western policy debates on sending lethal
aid to Ukraine."
Critics of the libertarian positions on Ukraine should read and heed what the non-libertarian
Jarabik says about Kiev and Ukraine. U.S. and NATO aid, bank financing, training and military advice
are not helping Ukrainians. Quite the opposite.
The libertarian refrain calling for U.S. disengagement from Ukraine (and other of the Empire's
venues) strikes some as being either pro-Russian or not anti-Russian enough. This is a false conclusion
that doesn't follow from a non-interventionist stance. It only follows from a non-libertarian perspective
of supposing that the U.S. should be helping Ukraine achieve independence from Russian pressures.
But such so-called help is destroying Ukraine and promises worse to come.
Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian.
This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions
seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.
Both U.S. disengagement from Kiev and criticism of Kiev's war-making are policies that will help,
not harm, ordinary Ukrainians. Sons will not be drafted, ill-trained, ill-equipped and sent into
unwinnable and destructive wars. The government won't go bankrupt in the process. Huge debts won't
be levied on generations of Ukrainians. The currency won't crash, as it has, destroying the wealth
of anyone holding it, small savers or holders of debt denominated in that currency. Resources can
be put toward peaceful purposes. Similarly, people in Donbas won't face the severe destruction wrought
by war. Refugees can come home. People won't be driven from their homes. Population centers, ranging
from villages to major cities, won't be shelled.
The war-making and other related decisions are promoted by the U.S. and NATO. The U.S. is re-arming
one side and improving the weaponry. The Russians are re-arming the other side, and that side too
will bring in new ways of fighting. The level of destructiveness can only escalate as a consequence
of a U.S. and Kiev decision to bring Donbas back into Ukraine by military means.
Libertarian calls for the U.S. completely out of Ukraine are for the good of Ukrainians themselves,
although surely not all of them. This policy doesn't satisfy Ukrainian nationalists who insist on
union of west and east, come hell or high water. Hell it may be.
The Washington Post's Michael Birnbaum invented a
new funny way to equalized victims and perpetrators of serious crimes:
MOSCOW - A pro-Russian Ukrainian journalist was gunned down in Kiev on Thursday, authorities said,
a day after a Ukrainian politician supporting Moscow was found dead.
The killing of Oles Buzyna, 45, raised fears of a new wave of back-and-forth violence in the
streets of Ukraine after a string of unsolved deaths that has touched both sides
of the conflict between Ukraine's Western-allied government and pro-Moscow separatists.
Indeed the "unsolved deaths" "touched both sides" with eleven people on one side getting murdered
while the other side covered up these murders as "suicides" and very likely also provided the killers.
Eight
politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S. inspired
coup, were killed as were three
journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.
There is some curious connection between some of the recent killings and NATO. As RB
at NiqNaqprovides (recommended):
On Apr 14, a profile of Oles' Buzina was added to https://psb4ukr.org/ site (where Ukrainian government
encourages people to fink the authorities on the people suspected of separatism); on Apr 15, Oles'
Buzina was killed near his home with 4 shots. I (my correspondent – RB) looked up the
Web address where they posted Buzina's address, and found that it's hosted on a NATO server.
The Niqnaq post provides details and screenshots demonstrating the connection to NATO.
(A short take is also here.) I was myself researching the issue for MoA when I found that
Niqnaq post and I can confirm the findings and add a bit.
Two names and personal data of persons recently assassinated in Ukraine were posted on a "nationalist"
website shortly before those persons were killed. That website,
screenshot)
screenshot), is
headlined:
"Peacemaker"
RESEARCH CENTRE FEATURES OF CRIMES AGAINST UKRAINE'S NATIONAL SECURITY, PEACE, SECURITY AND
HUMANITY international law
Information for law enforcement authorities and special services about pro-Russian terrorists,
separatists, mercenaries, war criminals, and murderers.
Next to some news pieces the site carries a list for download with some 7,700 names of "saboteurs"
and "terrorists".
On a first view the name "psb4ukr.org" is anonymously
registered through the U.S.
company Wild West Domains.
A "traceroute" command shows that Internet Protocol requests to the server "psb4ukr.org" end in
a datacenter in Dallas, Texas at dallas-ipc.com and the IP number 208.115.243.222.
A "nslookup" command with the input "psb4ukr.org" confirms in its output the registered IP Number
to be "208.115.243.222" (screenshot).
A reverse "nslookup" command with the input "208.115.243.222" provides the output "psb4ukr.nato.int".
(screenshot).
"nato.int" is the Internet domain namespace registered and reserved for NATO. Why is a server
for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been killed - registered
within the NATO Internet namespace?
After some additional research we find that the non-anonymous registration to "psb4ukr.org"
is to one Vladimir Kolesnikov, 98 Lenin St, Velyka Oleksandrivka, Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine.
Further searching for Vladimir Kolesnikov we
find that Mr. Kolesnikov has registered several other websites through Limestone Networks, Inc
in Dallas, Texas.
Some of these website seem to be concerned with crypto payment, teletraining and unrelated stuff.
Some others are related to the nasty "nationalist" side of the Ukraine conflict.
Operativ.info asks for tip offs about "saboteurs"
and "terrorists" and their operations while informnapalm.org
is a general "nationalist" news collection.
There is no hint of any NATO-relation in these other sides. A reverse nslookup like the one that
shows a relation like between "psb4ukr.org" and "psb4ukr.nato.int" does not deliver such results
for the other website registered to Mr. Kolesnikov.
One possible explanation for the "psb4ukr.nato.int" lookup result might be that the website was
originally build or tested within the NATO namespace and later transferred outside without cleaning
up some of the original name references.
Posted by b on April 17, 2015 at 03:06 PM |
Permalink
james | Apr 17, 2015 5:45:27 PM | 1
thanks b.. any connection to nato is really riveting if true.. the fact all the people murdered
are opposed to the present gang in kiev speaks volumes as well.. i hope some western msm will
pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.. it will be more bs like the wapo is famous for..
spewing propaganda 24/7, these media outlets make the prvada of previous times look like amateurs..
jfl | Apr 17, 2015 6:33:22 PM | 2
Excellent work, b. It is true that the MSM sill never publish anything like this ... but it
is also true that the 'market' for news has been bifurcated at this point : those who want to
know the truth are engaged in the search for it on their own and those who definitely do NOT want
to know the truth are reading, viewing the MSM.
Attending to the MSM has become an act of complicity with the crimes of the empire in itself.
JerseyJeffersonian | Apr 17, 2015 6:43:55 PM | 3
So, death squads on the menu?
Ah, takes me back to those golden times in Iraq, El Salvador...
Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 17, 2015 11:55:44 PM | 5
I've come to appreciate the value of the "both sides" meme.
It's a 24ct guarantee that USrael or one of their "good friends" has been caught perpetrating
inexcusable atrocities, upon civilians, which need to be urgently diluted.
The "Israelis" have turned it into an art form - an absolute necessity given that ALL the victims
of the Shitty Little Country's insane anti-Palestinian hubris have been civilians.
It's quite clever in a cowardly, sneaky, "Israeli" kind of way...
Fete | Apr 18, 2015 12:41:56 AM | 604/17/2015 19:57
Russian Spring
Commenting an appeal of Donbass community to the guarantors of the Minsk agreements, Presidents
of Russia and France, Vladimir Putin and François Hollande as well as Angela Merkel, the Chancellor
of Germany, the Chairman of Peoples Council of Donetsk Republic Andrey Purgin assumed that today's
Kiev moves toward Ukrainian Nazism.
"Mass arrests and intimidation are common. Those who disagree to live with the Ukrainian
ethnic nazism are prosecuted. The most active ones are incarcerated", asserted Purgin
According to him, thousands are jailed for their political convictions.
"Of course, there are calls to (international) community, to Merkel, Europe to interfer.
Unfortunately, those live in framework of different (double) standards and are not going to
do anything. Instead, they call to yield to Ukraine, where arrests and burning houses are taking
place", added Purgin.
@b
Why is a server for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been
killed - registered within the NATO Internet namespace?
Russian Defense Minister summed it up very well, at Moscow's annual security conference.
"The United States and its allies have crossed all possible lines in their drive to bring Kiev
into their orbit..."
JerseyJeffersonian@3 is right on target reminding us of the infamous "Death Squads" in El Salvador
and Iraq. Targeting of opposition figures by parallel security forces killing not-so anonymously,
is an integral part of any regime hell-bent on imposing by force a quasi-fascist form of government.
The purpose is to inflict terror on a massive scale, a psychological war that aims at paralyzing
others from opposing the regime. It is the ABC of any counterinsurgency manual, and it clearly
shows the hand of the CIA behind the systematic killing of Yanukovich allies, perceived or real
pro-Russian individuals/organizations/regional or city governments, as it happened recently in
Kharkov, and a couple of days ago in Odessa.
This is lustration on a higher level, not just firing from government posts all of those
considered "opposition," not enough for the Ukrainian neo-nazis, they have to be physically eliminated.
As bastard children of nazi ideologues, they have to follow their German masters in their
"purification" of society (lustration from Latin = purification), cleansing it from any elements
that could endanger the "purity" of their new fascist dystopia.
The WaPo, a mouthpiece of Neoconland/Deep State, is an accomplice to murder not only in Ukraine,
and has played a crucial role white-washing the crimes of the criminal Kiev junta from day one.
Shame on you, Michael Birnbaum, you're justifying the slaughter of innocents just to keep a miserable
job writing horseshit, and killing them a second time with your blatant lies.
i hope some western msm will pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.
The western msm have picked up on it but to claim that an anti-Kiev oligarch who funded the Party
of Regions is killing them off to cover his tracks over that funding.
An organisation called the 'Ukrainian Insurgent Army' has claimed responsibility for the murders
of Chechetov, Peklushenko, Miller, Kalashnikov and Buzina.
I second your recommendation. I spotted some short extracts at Russia Insider,
and I share their recommendation that you read the whole piece. Here's a small sample, .
Q: In a historical perspective, do you consider Russia justified?
Well, I can't think otherwise.
I began warning of such a crisis more than 20 years ago, back in the '90s. I've been saying since
February of last year [when Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in Kiev] that the 1990s is when everything
went wrong between Russia and the United States and Europe. So you need at least that much history,
25 years. But, of course, it begins even earlier....
Q: I take Kiev's characterization of its war in the eastern sections as an "anti-terrorist
campaign" to be one of the most preposterous labels out there right now.
But, then, why did Washington say OK to it? Washington has a say in this. Without Washington,
Kiev would be in bankruptcy court and have no military at all. Why didn't Washington say, "Don't
call it anti-terrorist?" Because if you call it "anti-terrorism" you can never have negotiations
because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just kill them, a murderous organization with
murderous intent....
So the United States has been deeply complicit in the destruction of these eastern cities and
peoples....
Ever since the Clinton administration, we've bleated on about the right to protect people who
are victims of humanitarian crises. You've got a massive humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine....
Where is Samantha Power, the architect of "right to protect?" We have shut our eyes to a humanitarian
crisis in which we are deeply complicit. This is what's shameful, whether you like or don't like
Putin. It's got nothing to do with Putin. It has to do with the nature of American policy and
the nature of Washington-and the nature of the American people, if they tolerate this.
See also his comments on Yeltsin. Increasing ill and under the thumb of the oligarchs, he cozied
up to Washington. Cohen reports that Medvedev, a number of years ago, advised that Zyuganov of the
Communist Party of the Russian Federation had actually won the election that gave Yeltsin his final
term.
Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 11:04:39 AM |
12
New detentions of peaceful protesters in Odessa: 30 people reported detained at Odessa rally
for cultural autonomy and a peaceful solution to the civil conflict: "The People's Council [of Bessarabia]
is the grassroots, peaceful initiative."
So far the People's Council of Bessarabia is looking like an effort to use what legal space seems
to exist under current junta law to organize "within the system," while the Odessa People's Republic
appears to be extralegal and separatist. But the reality is that there is no legal space within fascism
for any opposition to organize:
Posted by: Vintage Red | Apr 18, 2015 11:43:21 AM |
13
jj, lw, bb at 3, 7 & 10 --
Extrajudicial repression has been a staple of the ruling class since antiquity. See the murder
of Tiberius Gracchus in the 2nd. cent. BC. But along with creating "insurgencies" (Nicaragua, Afghanistan)
the Amercan Century has really made it one of its art forms. A sort of "Abstract Repressionism;"
we're disinclined to think of the human cost, let alone accept responsibility for it.
If you want some good fantasy fiction writing, I'd recommend the Kyiv Post's weirdly informative
article,
Murders of two journalists, ex-lawmaker spook Kyiv. It begins, "The atmosphere was spooky in
Kyiv on April 16 as news broke about the murder of a third prominent person in four days." Quite
lit'ry, weren't it? It's the Party of Regions, it's the Russian, it's a scheme to disrupt Victory
Day.
It goes on to some highly negative spin about Kalashnikov and Buzina, and finishes with short
accounts of rash of "suicides" amongst regime opponents.
Meanwhile, repression is spreading in
Odessa. A mixed group of local Maidan activists, police, and PravSek militiamen detained protesters.
They wanted a free trade zone and were unhappy with utility prices and pensions. A clear and present
danger. Whereabouts presently unknown. -- VR at 13, just saw yrs. I'll have to ck'out the NeoNazi
bit.
VR -- well that was depressing. In part 'cause it lead me to what the link called "Drunk With
Permissiveness: Nazis Execute Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." The page itself is a little
more mundane,
Ukrainian
Insurgent Army Claims Responsibility for Death of Reporter Buzina. It provides further details
than the Fort Russ account above.
It links the rise in violence to the recent proclamation of the collaborators as victors over
their fascist patrons, taken as a green light for a bit of the ultra-violence. They promise "a ruthless
insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and Moscow henchmen..." They seem as
good as their word. Too bad....
These incidents are so historically familiar. When reading your article b, I couldn't help thinking
about Italy and the murders and terrorism that occurred through out the 1950's to 1980's. Incorrectly,
many of our contemporaries believe that the Gladio which was created by NATO, the UK and the US is
defunct. As revealed by Professor Daneile Ganser, Gladio is a live and well and operates globally.
Yes, NATO is the culprit. Just as it was the instrumental culprit that was used as a tool in Kosovo
for US interests. As for the monsters in Kiev, Reinhard Gehlen, one of the Nazi architects of the
stay-behind-network would be proud.
en1c at 15 -- Very droll! It's been renamed "plausible deniability" to suite modern sensibilities.
vr at 13 -- I followed your link.
Depressing, in part 'cause I followed this link there, "Drunk With Permissiveness: Nazis Execute
Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." It provides further details than the Fort Russ
item cited at 14. Folks will have to find it on their own, I'm afraid. It wouldn't post my link from
Sputnik -- though the link in the preview worked. Others have had that problem.
"We are unfolding a ruthless insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and
Moscow henchmen...." They claim five murders, including Kalashnikov and Buzina. So they look to be
as good as their word. Too bad.
Thank you for your links, CTuttle @ 8. I don't know Stephen Cohen very well, but I took a dislike
to Katherine his wife way back when the Nation came out so strongly against Ralph Nader as a candidate,
and seeing her on Charlie Rose didn't warm me to her either. There are some folk on the 'left' who
need to come right out and admit they have been wrong to endorse anti-common-folk principles in the
past, due to the damage they have caused by supporting the oligarchs.
They are taking a page out of Putin's book: he was in government during the Yeltsin era when policies
were strongly skewed to get along with US oligarchies and Russia's own. Putin has changed course,
no two ways about it, and his people as a consequence love him. I just hope these folk will have
the same intention - Katherine, you will have to stop sniping at Ralph if you want us to love you.
The problem of Ukrainian nationalism is that they do not have "democratic template", heroes of
the past were hetmans, otamans and fascists. To be patriotic, you have to be bloody minded. So patriots
are murdering enemies of the people, and the West gives green light by giving aid and not raising
stink. [disclamer: I do not despise patriotism, but like love and religion, it can motivate excesses
including murder, mass murder, lies, mass lies and so on, emotional attachment can be a positive
force, but as we know, it is not always the case. Below, "patriot" describes the self-assessment.]
The Newsweek story
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/17/ukraine-plagued-succession-unlikely-suicides-former-ruling-party-320584.html
that b found is extremely symptomatic. American patriots in the media are following the official
clues how to cover stories from the confusing lands outside our borders. Apparently, in the case
of Ukraine, one has to follow explanations of Ukrainian patriots. And the version plied in Newsweek
was that an oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov, is ordering murders of his former confidants and benefactors
to "remove witnesses", somehow failing to consider the following clues: murders are being covered
up by the current authorities, the minister in charge of police is a fascist (according to Guardian,
"there is only one fascist in Ukrainian cabinet"), and Akhmetov is not allied with the current authorities.
Since 1945, members of UPA and related organizations were cooperating with CIA, so when American
government want to find reliable familiar faces in Ukraine they will always start with "fascists".
In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat weird
disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically, in
Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist" (for parochial reason,
as they murdered ca. 100,000 Poles).
A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into "moderate
mayhem", contrasting with much more grandiose approach advocated by GOP and neocons (who can be Democrats
and Republicans).
In 1976, journalist Peter Watson was at a NATO conference in Oslo, when a U.S. Navy psychologist,
Dr. Thomas Narut, from the U.S. Naval Hospital in Naples told Watson and New Jersey psychologist
Dr. Alfred Zitani, that the Navy sought men to train as assassins in overseas embassies. The following
is from the London Sunday Times, "The soldiers who become killers," September 8, 1974, but reproduced
from a conspiracy site, as the original, and most references to it, plentiful even when I first
read about it some years ago, are limited now to a few dozen conspiracy sites. The story is also
told at some length in Watson's book (out of print), War on the Mind: The Military Uses and
Abuses of Psychology, published by Basic Books in 1978.
[Narut's] naval work involved establishing how to induce servicemen who ma[y] not be naturally
inclined to kill, to do so under certain conditions. When pressed afterwards as to what was
meant by "combat readiness units," he explained this included men for commando-type operations
and – so he said – for insertion into U.S. embassies under cover, ready to kill in those countries
should the need arise. Dr. Narut used the word "hitmen" and "assassin" of these men.
The method, according to Dr. Narut, was to show films specially designed to show people
being killed and injured in violent ways. By being acclimated through these films, the men
eventually became able to dissociate any feelings from such a situation. Dr. Narut also added
that U.S. Naval psychologists specially selected men for these commando tasks, from submarine
crews, paratroops, and some were convicted murderers from military prisons. Asked whether he
was suggesting that murderers were being released from prisons to become assassins, he replied:
"It's happened more than once."
"For the first time, U.S. officials acknowledge that in 1965 they systematically compiled comprehensive
lists of Communist operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres. As many as 5,000 names
were furnished to the Indonesian army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those
who had been killed or captured, according to the U.S. officials," Kathy Kadane wrote for South
Carolina's Herald-Journal on May 19, 1990. [Kadane's article also appeared in the San Francisco
Examiner on May 20, 1990, the Washington Post on May 21, 1990, and the Boston Globe on May 23,
1990.]
The Indonesian mass murder program was based in part on experiences gleaned by the CIA in the
Philippines. "US military advisers of the Joint US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG) and the CIA
station in Manila designed and led the bloody suppression of the nationalist Hukbong Mapagpalaya
ng Bayan," notes Roland G. Simbulan (Covert Operations and the CIA's Hidden History in the Philippines).
In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat
weird disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically,
in Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist"
One often hears Novorossiyans and Russians saying that the present Banderites are actually worse
than the German Nazis were. I concur with that view.
As for American attitudes to Ukie fascism, that's not hard to understand. All you have to think
about is the US training death squads in Central America. Fascist thugs are a tool of US foreign
policy, in the same way that Islamist terrorists are. This is now a commonplace in the progressive
blogosphere.
A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into
"moderate mayhem"
I recently ran across an interview witb a Ukrainian political scientist who had to flee to Moscow,
in which he said that Europeans are finally cottoning on to the true nature of the Kiev regime, so
the US no longer has any reason to restrain the fascists. Hence the recent slew of assassinations
and terror. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up the link.)
Hey, thanks, man. I forgot it was a video. I just remembered it being in Russian, which confused
me. Well worth watching, IMO. Americans have no idea of what Russians think.
To repeat myself, the prevailing Russian view (and with the Internet, the collapse of communism,
and Putin's revival of Russia, I think that pretty much all Russians are on the same page except
for the 10% or less of the Russians who are "liberals") seems to be that the EU was totally eager
to make Ukraine an economic colony of the West, but unlike the US, it does not want war in Ukraine.
So the views of the US and the EU on the Ukraine diverge significantly, although net everyone here
thinks that. (Of course, Russian policy towards the Ukraine since the coup has been largely predicated
on that.)
And thanks for the second link.
His change of view is prompted by the law passed by the Ukrainian Parliament on April 9
glorifying World War.
It was pretty predictable that this would happen eventually. And then it turns out that Poles are
saying what Russians have been saying since last May:
Their savagery was beyond human imagination. Nazi Germany did not come up with what those Ukrainians
were doing
The American public has no idea of this. (In Europe, it's probably only England and the pesky Balts.)
"Poles know what's going on" ... it is more complex than that. The government and more established
media took very pro-American and anti-Russian perspective. The main opposition party build its current
set of slogans around anti-Russian paranoia. That said, in Communist times the issue of the massacres
of Poles in Volhynia and other regions with mixed population was almost hidden by the authorities,
but now it is common knowledge, and after the law acknowledging the perpetrator as heroes the critique
of the government is increasingly mainstream.
In particular, the U-turn of Gen. Skrzypczak is related to perceived "slap in the face". Polish
president made a speech to Ukrainian parliament with very warm support, and the law that is extremely
irritating to Poles was passed "few hours later", and that was duly noted by leftist opposition in
the Parliament. That is not insignificant, because there are good chances that the ruling party will
be forced into a coalition with those people.
As nationalists go, Ukrainian ones seem worse than most. The last election were preceded with
massive nationwide intimidation campaign and few little massacres. The really have a cult of force
and violence, which is reflected in putting boxers in the parliament, and -- surprise, surprise --
getting fist fights in that parliament. The lie compulsively -- recall American senators who got
photos taken in Georgia as the proof of Russian columns in Ukraine (see
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Franz_Roubaud._Count_Argutinsky_crossing_the_Caucasian_range._1892.jpg
). They seem to care nothing about the economy, instead, they want to eliminate Communism and Russian
language. Poor Ukrainian people seemed to have the choice of hopelessly corrupt and hopelessly insane,
so kicking out the previous corrupt lot is not as much of an improvement as Western liberals (and
the Russian emigrants who are cited in the mainstream media) perceive.
Thanks for the link to the Polish military adviser. Links like that, where a guy with impeccable
'pro-West' credentials says the right things about Ukraine, can be used to persuade our 'normal,
conventional' friends.
About European Union Army: there is a whiff of hilarity there. On one hand, the dangers from ISIS
and Russia are both quite remote, so they are not treated seriously. The force being pencilled is
about as large as the part of Ukrainian army that was encircled in Debaltsevo (should there be a
Wiki entry "Debaltsevo debacle"?). Of course, it makes some sense of practicing coordination of national
units so it is not a moronic project, but a very smallish project with very outsized among of debates,
announcements, analysis and so on.
While Europe has few problems defending itself against some putative onslaught, "projecting force"
is another matter. The French can do it in Chad, Mali etc., but how large a European Corps should
be to make a difference in conflicts between local nationalists of Georgia and Ukraine with Russian-supported
internal opponents? It is like trying to defend Paraguay against the forces of Triple Alliance: we
could promise economic sanctions on Argentina, Brasil and Uruguay would they invade Paraguay again,
but above all, we would urge Paraguay not to pick fights with the neighbors. (Incidentally, currently
Paraguay has a "pro-Western" government, and the three former opponents, "anti-Western", so it is
a good case study for comparisons.)
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 19, 2015 9:05:36 AM |
34
side board
On : Eight politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S.
inspired coup, were killed as were three journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.
I suspect there are many names of murdered unknown, unlisted.
Political 'covert' or open, blatant assassinations are unfortunately normal in such situations.
Tallying them is arduous, because the murderous impulse is reflected right down into the street,
it is not just a State - Power - Corp enterprise.
Viktor, 33, son of Viktor Yanukovych died in March 2015, in an accident on Lake Baikal. His vehicle,
with 6 on board, went through the ice, 5 survived, he died. He was the driver.
I'm not advocating he should be added to that list. Abandonment (one article suggested that all
scrambled to save themselves thus leaving Viktor with no help..) is part of that…
Just to say, that lists like this are dodgy and depend on the MSM, snippets from blogs and the
like. Viktor Junior might easily have been included, his death is exremely suspicious, etc. Or it
might be considered a typical rich son demise due to hubris, stupidity, assumed invicibility
forging ahead in a risky 'sport.'
Lone Wolf at 29 -- "Land of Confusion" is a good call, suits the time now better than it did before.
Unfortunately the vid you linked to was not available in my loc. But I happen to have it in my browser
history, for anyone that missed their daily dose (or yearly allotment) of
Genesis. And let me throw
in my favorite early Peter Gabriel track,
Here Comes the Flood. The
problems of global warming give it a different meaning now than in 80's. Best live version, IMHO.
"It'll be those who gave their island to survive...."
I don't think that there's much doubt that the Apollo program was America's pinnacle. (As is the
case with other great human achievements, it took a German to make it happen.) Compared to when America
made it to the moon, the country is now absolutely pitiful and pathetic, and I think everyone understands
that on one level or another.
I read up on the Apollo program at Wikipedia recently. It really was a mind boggling achievement.
Think of the self-confidence those scientists and engineers must have had to work out such a project,
when no one had any experience of being in space. No wonder there is a conspiracy theory that it
was all a hoax. (Of course, the Russians deserve some credit even here, since it was they who provided
the motivation to the Americans to get to the moon.)
How could America fall so low from such a peak? To hazard a guess, what made the Apollo program
possible was the inheritance from the US WW II effort. Not just Werner von Braun, but also central
economic planning and the restraint of avarice by a sense of national purpose.
Perhaps America's fate was sealed when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. That made
the dollar an international reserve currency that could be printed without limit, removing any pressure
from the US to be economically competitive or have a manufacturing base. Thus the current situation,
in which the main way that the US interacts with the outside world is by waging one war after another,
all to keep the dollar in place.
And finally, since we're sharing music videos again, here is an 80s antidote to Genesis:
P. Berman at 33 -- While I've not followed it too closely (I stay busy watching the Banderaists),
the problem of the EuroForce is puzzling. It's the kind of rapid reaction force that the French have
had for decades with Foreign Legion -- professional interventionists. And as they were volunteers,
often foreign, little political cost for use.
So you'd think in principle it's well with the the organizational and logistical capabilities
of the Eurozone. Clearly the problems are political, around domestic sovereignity and foreign entanglement.
As well as the one you raise, who will it be used against, and where?
I'm not sure the Paraguay analogy fits, but I'd have to bone up on that one. I'm glad that we've
drawn someone capable of bringing it up, good fit or bad. I always find it hard to think of land-locked
Paraguay has having been a power frightful enough to unite its neighbors against it in the late 1800's.
The main source of power of the Ukrainian military machine... is in its reliance on wide array
of means of waging war in pursuit of "Ukrainianness".
This machine is based on lies, cruelty,
direct terror, the use of forbidden weapons (I think that if the regime had nuclear weapons it
would have used them by now), and the lowest imaginable methods of warmaking, such as the destruction
of the civilian population, hostage-taking, torture, and the murder of prisoners of war and opponents....
It is not especially subordinate to the political leadership, but instead is purposed for,
to some extent or another, the destruction of everything that does not fit into the "one state-one
nation-one idea" conception.
The power of the Ukrainian military machine also resides in the fact that it is backed by the
entire "civilized world" which is rendering Kiev moral, political, financial, military, and legal
support.
He goes on to note that the Ukrainians have no effective leadership, capable of inspiring the
ranks to sacrifice and victory. This is in part due no cohesive, appealing ideology.
As translator J. Hawk points out about Ukrainian nationalism, "Everyone who's ever adopted it,
lost. They did not merely lose badly, they lost ugly, and made the ideology appear even more despicable
and monstrous than it was before." Having cut themselves off from the Russian and Soviet past, they're
left with Bandera and the OUN-UPA atrocities as models of "Ukrainainness."
I sadly expect this run of bad luck on the part of the heroes of the Ukraine will continue.
If you're trying for true anonymity, you've already failed because this web site records IP addresses
of all who post, unless you've already sought ways to block or falsify your IP address from the very
beginning.
Equally email access has the same problem: irrespective of what information the email provider
requires you to give, all a surveillance agency would need would be to access the IP addresses from
which a given account is logged into.
True, the IP address isn't necessarily very accurate - typically in the 3-5 mile range - but additional
filtering can narrow that down considerably, especially if traces are then put on said IP address
to look for patterns of behavior (times of day a target typically uses the internet, writing/grammar
patterns, lists of web sites frequented, etc).
I am not trying for true anonymity. I just don't want my identity to be obvious to any fascist
(at this current point in history, the word "fascist" is more or less synonymous with "Ukrainian")
idiot who might be reading this blog.
@ALL:
If Atlantos were civilized, they would commit harikiri: Bridge Burning: EU to Bring Antitrust
Charges against Gazprom http://t.co/8TrQ4LWoze
On a darker note, here's a very well-made threat for you. Security forces say
"Ukrainophobes" ought to "lower their rhetoric to zero". Senior SBU investigator Vasiliy Vovk,
speaking officially, said "I think that... when we are practically at war... we should not have people...
who are speaking out against Ukraine and against Ukrainianness. I advise them to do it because nothing
good will come of it."
When asked if he could define "Ukrainophobia," Vovk said "No. But we know what we are talking
about."
"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit
from it."
George Orwell
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which
the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
There is certainly a long established difference between a just war, a defensive war, and a war of
adventure or aggression. No one understand this better than those who suffer loss in fighting them.
Like quite a few people I found myself asking, 'Why the Ukraine? Why the sudden push there, risking
conflict with Russia on their own doorstep?' Why are we suddenly risking all to support what was
clearly an extra-legal coup d'état?'
It is telling perhaps that one of the first things that happened after the coup d'état
is that all of the Ukraine's gold was on a flight to New York, for the safekeeping by those same
people who have managed to misplace a good portion of the German people's gold. It is the most transportable
and fungible store of wealth, where the transfer of less portable assets by computerized digits may
lag.
Follow the money...
GlobalResearch
Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits'
by JP Sottile
As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation' of Crimea, JP
Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there's a
gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.
The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing production here could double
Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine.
On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 "pro-Western" Ukrainians descended upon Kiev's Independence
Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning
of the end of Yanukovych's four year-long government.
That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.
Business confidence never faltered
Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal
with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future
to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine's UkrLandFarming...
"... The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment. ..."
"... I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan. ..."
Ukraine will be a consolidated fascist state without an economy. Right. It was mentioned elsewhere
that the only thing keeping the regime in power is the war. It sure isn't the economy. But eventually
the economic decline will break the bubble.
The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were
expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association
agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment.
So this ridiculous delusion is going to break down. But delusions are very resilient things.
I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan.
In a sense it already is with various oligarchs controlling bits of territory and sort of cooperating
in Kiev. Elections are not much more than a Afghan Jirga.
Still, it is interesting to see Russia
play the long game, the latest being a $285 three month gas contract with Kiev. When the Ukraine
finally implodes, Russia can clearly point out how it could have pulled the plug at any time it
wanted but it didn't because it has the best interests of its closest neighbor in mind. It also
sets a benchmark for all the promises from the EU and US to be compared to, the latter far more
likely to creatively reinterpret supposedly solid agreements than Russia especially if Kiev doesn't
sing from the same hymnbook 200%. It is also a warning to Berlin and the EU – we pull the plug
and it's all yours baby!
Yes, the people of Ukraine will never stand for this ridiculous substitution – a goose-stepping
Nazi police state in place of the cushy streets-paved-with-gold paradise they were led to expect
in exchange for their support for Maidan and the coup. They would probably put up with anything
if it meant widespread prosperity, but they are indisputably much worse off now than they were
prior to The Great Ukrainian Leap Forward and the trend is remorselessly downward for at least
another year – even the IMF
forecasts a considerably worse contraction of a further 10% rather than the 6% it forecast
earlier. And that's with the most lipstick The New Atlanticist – a relentlessly pro-western publication
whose current headlines include Wesley Clark's prediction of a Russian Spring offensive, the manifestly
ridiculous contention that "Putin's war against Ukraine" has had the effect of uniting Ukrainians,
and Russia's paranoid fantasies about the west representing a threat are all in its head – can
put on it. Moreover, there is likely to be zero growth in 2016 as well. That assessment probably
assumes certain realities that do not now exist, such as Kiev bringing the east back under its
thumb, rather than it slipping further from its control and perhaps even expanding its territory.
About two and a half thousand Ukrainians surrounded the US embassy in Kiev on the first of April. People who disagree with
the appointment of foreigners to the Ukrainian government, as well as the intervention of the Americans and Europeans in the public
administration of the country, holding banners saying "We are not cattle!" And they made sounds imitating animals.
Besides the protesters braying and bleating, they were eating cabbage, which was distributed by the organizers of the protest.
They also kept two-meter carrots with the symbols of the European Union. By the end of the demonstration of dissent Kiev residents
pelted the US embassy with manure.
It is noteworthy that the video from the protest was removed from all the Ukrainian sites and users were blocked. Local journalists
hardly covered the event.
It seems as though the Yanks have revived the notion behind "The School of the Americas" era,
where American Special Forces operatives would train up various battalions of "security forces",
National Guard, "Presidential Guards", whatever, expressly to support Latin American fascistic
dictatorships and to keep their respective countries on-side in the "war against Communism" in
the Western Hemisphere.
So, today we have boatloads of Special Forces contingencies in the Middle East, in Africa,
in South Asia, and now in Eastern Europe or in the former States of the Soviet Union (Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, et al), all with the specific task of supporting autocrats and dictators
against their own respective peoples.
And the gullible US public is being sold this as "advancing the democratic agenda"...so blatant
and so pathetic. This to promote US "leadership", and to create proxy military forces to advance
US "strategic goals". Blowback, blowback, we don't see no steenkin' blowback!
Germany was both Protestant and Catholic. The Catholic Centre Party opposed the
Nazis; I believe you'll find the Lutheran state churches of northern Germany the most accepting
of their regime. Lutheran Scandinavia produced generous nos. of collaborators and volunteers for
the Waffen-SS "Viking" Division. Bulgaria and Romania both had collaborationist governments drawn
from local fascists.
en1c at 1
I think they plan on using brute force to keep power. There are several reports at Fort
Russ about about a purge and revamping at the SBU.
Nalivaychenko, its leader, says it's going to be schooled in the Banderaist/OUN school of
political repression. And here is a comprehensive
guide to their methods.
There is nothing good in store for Ukraine. I think during this year it will sustain a military
defeat and the disintegration of its army, another coup and the collapse of what is left of
its government agencies, all-out chaos, the total destruction of the economy and the start
of subsistence farming for survival.... Survivors will be set back a century in terms of living
standards and civilization. This is why foreign intervention to restore law and order to Ukraine
after the collapse of Project Ukraine will be inevitable.
I hope he's exaggerating about that century thing.
Eduard Basurin, the Deputy Commander in Chief of Donetsk Republic Defense, read out to journalists
excerpts of an intelligence obtained plan of Ukrainian special operation, which, in particular
designated "special mobile groups to assault key infrastructure objects and crowded places".
Basurin said that this plan "of a special operation in sector B has been approved by the Ukrainian
side and is being implemented". Therefore, the end of March intelligence about sending approximately
thirty five Ukrainian subversion-reconnaissance group to areas of Shirokino and Donetsk to arrange
provocations under disguise of combatants is confirmed.
According to the presented documents, the subversives were also tasked with liquidation of
Donetsk Republic leaders, spreading panic among locals, opening random mortar and small arms fire
from Donetsk and the airport toward settlement Peski, where positions of the Ukrainian forces
are installed.
jfl | Apr 2, 2015 4:27:24 AM | 13
@9
The purge going on in Western Ukraine may be the sign that they have given up on war with the
East ... that would have been their instruction from the CIA, in that case ... and are preparing
to internalize the war. I'm probably quoting J Hawk or K Rus. Everything is so wrong in Ukraine
... and getting daily wronger ... that they desperately need some overarching threat to 'keep
everyone's mind off the pain'. The poor, poor Ukrainians.
I don't think the author at Russia Insider meant that the collapse of the Ukraine would last
100 years, 'just' that the 'lifestyle' of the Ukrainians would be more similar to their lifestyle
100 years ago than to their 21st century fantasies. The ground is the place to build up from.
And slowly and thoughtfully, with an appreciation for what is real and what is not, is the way
to go.
It is not only the Ukrainians who will be in this position in the near future. I agree with
Mike Maloney@7 ... "how can all this not end up becoming globalized total war?"
ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 2, 2015 9:19:48 AM | 16
"US training" in practice seems more an economic outcome than a military one. Much like sourcing
the F35 - US training of indigenous troops presents limitless opportunities for kickbacks, theft,
and other means of securing payment for local warlords. Trainers have to be fed, housed, and protected
- all activities which generate income. Trainees have to be furnished equipment - which can be
stolen and sold. Training itself consumes resources: ammunition, food, etc which also can be stolen
and sold.
Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord
support.
"Council of Europe
report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests
are a total shambles and are going nowhere."
Obama fully intends to get a war or at least threat of war started in the Ukraine between Russia
and NATO in order to boost the military-industrial complex and the US military budget.
The alleged
intent of the Ukraine crisis was to make Ukraine into a NATO base on Russia's borders. But Russia
will never stand for that. And it's not certain that everyone in the Beltway was ignorant of that.
These people can read the articles that pointed out that Russia would not stand for that.
But Russia didn't take the bait and invade Ukraine. Instead they merely supported the anti-Kiev
forces in the east.
So Obama has to up the ante. The only way to do that is to support the far-right neo-Nazi forces
in the Ukraine and get them to take over the government. This is because Russia will never accept
a Nazi-led Ukraine, either.
The goal is to force Russia to deal militarily directly with Ukraine, thus justifying a NATO
threat response, which will boost the Cold war and boost the US and EU military-industrial complex.
Never forget that Obama is owned and operated by his masters in Chicago who are both Israel-Firsters
and stock holders in the military-industrial complex.
@31,32
Looks like the Ukrainians are finally beginning to understand just how badly they have been played.
Maybe they will no longer stand for a Nazi-led Ukraine, either?
I mean ... how have they benefited at all from NAZI rule?
It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference
in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where
the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk
ceasefire is rapidly
unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning
in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that
to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic
artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates
little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable.
Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping
the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way
back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding
Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved
would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the
Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting
with the regular units of the Russian army."
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with
lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects
Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long
haul.
The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which
he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander
said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its
fate,apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander
claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that
recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are
in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve
and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice
is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow
increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back
down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel
fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via
sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the
indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations
from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of
their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference
in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where
the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk
ceasefire is rapidly
unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning
in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that
to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic
artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates
little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable.
Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping
the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way
back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding
Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved
would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the
Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting
with the regular units of the Russian army."
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with
lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects
Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long
haul.
The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which
he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander
said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its
fate,apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander
claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that
recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are
in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve
and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice
is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow
increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back
down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel
fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via
sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the
indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations
from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of
their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
"... Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power. ..."
"... The U.S. will now disguise its arms-to-Kiev program by laundering it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships: ..."
"... The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons. It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who do they think will believe them? ..."
"... Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about Ukraine are purely tactical. ..."
"... Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato. ..."
The U.S. is circumventing its own proclaimed policy of not delivering weapons to Ukraine and is
thereby, despite urgent misgivings from its European allies, increasing the chance of a wider catastrophic
war in Europe.
The Ukrainian coup president Poroshenko
went to an international arms exhibition in Dubai. There he met the U.S. chief military weapon
salesman.
ABU DHABI – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is expected to meet with U.S. defense companies
Tuesday during a major arms exhibition here even though the American government has not cleared
the firms to sell Kiev lethal weapons.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition executive is scheduled to meet with a Ukrainian delegation
Monday evening, however Poroshenko is not expected to be there. Kendall, in an interview, said
he will be bringing a message of support from the United States.
"I expect the conversation will be about their needs," Kendall told Defense One a few hours
before the meeting. "We're limited at this point in time in terms of what we're able to provide
them, but where we can be supportive, we want to be."
Poroshenko, urged on by his neocon U.S. sponsors, wants total war with Russia. Porosheko's deputy
foreign minister, currently on a visit in Canada,
relayed the message:
Ukraine's deputy foreign minister says he is preparing for "full-scale war" against Russia and
wants Canada to help by supplying lethal weapons and the training to use them.
Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world
must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power.
In the mind of these folks waging a "full-scale war" against a nuclear superpower like Russia
is nothing to be afraid of. These are truly lunatics.
Russia says that U.S. weapons delivered to Ukraine would create real trouble. They mean it. To
hint how Russia would counter such a move it just
offered a spiced up S-300 missile defense system to Iran:
Sergei Chemezov, chief executive of the Russian defense corporation Rostec, said Tehran is considering
its offer to sell an Antey-2500 anti-ballistic air defense system,
The Antey-2500 is a mobile surface-to-air missile system that offers enhanced combat capabilities,
including the destruction of aircraft and ballistic missiles at a range of about 1,500 miles,
according to its manufacturer, Almaz-Antey.
The system was developed from a less advanced version -- the 1980s-generation S-300V system
-- which has a 125-mile range. A 2007 contract to supply the S-300 system to Iran was canceled
in 2010, after the U.S. and Israel lobbied against it, ...
Such a system in Iran would, in case of a conflict, endanger every U.S. airplane in the Middle
East.
But that threat did not deter the U.S. As the U.S. arms dealer in Abu Dhabi said: "where we can
be supportive, we want to be". The U.S.
will now disguise
its arms-to-Kiev program by
laundering
it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships:
Christopher Miller @ChristopherJM
Poroshenko, UAE agree on "delivery of certain types of armaments and military hardware to #Ukraine."
The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons.
It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who
do they think will believe them?
This is again a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Ukraine by U.S. machinations. It comes
at the same moment that Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine meet in Paris to
push for faster
implementation of the Minsk 2 accord for a ceasefire and for a political solution of the civil war
in Ukraine:
On Monday spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Yevhen Perebyinis said that during their
Paris meeting, the foursome of foreign ministers will focus on the implementation of the Minsk
agreements and withdrawal of heavy artillery in Donbas.
The Ukrainian government has said that it will
not withdraw its artillery as long as there are still skirmishes around a few flashpoints along
the ceasefire line. In Shirokyne east of Mariupol the government aligned neo-nazi battalion Azov
continues to attack the federalists. The Ukrainian propaganda claims that the federalists plan an
immediate attack on Mariupol. That is nonsense and the federalist have denied any plans for further
fighting. Unlike the Ukrainian government the federalist started to
pull back their
artillery and will
continue to do so.
The Ukrainian government is breaking the Minsk 2 agreement by not pulling back its heavy artillery
from the ceasefire line. The U.S. is arming the Ukrainian army and will soon
train its volunteer neo-nazi "national guard" forces.
The major European powers, Germany, France and Russia, try to tame the conflict down. The U.S.
and its poodles in Kiev continue to poor oil into the fire. If the Europeans do not succeed in pushing
back against Washington the Ukraine with burn and Europe with it.
In Further Escalation U.S. Delivery Of Weapons To Kiev Will Be Laundered Through Abu Dhabi
Thanks for a very good summary of the whole guacamole.
Another reason not to withdraw the artillery, being also used by Kerry to crank up the "let's-give-weapons-to-Ukraine"
line, is the mopping of the Debaltsevo pocket, which Ukraine & Co. decided to ignore from the
beginning, to use it now as a justification not to fulfill Minsk 2.0. The false-flag attack in
Kharkov was a prelude of the up and coming internal repression, which will drown in torture, suffering
and blood the little resistance there is to the continuation of the war and the IV Mobilization.
Whoever said that foreign policy is only an extension of domestic policy?
I commented about a week ago that the ceasefire might hold if both sides in Ukraine pulled
back their artillery - unless Obama acted to sabotage it. Now he has done so - not withstanding
the withdrawal of federalist ordinance - by offering to rearm the gun-crazy fascists of the Ukrainian
gov't, with not even a fig leaf of "plausible deniability" to cover his assets.
Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about
Ukraine are purely tactical.
As for Poroshenko, he doubtless has a helicopter gassed and ready, and a nice little hidey
hole in Switzerland all prepared, and conveniently close to his billions. That's why he sent his
family out of the country, because when he has to get out - he has to get out fast.
shargash | Feb 24, 2015 12:29:18 PM | 4
Re: (2) IhaveLittleToAdd
Like most criminal organizations, the US tries to take very good care of its agents that do
what they're told and to be very brutal to those who don't. For examples of the former, check
out all the South American criminals living in Miami as well as the perhaps more relevant example
of Mikheil Saakashvili, who is strutting around Ukraine rather than being on trial in Georgia.
For examples of the latter, check out Noriega, Saddam, or Bin Ladin.
While I suspect Porky is wondering how he got himself into this mess, I don't think he has
much choice but to stick it out to the end. At least his family will be well taken care of.
sleepy | Feb 24, 2015 2:08:47 PM | 10
Re: IHaveLittleToAdd no. 2
Re: shargash no. 4
I have read recently in an article on another blog that in 2012 Poroshenko was being politically
groomed for his future role by Germany's Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung institute, a think-tank wing
of Merkel's Christian Democrats, as was Vitali Klitschko the present mayor of Kiev in 2011.
Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was
to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato.
"Ukraine will go to war in late March"--Zakharchenko
..."We are beginning the withdrawal of heavy equipment, while Ukraine is bringing it up from Kharkov
and Dnepropetrovsk. Seems to be there will be a provocation. Ukraine will go to war in late March
or Early April. Ukraine needs war," Zakharchenko said during a Monday briefing.
J.Hawk's Comment: ...Because, to my mind, there seems to be a pattern of Ukrainian conflict activity:
it is most likely to escalate when it just received foreign financial aid, and is the most likely
to seek peace just as it needs another tranche...
sid_finster | Feb 24, 2015 8:42:45 PM | 22
$350m is not going to buy you many US weapons, especially as Parashka's contract is for $2.4
billion, less delivery, middlemen, financing, etc..
The IMF is another source, but that money hasn't arrived yet, and there are a lot of conditions
attached. That's why the Fund is the lender of last resort.
Since arms are invariably sold subject to strict limits on resales, I suspect that either:
1. The sale is for domestic Ukrainian consumption, i.e Parashka's attempt to look like he is doing
something;
Or
2.The US is secretly financing the sale, directly or indirectly. Such financing may be in the
form of "we promise to aid your ISIS friends, or look the other way, if you 'sell' Ukraine these
weapons and take a lenient attitude regarding repayment."
Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 9:20:09 PM | 23
@Alberto@11
This is not because they disagree with his politics, but because Saakashvili is wanted on a
multitude of criminal charges.
"Criminal charges?" Bingo! He fits the credentials for the job as Porky's "adviser." In reality,
Saakashvili, a CIA crooked rat, is the CIA man in Ukraine, overseeing the entire anti-Russian
effort, weapons needs, false-flag operations, internal repression, Ukinazi death squads, intel
gathering and coordination, etc. Georgia's complaint to Ukraine was more of a wink to Saakashvili's
newly found job, a show for domestic consumption, otherwise, Interpol would be looking for him,
wouldn't it?
ProsperousPeace | Feb 24, 2015 9:37:53 PM | 24
Re: Isaakashvili sudden involvement with the "Ukrainian government": Kiev Snipers: Mystery
Solved
It was reported several weeks ago in Interpress News that four of the snipers in Kiev were
in fact Georgian nationals. The source for this story was Georgian General Tristan Tsitelashvili
(Titelashvili), who later confirmed this in an interview with Rossiya TV.
Tsitelashvili claimed that at least four of the snipers shooting at people in Maidan Square
were under the command of former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, who is doing his best
to destabilize his own country, and others if necessary, to find a way back into power.
Piotr Berman | Feb 24, 2015 11:28:51 PM | 25
How long did Saakashvili's war with Russia last? 48 hours? 72 hours? Good advisor to have.
Posted by: Crest | Feb 24, 2015 8:34:15 PM | 20
According to Wikipedia, the war started on Aug 8, minutes after midnight, and it definitely
lasted at least 4 days. On fifth day, Georgians left a key city, Gori, and Russians entered on
sixth day. On the other hand, the war was lost within 24 hours. The only chance of victory for
heavily outnumbered Georgia was to surprise the Russians and Ossetians and take control of the
only tunnel between South Ossetia and the Russian Federation (North Ossetia), which they did not.
Thus Russian could retake all territory gained by Georgia on day one within two days, rather than
a week. Georgia concentrated almost all forces against Ossetian, leaving the second border with
good roads, with Abkhasia, practically undefended. Thus the only way to score a victory lasting
more than one day was to risk loosing big majority of Georgian military in a cauldron -- Georgian
forces in Ossetian mountain valleys would have Russian forces behind them, as only police checkpoints
were delaying Russian advance from Abkhasia, (posting detours, issuing tickets for parking violations,
violation of weight limits on bridges for tanks etc.???).
As a history buff, I have hard time finding a strategic plan of equal stupidity. To give the
creator of that plan a key advising position seems suicidal. An anti-Russian Georgian owns a large
(??? impressive web site) newspaper in Kiev.
Demian | Feb 25, 2015 3:02:07 AM | 28
Foreign Affairs poll of experts about whether the US should arm Ukraine:
4 strongly agree
5 agree
0 are neutral [they're experts, after all]
8 disagree
10 strongly disagree
brian | Feb 26, 2015 4:59:48 AM | 52
You can read the whole article for free if you register. You get two free articles per month.
FA should be of interest to MoA readers.
@52 Thanks for the Galloway show. His al Mayadeen show has always been difficult for me to
find - and it is considerably better, I feel, than both Sputnik and Comment (which are fine shows
themselves).
"... It also requires an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power to the regions. ..."
"... the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all. ..."
"... "fateful geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence". ..."
"... Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign policy. ..."
"... Last year's "Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this. ..."
"... Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic alliance. ..."
"... Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts: the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters) or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows. ..."
"... A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against the true facts as they are available. ..."
"... I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the monists to impose their model by force on the south and east. ..."
"... There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army. ..."
"... As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge the MSM script. ..."
"... I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine. Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise Russian influence. ..."
When Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's prime minister, told a German TV station recently that the Soviet
Union invaded Germany, was this just blind ignorance? Or a kind of perverted wishful thinking? If
the USSR really was the aggressor in 1941, it would suit Yatsenyuk's narrative of current geopolitics
in which Russia is once again the only side that merits blame.
When Grzegorz Schetyna, Poland's deputy foreign minister, said Ukrainians liberated Auschwitz,
did he not know that the Red Army was a multinational force in which Ukrainians certainly played
a role but the bulk of the troops were Russian? Or was he looking for a new way to provoke the Kremlin?
Faced with these irresponsible distortions, and they are replicated in a hundred other prejudiced
comments about Russian behaviour from western politicians as well as their eastern European colleagues,
it is a relief to find a book on the Ukrainian conflict that is cool, balanced, and well sourced.
Richard Sakwa makes repeated criticisms of Russian tactics and strategy, but he avoids lazy Putin-bashing
and locates the origins of the Ukrainian conflict in a quarter-century of mistakes since the cold
war ended. In his view, three long-simmering crises have boiled over to produce the violence that
is engulfing eastern Ukraine.
The first is the tension between two different models of Ukrainian statehood.
One is what he calls the "monist" view, which asserts that the country is an autochthonous
cultural and political unity and that the challenge of independence since 1991 has been to strengthen
the Ukrainian language, repudiate the tsarist and Soviet imperial legacies, reduce the political
weight of Russian-speakers and move the country away from Russia towards "Europe".
The alternative "pluralist" view emphasises the different historical and cultural experiences
of Ukraine's various regions and argues that building a modern democratic post-Soviet Ukrainian
state is not just a matter of good governance and rule of law at the centre. It also requires
an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power
to the regions.
More than any other change of government in Kiev since 1991, the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych
last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders
were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all.
The second crisis arises from the internationalisation of the struggle inside Ukraine which turned
it into a geopolitical tug of war. Sakwa argues that this stems from the asymmetrical end of the
cold war which shut Russia out of the European alliance system. While Mikhail Gorbachev and millions
of other Russians saw the end of the cold war as a shared victory which might lead to the building
of a "common European home", most western leaders saw Russia as a defeated nation whose interests
could be brushed aside, and which must accept US hegemony in the new single-superpower world order
or face isolation. Instead of dismantling Nato, the cold-war alliance was strengthened and expanded
in spite of repeated warnings from western experts on Russia that this would create new tensions.
Long before Putin came to power, Yeltsin had urged the west not to move Nato eastwards.
Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation
and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine.
The hawks in the Clinton administration ignored all this, Bush abandoned the anti-ballistic missile
treaty and put rockets close to Russia's borders, and now a decade later, after Russia's angry reaction
to provocations in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine today, we have what Sakwa rightly calls a "fateful
geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".
The third crisis, also linked to the Nato issue, is the European Union's failure to stay true
to the conflict resolution imperative that had been its original impetus. After 1989 there was much
talk of the arrival of the "hour of Europe". Just as the need for Franco-German reconciliation inspired
the EU's foundation, many hoped the cold war's end would lead to a broader east-west reconciliation
across the old Iron Curtain. But the prospect of greater European independence worried key decision-makers
in Washington, and Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign
policy. From Bosnia in 1992 to Ukraine today, the last two decades have seen repeated occasions
where US officials pleaded, half-sincerely, for a greater European role in handling geopolitical
crises in Europe while simultaneously denigrating and sidelining Europe's efforts. Last year's
"Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this.
Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision
embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic
alliance.
Within the framework of these three crises, Sakwa gives the best analysis yet in book form of
events on the ground in eastern Ukraine as well as in Kiev, Washington, Brussels and Moscow. He covers
the disputes between the "resolvers" (who want a negotiated solution) and the "war party" in each
capital.
He describes the rows over sanctions that have split European leaders, and points out how Ukraine's
president, Petro Poroshenko, is under constant pressure from Nuland's favourite Ukrainian, the more
militant Yatsenyuk, to rely on military force.
As for Putin, Sakwa sees him not so much as the driver of the crisis but as a regulator of factional
interests and a temporiser who has to balance pressure from more rightwing Russian nationalists as
well as from the insurgents in Ukraine, who get weapons and help from Russia but are not the Kremlin's
puppets.
Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts:
the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults
on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last
February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters)
or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building
set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows.
The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders are
routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the west was
far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and Andropov
were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians.
Equally alarming, though not new, is the one-sided nature of western political, media and thinktank
coverage. The spectre of senator Joseph McCarthy stalks the stage, marginalising those who offer
a balanced analysis of why we have got to where we are and what compromises could save us. I hope
Sakwa's book does not itself become a victim, condemned as insufficiently anti-Russian to be reviewed.
• Jonathan Steele is a former Guardian Moscow correspondent, and author of Eternal Russia:
Yeltsin, Gorbachev and the Mirage of Democracy. To order Frontline Ukraine for Ł15.19 (RRP Ł18.99),
go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846
Susan O'neill -> Steve Ennever 25 Feb 2015 07:11
It must have because I remember that Moscow requested a special meeting of the UN security council
in accordance with a treaty in Geneva. This was an attempt to negate the need for intervention
in a foreign state by Russia (which would have delighted the US). Furthermore, both sides of the
horror were armed to the teeth. Some perspective would be nice.
Susan O'neill -> willpodmore 25 Feb 2015 06:47
A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against
the true facts as they are available.
Until Britain decides to distance itself from the US anti Russian thinking (that means criticism
of the McCarthy era) we will still be looking to root out "Reds under the beds" and routing anything(or
anyone) who might seem to be pro-Russian. Thanks for the contribution.
AenimaUK -> jezzam 25 Feb 2015 05:12
I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before this crisis started.
Yes, before the undemocratic, right-wing, NATO-backed coup, it was.
It is true that NATO is totally dominated by the US - but this is because they spend considerably
more on defence than the rest of NATO put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is
dominated by the US - this is entirely Europe's own choice and fault though.
So your alternative is that the EU up its defence spending to match the absurd permanent war-economy
levels of the US? And will the resources for that come from tax increases or public service cuts
to match the US? Wasn't the point about the end of the Cold War that it was supposed to be the
'end' of the 'war'? Of course, those in charge of the US military-industrial complex and their
chums in the DoD failed to get that memo (or rather, read it, decided it would threaten their
economic and geo-political imperialism, and shredded it).
willpodmore -> MiaPia2015 25 Feb 2015 04:24
Not true MiaPia - Leading scholars of Russian history have refuted the claim that the famine
was an act of genocide.
Terry Martin concluded, "The famine was not an intentional act of genocide specifically targeting
the Ukrainian nation." David Shearer noted, "Although the famine hit Ukraine hard, it was not,
as some historians argue, a purposefully genocidal policy against Ukrainians. no evidence has
surfaced to suggest that the famine was planned, and it affected broad segments of the Russian
and other non-Ukrainian populations both in Ukraine and in Russia." Diane Koenker and Ronald Bachman
agreed, "the documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that
the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially
against the peasants of Ukraine." Barbara Green also agreed, "Unlike the Holocaust, the Great
Famine was not an intentional act of genocide." Steven Katz commented, "What makes the Ukrainian
case non-genocidal, and what makes it different from the Holocaust, is the fact that the majority
of Ukrainian children survived and, still more, that they were permitted to survive." Adam Ulam
agreed too, writing, "Stalin and his closest collaborators had not willed the famine."
Tauger explained, "The evidence that I have published and other evidence, including recent Ukrainian
document collections, show that the famine developed out of a shortage and pervaded the Soviet
Union, and that the regime organized a massive program of rationing and relief in towns and in
villages, including in Ukraine, but simply did not have enough food. This is why the Soviet famine,
an immense crisis and tragedy of the Soviet economy, was not in the same category as the Nazis'
mass murders, which had no agricultural or other economic basis." He summed up, "Ukraine received
more in food supplies during the famine crisis than it exported to other republics. Soviet authorities
made substantial concessions to Ukraine in response to an undeniable natural disaster and transferred
resources from Russia to Ukraine for food relief and agricultural recovery."
Hans Blumenfeld pointed out that famine also struck the Russian regions of Lower Volga and
North Caucasus: "This disproves the 'fact' of anti-Ukrainian genocide parallel to Hitler's anti-semitic
holocaust. To anyone familiar with the Soviet Union's desperate manpower shortage in those years,
the notion that its rulers would deliberately reduce that scarce resource is absurd Up to the
1950s the most frequently quoted figure was two million [famine victims]. Only after it had been
established that Hitler's holocaust had claimed six million victims, did anti-Soviet propaganda
feel it necessary to top that figure by substituting the fantastic figure of seven to ten million
"
Ellman concluded, "What recent research has found in the archives is not a conscious policy
of genocide against Ukraine."
Vaska Tumir -> Vladimir Boronenko 24 Feb 2015 21:23
I beg to differ: there was nothing the matter with the Budapest Memorandum of Agreement of
1994 which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Unfortunately, in November 2013, the
EU decided to violate the terms of the Budapest Memo by presenting the then government of Ukraine
with an economic ultimatum (something expressly forbidden by Article 3 of that international document
several EU countries were signatories to).
Had the EU honoured the terms of the Budapest Memo and had it agreed to the trilateral economic
deliberations both Ukraine and Russia were asking for, nothing of the subsequent mess and the
slaughter Kiev's brought to Donbass would have happened.
The situation can still be rectified by recognizing the new Donetsk and Lugansk Republics as
parts of a federal state, along the lines of Switzerland, say, thus preserving Ukraine as a country.
Such a solution to the chaos NATO and the EU have brought about would be part of what Jonathan
Steele suggests by saying that "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant
de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine".
HollyOldDog Ecolophant 24 Feb 2015 17:44
America does not have a language of its own, it is more correctly called a Dialect of English.
HollyOldDog Dreikaiserbund 24 Feb 2015 17:33
Russian invasion? What invasion? It's just a myth created by the incompetent.
Colin Robinson 24 Feb 2015 17:04
I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian
statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the
monists to impose their model by force on the south and east.
If the terms "monist" and "pluralist" come to be used more widely in discussion about the conflict,
the world may begin to get more of a handle on what has been happening.
Kalkriese -> senya 24 Feb 2015 14:38
And you mean no-one on the US/Ukrainian side is not lying ?
There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo
Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army.
Putin is merely playing back by their rules and the fact he is successful in reclaiming Crimea
is the cause of all the sour grapes emanating from Kiev.
Kalkriese -> jezzam 24 Feb 2015 14:30
"His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow
scuppered by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow."
Are you really so naive ? Or just disingenuous ?
Kalkriese -> prostak 24 Feb 2015 14:26
"Russian troops have been proven many times"
Really? By whom ? Where?
Let's have some proof...
StopPretending -> MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 14:08
there was no 'Ukraine' state until Stalin created it. Perhaps that was the problem?
MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 13:31
Steele's analysis, and Sakwas book have one fatal flaw. The origins of this crisis did not
start in 1991 with the end of the cold war, but rather its end allowed tensions that had been
simmering since the Holodomor of the 1930s when millions of ethnic Ukrainians were starved to
death by Stalin in an orchestrated genocide that then allowed ethnic Russians to move into Ukrainian
territory. The desire to have an independent, Ukraine-speaking nation have always been there and
are no different from the desire of any other country. What we have now is almost an exact repeat
of what happened then.
Steve -> Ennever 22 Feb 2015 19:57
An interesting article indeed.
The Odessa massacre if nothing else was evidence of the MSM's bias on this subject.
50+ people being burnt alive for expressing their opinions seems a choice topic for our "je
suis charlie" fanatic press. And yet we heard.... crickets - because it didn't suit their "we
support Kiev" agenda.
But Odessa wasn't the only atrocity in May 2014. The victory parade in Mariupol, May 9th. The
National Guard arrive, possibly expecting a town full of Russian terrorists, but find civilians
celebrating, understandably irate at the intrusion of military hardware and troops, who then open
fire on them anyway.
Did this get reported in the west?
jezzam 22 Feb 2015 14:49
A serious commentator like Steele putting Russia's case is much needed. His comments about
Yatsenyuk do not add much that is new though. Yatsenyuk is very anti-Russian - this was already
known. His popularity has in fact been much boosted by anti- Russian feelings in Ukraine induced
by Putin's military agression. His party is now the largest in the Ukraine parliament.
Steele's discussion of the Monist and pluralist views is all very well, but he does not discuss
the kleptocratic view favoured by Putin and Yanukovych. The main cause of the revolution in Kiev
was not the conflict between Monist and pluralist views, but the massive corruption and subversion
of democracy in Ukraine, modelled on that of Russia. In Russia the ruling elite cream more than
30% of state income into their own pockets by corrupt practices. Yanukovych had established the
same system in Ukraine. He was also well on the way to corrupting the judiciary. He had already
locked up his main political opponent on a trumped up charge - again following the Putin model
of government.
Steeles's solution of "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status" sounds good. Is this
to be imposed on Ukraine though? What does it mean? I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before
this crisis started. They already had guarantees of their territorial integrity from Russia, the
US and UK as well. Fat lot of good that has done them.
His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow scuppered
by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow. It is true that NATO is totally dominated
by the US - but this is because they spend considerably more on defence than the rest of NATO
put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is dominated by the US - this is entirely
Europe's own choice and fault though.
As to Steele's claim that Putin is being demonised, insults between countries are not productive
and leaders should be treated with respect by other countries. However it is difficult to treat
with respect someone who does not keep his word and lies to your face, particularly when these
lies are so transparent. Brezhnev and Andropov never did this - at least not so blatantly.
tiojo 22 Feb 2015 12:50
"......that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".
Now if only the Guardian's current journalists would read this book we might get some decent
coverage of events in Ukraine and Russia.
Marilyn -> Justice 21 Feb 2015 22:37
My only argument would be the assessment of blame re the snipers - 3 studies have shown them
to be from 'the new coalition' and not old gov't, which is in line with the telephone call of
Catherine Ashton and Urmas Paet,
Standupwoman 21 Feb 2015 21:02
Excellent, balanced article, and I really have to buy this book. I only wonder why the Guardian
hasn't included this on its 'Ukraine' page for 19th February...
GuyCybershy -> sbmfc 21 Feb 2015 17:06
Especially in the US the public needs every issue distilled to good vs. evil. Anything more
complex and they will reject it. This is the result of decades of "divide and conquer" politics.
Vladimir Boronenko 21 Feb 2015 08:21
"Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant
de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine." No it wouldn't. It is
nothing but wishful thinking and delusion all over again. Ukraine had had that status already,
and only scrapped it in December by a constitutional Parliament vote exactly because it showed
its complete uselessness and impotence at the face of real-life threats. Just like the Budapest
Memorandum of 1994 guaranteeing security of Ukraine, with one of the guarantors attacking and
the other two looking on, although, if one was to stick to the letter of the Memo, of course,
they are not bound to be involved unless its a nuclear threat.
Johnlockett 20 Feb 2015 19:21
Excellent article. Very balance and very near to the truth. Thank you
John Lockett
Statingobvious 20 Feb 2015 14:28
An exceptionally unbiased piece where otherwise Russia and Putin bashing (& twisting of facts
& outright lying) is the rule.
mike42 20 Feb 2015 10:04
"The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders
are routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the
west was far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and
Andropov were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians."
Need more be said?
Dreikaiserbund Les Mills 20 Feb 2015 09:14
Challenging the 'MSM script' does not make you a Putinbot. Deriding anyone who supports Ukrainian
sovereignty, who is opposed to the Russian invasion and trumpeting Vladimir as a great and wise
leader - that is what makes you a Putinbot.
EnriqueFerro -> theshonny 19 Feb 2015 19:57
Thank you for the info on 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King. I'll look for it, because even
if it is pro-Putin, it is nonetheless interesting in order to check the rabid and massive anti-Putin
and Russia-hating disease spreading out there.
EnriqueFerro -> Mari5064 19 Feb 2015 19:53
Mari, I'm afraid you read too many tabloids.
EnriqueFerro 19 Feb 2015 19:51
This is an excellent book, of which I'm finishing its reading now; it can be read avidly, because
it says the truth, in a dispassionate and academic narrative, far from the typically stupid accounts
in the Western media and in the mouths of our gullible and ignorant politicians. Read it and learn
a lot about Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the US/NATO.
Usually interesting books which don't follow the official record are not displayed in the mass
bookshops such as Floyds or Waterstones (to name two of the more serious in the UK). It is a way
of censorship, to make it difficult for the public to find critical stuff. I found a lone copy
well hidden in the history section at WS. A miracle! I took it quickly, and wonder if it was replaced!!!
Les Mills -> leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 19:34
As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge
the MSM script. Incidentally, I'm surprised that this article has only a handful of comments.
I came here via a link on Google news so I can only assume that the Guardian have it hidden away
on their site, which definitely fits the anti-Russian agenda.
leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 17:37
By far THE best analysis of what sounds like a most insightful book. The reviewer has done
us all a great service, since without it we would have never heard about the book from any other
"NATO-Western" source. Even worse, the author of the book would be accused of not being "real"
as is often the accusation when a comment appears that does not swallow Western propaganda line-hook-and-sinker.
John Hansen 19 Feb 2015 14:31
Jonathan Steele:
Superb analysis of a significant book.
:-)
theshonny 19 Feb 2015 13:15
Bought 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King a short while ago, and found it going so much pro-Putin
that it lost its impact. So now I hope for a more balanced account.
I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to
draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this
book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine.
Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise
Russian influence.
sbmfc 19 Feb 2015 07:31
I think the demonisation of Putin stems from the influence of Hollywood narratives in our societal
perception.
The idea of the villain is so commonplace that is widely assumed that anyone with a different
agenda to ones own is perceived to be attempting to working directly against our own personal
interests rather than in aid of their own different and completely independent interests.
Essentially everything has been so dumbed down that only a good/evil narrative can be comprehended
and the labels are only fit one way. The facts themselves are irrelevant.
AnyFictionalName 19 Feb 2015 05:50
When PM Yatsenyuk said:
I don't want Ukrainian youths (i.e. those who consider their native language to be Ukrainian
or Russian) to learn the Russian language, I want them to learn the English language.
Is that kind of racism, inferiority complex or just sheer stupidity?
"We have to twist arms when countries don't do what we need them to"
and if arm twisting does not work we will murder your families, embargo food and medicine,
destroy your economy, lay waste to a generation of your children, and blacken your name for
all history.
He is truly a stinky turd in the cesspool that is Washington DC. But fear not, Hillary Clinton
will be a worthy successor and will out-stink, out-murder and out-destroy Obama.
Who in America can stop this madness? (rhetorical/trick question, no one can).
Warren, February 11, 2015 at 6:53 am
Ukraine President Poroshenko Threatens Martial Law: http://t.co/YiPgu0yPEY His main target:
rising dissent in western Ukraine.
- Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) February 11, 2015
The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the
operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military
incursion. Part of the reason for this is the fact that Kiev would have trouble securing a much-needed
support package from the International Monetary Fund if it was officially at war.
A series of gruesome videos, sometimes shown on Russian television, has increased the psychological
pressure on Ukrainians. One, released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the
faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them.
Shit! I must have missed that one!
"A friend of mine told me his friend was down there in the east and they ran into Chechens,
who sliced off all their testicles. There were about 100 of them, and the Chechens castrated the
lot of them. If I get called up, I think I'll go into hiding. I want a family and kids."
'Kin' hell!!!!!!!
karl1haushofer , February 10, 2015 at 11:21 pm
"It may have escaped your notice, but Putin and Moscow have been calling for a ceasefire
all along"
I have grown to hate the whole word of "ceasefire" during this war. A real ceasefire would
be great. But it is not going to happen until Kiev military is fully defeated!
Another bogus "ceasefire" in Minsk means the following:
1. Kiev gets to withdraw its men AND WEAPONS out of the Debaltsevo cauldron and the rebels
will not be allowed to stop it..
2. The rebels will not be able to give a big blow to the Kiev military by either annihilating
or at least capturing the most competent part of their military in Debaltsevo and their weapons.
3. The thousands of Kiev troops in Debaltsevo cauldron AND THEIR WEAPONS will be used in the future
against Novorossiya.
4. The shelling of civilians will continue as it was before. The "ceasefire" will not be applied
to Kiev side, only to rebels.
5. NATO will start the training and arming of Kiev troops. Next offensive will start next spring.
6. The morale of the rebels will take a bit hit. They will realize that their military efforts
and success is meaningless as they are not allowed win this war.
Moscow must not allow Kiev to withdraw its troops and weapons out of that cauldron in any circumstances.
That would be a treason against the troops that fought to create that cauldron. And that would
be a treason against the whole Novorossiya.
This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya.
Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military
defeat for Kiev.
marknesop, February 11, 2015 at 8:00 am
"This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya.
Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military
defeat for Kiev."
On the contrary, the war could continue for many years yet without either side firing a shot,
in much the same way the Georgian government never accepted the independence of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia and even designated a ministerial position for winning them back into the fold. Disagreement
over the borders within Ukraine will keep them out of NATO for the foreseeable future, while their
ruined economy will keep them out of the EU. A future government may mend its ties with Russia,
but if it does not, Ukraine is doomed to decades of poverty and a steady drain of its population
for better prospects. It can thank the west for that, and its own population's extremist element.
Once again, there is no reason for Putin to become "the most hated man in Novorossiya" if it
shakes out as you describe. The rebels must accept the deal on their own behalf, and it is not
for Putin to agree to anything; Russia is simply acting as a sort of guarantor, by being part
of the agreement but kind of like an honest broker, to ensure the western countries keep their
word.
I agree the Ukrainian forces should not be permitted to withdraw from Debalseve with their
weapons, after getting cauldroned for the second time due to their own stupidity, lack of tactical
knowledge and poor leadership. but i doubt that will happen, unless the rebels are idiot negotiators,
because Semenchenko's battalion had to leave their weapons behind when they were allowed out of
the southern cauldron, and it plainly did not teach the Ukies anything. Why would they be allowed
to keep their weapons this time? But even if they do not, weapons are not going to be a problem
to replace, and you know it.
"... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
"... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
"... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
"... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
"... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the
trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and
many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the
Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the
chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state
in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with
Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.
caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52
Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a
leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U.,
NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display
along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements?
More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another
threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground &
leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history
books on how not to be a "world leader".
Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12
And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the
guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the
population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have
only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.
Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and
fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by
negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the
fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.
Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama
about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support
fascist government Poroshenko.
EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin
Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one
side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it
should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be
easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known
before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a
much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that
you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.
What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who
have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they
tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't
happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith
negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.
Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the
Ukraine crisis
Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is.
People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving
whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.
Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53
As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!
This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at
Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the
trapped army may be NATO. !
Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the
Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked
civilian targets.
If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military
equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.
Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has
illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!
This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken
captive, what then?
Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland,
Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.
Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29
Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should
it Invade the Region
And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it
better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and
now here in Ukraine."
Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10
All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with
BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.
Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his
disarmed Berkut could not protect him.
As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're
deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much
today?
That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on
Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.
Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by
murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for
the junta.
From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed
optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in
'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.
Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable
inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while
their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.
National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and
frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless
abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.
But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their
likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against
Russia!
If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as
insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?
Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently
failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!
Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02
And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin
is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,
Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling
and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to
the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to
annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically
challenged folks still try and drag up)
Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57
"But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political
destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western
sponsored coup.....
EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45
amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in
deterring its continued military support for separatists.
I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I
am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far
enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous
American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is
modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question
is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?
You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the
sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second,
Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements
single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West
and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful
offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as
well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did
he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which,
I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.
Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an
agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications
that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will
happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an
unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.
Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30
Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is
lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether
European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the
streets en masse if they value their lives.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57
US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he
will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global
order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."
So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively
after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.
PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22
Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the
consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas...
It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.
The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the
accident.
"This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.
"Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well,
it's chaos, and they are barbarians."
Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.
The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to
shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial
Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on
his Facebook page.
According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because
they were shooting based on coordinates."
Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is
involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook
page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.
PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a
generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to
build up Ukraine.
One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in
this video).
Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort
peacefully containing and isolating Russia".
"... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
"... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
"... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
"... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
"... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the
trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and
many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the
Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the
chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state
in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with
Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.
caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52
Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a
leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U.,
NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display
along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements?
More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another
threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground &
leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history
books on how not to be a "world leader".
Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12
And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the
guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the
population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have
only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.
Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and
fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by
negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the
fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.
Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama
about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support
fascist government Poroshenko.
EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin
Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one
side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it
should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be
easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known
before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a
much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that
you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.
What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who
have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they
tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't
happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith
negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.
Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the
Ukraine crisis
Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is.
People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving
whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.
Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53
As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!
This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at
Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the
trapped army may be NATO. !
Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the
Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked
civilian targets.
If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military
equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.
Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has
illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!
This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken
captive, what then?
Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland,
Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.
Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29
Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should
it Invade the Region
And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it
better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and
now here in Ukraine."
Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10
All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with
BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.
Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his
disarmed Berkut could not protect him.
As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're
deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much
today?
That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on
Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.
Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by
murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for
the junta.
From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed
optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in
'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.
Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable
inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while
their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.
National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and
frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless
abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.
But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their
likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against
Russia!
If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as
insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?
Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently
failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!
Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02
And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin
is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,
Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling
and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to
the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to
annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically
challenged folks still try and drag up)
Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57
"But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political
destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western
sponsored coup.....
EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45
amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in
deterring its continued military support for separatists.
I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I
am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far
enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous
American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is
modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question
is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?
You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the
sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second,
Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements
single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West
and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful
offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as
well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did
he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which,
I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.
Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an
agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications
that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will
happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an
unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.
Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30
Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is
lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether
European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the
streets en masse if they value their lives.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57
US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he
will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global
order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."
So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively
after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.
PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22
Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the
consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas...
It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.
The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the
accident.
"This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.
"Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well,
it's chaos, and they are barbarians."
Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.
The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to
shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial
Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on
his Facebook page.
According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because
they were shooting based on coordinates."
Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is
involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook
page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.
PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a
generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to
build up Ukraine.
One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in
this video).
Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort
peacefully containing and isolating Russia".
I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for
Vladimir Putin,
but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly
to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated
Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western
Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to
power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi
ideology.
For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of
Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection
should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured
for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn
one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.
As David Owen has pointed out (26
August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato,
threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a
diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report,
8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.
Tim Dyce, London
The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of
continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine.
Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use
an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy
within a unified
Ukraine. This is
something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to
let us do it.
Stephen Mennell, Dublin
David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report,
theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a
foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by
orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in
mediation.
I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for
Vladimir Putin,
but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly
to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated
Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western
Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to
power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi
ideology.
For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of
Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection
should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured
for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn
one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.
As David Owen has pointed out (26
August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato,
threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a
diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report,
8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.
Tim Dyce, London
The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of
continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine.
Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use
an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy
within a unified
Ukraine. This is
something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to
let us do it.
Stephen Mennell, Dublin
David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report,
theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a
foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by
orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in
mediation.
"... Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed. ..."
"... Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded. ..."
"... The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50 thousand rather than 5 thousand. ..."
CIA and Americans caught in the cauldron, or whatever they're calling it? That's what some
on a German comment thread were saying today.
EugeneGur -> centerline 8 Feb 2015 23:44
Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled
in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate
to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed.
TuleCarbonari -> EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:31
What is special about the East? It is richer in natural resources than the West. Joe
Biden's son and other businessmen won't be able to operate in a politically volatile area. It
must be pacified somehow.
Bullybyte -> WiseOldManNo476 8 Feb 2015 23:43
There will be no war.
Earth to WiseOldManNo476. You obviously haven't noticed. There already IS a war; it is
about to escalate; and the UK will be involved in it right up to its neck.
The problem being a bully (the US) is that it becomes arrogant and expects its own way
all of the time, when someone pushes back, they fold. This isn't Iraq you know.
And who is pushing back? You?
Looks like the EU will be choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yes. Listen to the tough talk by Cameron. Look how the EU ratcheted up their sanctions on
Russia only a few days ago. The EU have already chosen the lesser of two reasons.
BTW, enjoy your collapsing petro dollar and associated hyper inflation coming your way
very soon.
And this will be happening when? After your kids have been killed?
KrasnoArmejac Roodan 8 Feb 2015 23:20
no roodan, we should not go to war. it is ukraines fight, not ours. but we should not treat
putin like he is a normal politician (or person for that matter). we should not have our
newspapers asking questions that have been answered a million times before, just so we could
be proud of our political corectness. you know those questions, right? questions like: are
those really russians that are fighting the ukranians? it's like answering the question: is
the sky blue? over and over and over again. we should not keep satellite images proving
russian tanks crossing the border classified, just so mister putin could have a face-saving
exit once this is all over with. because my dear roodan, contrary to what your mother (and all
mothers for that matter) told you: ignoring the bully will not make him stop punching you. it
will just make you a loser-for-life. if you don't trust me ask mister neville chamberlain and
his piece of paper
EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:13
the latest Franco-German peace initiative . . . was driven by the urgent desire to avoid
a new bloodbath in the besieged Ukrainian-held town of Debaltseve
Really? What is so special about Debaltsevo that makes the European leaders so concerned
about its fate? What sets it apart so decisively from Donetsk, Gorlovka, Krasnoarmeisk,
Shakhtursk, and a dozen of other Donbass towns that have been pounded by artillery fire for
months. Hundreds of civilians died, and the only response from our European friends was
deafening silence about the killings and loud accusations against Russia of everything and
anything.
I'll tell you what's special about Debaltsevo. A large number of Ukrainian troops
are trapped there, and unless something is done, there are likely end up dead. This means
another devastating defeat for the Ukrs, from which they are unlikely to recover. So, Merkel
and Hollande rushed (or were dispatched?) to the rescue of their little nazi Ukrainian
protegees. One cannot help but feel contempt for such European "leaders" and generally for
what Europe turned into under American patronage.
sbmfc 8 Feb 2015 10:22
Given the still unfolding disasters in Syria and Libya surely the policy of the west
attempting to pick a winner in a local conflict is completely discredited.
It may be the case that war in Europe suits the American agenda but the EU should only be
focused on a peaceful solution. Borders in Europe have always been fluid and it is impossible
to see the rebel areas now ever peacefully existing within Ukraine.
snowdogchampion -> Strummered 8 Feb 2015 10:17
there ARE English speaking troops that sound AMERICAN
Foreign fighters filmed on ground with Kiev army
not to mention the CIA agents ;-)
Kal El -> Eric Hoffmann 8 Feb 2015 10:13
And where is Kiev getting all its weapons etc from ? Their stuff was 20 year old USSR
stuff. Mothballed and rusting.
Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their
stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as
Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded.
NoBodiesFool 8 Feb 2015 10:12
If peace breaks out what will the poor weapons dealers and their bankster backers do?
Someone please think of the poor children of the weapons dealers and the banksters. Also,
think of the poor children of the fossil fuel cartels that all of this is really about. They
really don't have enough money and they so would like another Bugatti for New Year's. Please,
give war a chance - for the children.
Rialbynot 8 Feb 2015 10:12
When the German-speaking population in South Tyrol rebelled against Italian rule in the
late 1960s, the Italian government initially attempted to put down the rebellion using force.
However, a campaign of sabotage and bombings by German-speaking separatists led by the
SouthTyrolean Liberation Committee continued.
Finally, the issue was resolved in 1971, when a new treaty was signed and ratified by the
Austrian and Italian governments. It stipulated that disputes in South Tyrol would be
submitted for settlement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and that the
province would receive greater autonomy within Italy. The new agreement proved broadly
satisfactory to the parties involved and the separatist tensions soon eased.
Europe has a blueprint for resolving the (far more deadly) East Ukraine crisis.
Asimpleguest -> CaptainBlunder 8 Feb 2015 10:09
strange - I read otherwise
''MOSCOW, December 10. /TASS/. Russian military led by Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the
Ground Forces Alexander Lentsov are providing assistance to the Ukrainian south-east conflict
sides in reaching compromise for deescalation of tension and troops' pullout, Chief of the
Russian General Staff General Valery Gerasimov said on Wednesday.
The mission was sent at the request of the Chief of the Ukrainian General Staff, Viktor
Muzhenko, said Gerasimov.''
snowdogchampion 8 Feb 2015 10:09
thanks god! mind that the US warmongers will not be part of the PEACE talks cause they want
WAR at our doorstep.. McCain & Co. must be p!ssed off.. hope Merkel's security has been
increased, you never know, there might be a CIA agent around
SHappens 8 Feb 2015 10:08
Merkel is due to meet Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington on Monday, in a bid
to synchronise US and western European positions on Ukraine ahead of the Minsk summit.
Or how to make a peaceful initiative go jeopardized. All Putin has to do is sit and wait.
And let them EU and US paddle.
Merkel feels they owe the East Ukrainians to stop the war they promoted and encouraged for
months but McCain says that these poor Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves. I suppose he is referring to the East Ukrainians, as they did not attack anybody in Kiev
and are indeed defending themselves from undiscriminated shelling from Kiev. Let's hope the Nobel prize will honor it.
Koninklijk 8 Feb 2015 10:08
Even if there is no further escalation, these repercussions are going to be felt in Europe
for a long time. We'll just have to hope nobody really wants a war in Europe, in the short or
long term.
Kal El 8 Feb 2015 10:05
The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50
thousand rather than 5 thousand.
Which when you think about is more of a truer number given that Ukraine is currently on its
4TH, yes 4TH mobilisation/conscription wave.
If the number of dead/injured is what Kiev claims, quite clearly they would NOT need all of
these mobilisations in the last year. The current mobilisation even includes women.
You may as well bomb Moscow if you do that, because (as the article makes clear) to Putin
the two would be equivalent.
Why the F*** were Obama and Nato so keen to have more pieces on their pie... this really
bugs me. Ok, so Ukraine was not "neutral in the right way" and was under heavy Russian
influence. And so? It's on Russia's doorstep for f***'s sake! What do you expect!
If China masterminded a coup in Mexico with the aim of bringing the country into a defense
treaty with Beijing ... do you think that Washington would not do everything possible to stop
it?
jeeeeez
Amazon10 7 Feb 2015 11:43
What people seem to have forgotten is that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union but a free market
state that like all others and wants to protect it's own interests. It is confronted by
agressive NATO states that have encroached on territories that they agreed they would not.
In addition thay have a circle of nuclear based with missiles pointing at them. Ukraine,
which was a past soviet state but then became neutral after the fall of the Soviet Union.
However the US had other ideas as voiced by their representative to the EU Newland who
inadvertently had her plans for the Ukraine exposed. Their intended coup took place despite a
democratically elected being in place and a government was installed committed to Western
imperialism and expansion of NATO.
The population of the eastern region rejected this coup and it's nazi composition and found
that the only way they could resist the military forced brought upon them by Kiev and it's
western supporters was by fighting back. This is where we are at today. I am sure that Russia
have aided the east with military weapons and have accept over 1million refugees. There has
not been a single piece of evidence to show that Russian forces have involved on Ukraine soil.
The aggressive rhetoric from the West towards Russia make the likelihood of war real and could
have grave consequences for us all if we allow the real truth to be distorted in order to
bring this about. The leaders of Europe must be made aware that we will not let this happen
and that our constant aggression towards whoever we disagree with is not an excuse for war
dylan kerling -> Spockdem 7 Feb 2015 11:42
his post clearly implied it and if you've seen any of his other posts in other articles you
would realize he clearly does seem to look at this situation as a dichotomy of good vs evil,
west vs Russia.
When someone lists some atrocities while only referring to one side and completely ignoring
the fact that the other has done all of it only more frequently and with less of a reason I
would say he's excusing the west from it.
Lastly I'm not condoning Russia, I'm pointing out US hypocrisy and the fact that we still
hear all this talk of how Russia is doing all these terrible things from our political leaders
while completely white washing that we've done the very same time and time again.
If anyone is a shill is all of you that seem to think it's OK when the west does it but if
those evil Russians do anything oh boy are they in trouble.
LarsNil -> Ram2009 7 Feb 2015 11:41
"Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is identified in State Department documents as an
informant for the U.S. since 2006. The documents describe him as "[o]ur Ukraine (OU) insider
Petro Poroshenko." The State Department documents also report that Poroshenko is "tainted by
credible corruption allegations."
The most recent top official to join the Ukrainian government is Natalia A. Jaresko, a
long-time State Department official, who went to Ukraine after the U.S.-sponsored Orange
Revolution. Jaresko was made a Ukrainian citizen by the president on the same day he appointed
her finance minister. William Boardman reports further on Jaresko:
Natalie Jaresko, is an American citizen who managed a Ukrainian-based, U.S.-created hedge
fund that was charged with illegal insider trading. She also managed a CIA fund that supported
'pro-democracy' movements and laundered much of the $5 billion the U.S. spent supporting the
Maidan protests that led to the Kiev coup in February 2014. Jaresko is a big fan of austerity
for people in troubled economies."
September 9, 2014 The head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Gontareva during a
round table in Kiev, said: "200 FSB agents work on loosening the Ukrainian banking system and
the hryvnia" :)
February 5, 2015 "The reasons for the fall of the hryvnia - no," - said the Minister of
Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine Abramavičius.
February 4, 2015: $ 1/17 hryvnia, February 7, 2015 $ 1/26 hryvnia.
February 6, 2015 Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on Ukrainian TV channel 24:
"spirit of the Ukrainian soldiers the best in the world. If you give them the necessary
knowledge, skills and weapons, they will be able to capture the whole of Russia "
Damn sclerosis. Apparently he forgot how as Russia routed the Georgian army for 4 days.
Let me remind you, this man was considered for the post of head of the Anti-Corruption
Committee of Ukraine. In Georgia, he declared a national search in. The Prosecutor's Office
indicted in absentia Saakashvili of abuse of power, embezzlement of budget funds, the attempt
to seize other people's property. The investigation is conducted from 25 October 2013, and
during this period were collected 80 volumes of evidence, questioned nearly 100 witnesses.
2013 Yatsenyuk in an interview with Ukrainian TV: "In the Ukrainian authorities are
amateurs!" Prime Ministers of Ukraine Azarov, Foreign exchange reserves of more than 22
billion dollars, the rate of $ 1 / 8.5 hryvnia.
Now Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, gold and currency reserves of $ 6 billion, the rate of $ 1/26
hryvnia.
Davos January 21, 2015 President of Ukraine Poroshenko: "In my country there are more than
9000 troops from the Russian Federation, 500 tanks, heavy artillery and armored vehicles."
Wow, it's strange that the separatists have not yet reached the border with Poland :)
February 7, 2015 security conference in Munich. Showing the passport of Russian citizens
and military tickets Poroshenko said: "What you still need more facts, evidence of the
presence of Russian troops in Ukraine?"
Ok, but the soldiers of the Russian Army during the service do not have passports, only
military ID. But of course when traveling to Ukraine they are given a complete set, in case of
capture. Ha ha ha :)
The Mayor Of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko. At a meeting with Ukrainian soldiers: "they Say that
there is no body armor, but it is physical protection. The main armor for each of you, is have
a mother, wife, children... Social standards - this is the armor. When everyone knows that if
something happens, his family will receive good compensation and will not have to beg" :)
Uh... good consolation for the soldiers...
You do not cast doubt on the adequacy of the new government of Ukraine? I think that these
clowns, already tired most of the Ukrainians.
cherryredguitar Yubin Underok 7 Feb 2015 11:16
Here is why: Russia has an army of online shills.
Of course, those nice trustworthy people at GCHQ and Langley wouldn't do stuff like that,
would they?
"... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
"... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
"... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
"... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is
in the interest of all affected:
The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and
foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.
"The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not
against it." Wise words.
Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00
NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled
when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its
geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not
Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in
the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy
is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security
Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure
of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter
and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," -
he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is
trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to"
throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the
recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."
According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain
its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last
quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its
dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21
Putin today:
"Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and
to preserve the unipolar world.
"War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our
development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order
led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he
can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best
interest, "- said the head of state.
"Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it,
wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the
same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"-
said Putin.
snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08
of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones
screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in
power...
centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14
international isolation
Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the
majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank)
A majority is over 50%.
centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10
Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund
raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07
The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a
buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up
Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.
Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American
money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.
Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04
I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on
blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them
with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty
man.
MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01
Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement.
According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent
line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer
zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This
is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article
being commented on.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56
I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying
anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who
simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have
endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join
the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.
If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one
man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the
idiot Obama.
centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56
Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is
dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)
"... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
"... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
"... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
"... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is
in the interest of all affected:
The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and
foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.
"The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not
against it." Wise words.
Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00
NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled
when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its
geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not
Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in
the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy
is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security
Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure
of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter
and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," -
he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is
trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to"
throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the
recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."
According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain
its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last
quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its
dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21
Putin today:
"Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and
to preserve the unipolar world.
"War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our
development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order
led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he
can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best
interest, "- said the head of state.
"Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it,
wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the
same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"-
said Putin.
snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08
of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones
screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in
power...
centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14
international isolation
Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the
majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank)
A majority is over 50%.
centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10
Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund
raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07
The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a
buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up
Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.
Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American
money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.
Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04
I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on
blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them
with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty
man.
MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01
Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement.
According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent
line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer
zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This
is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article
being commented on.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56
I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying
anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who
simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have
endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join
the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.
If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one
man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the
idiot Obama.
centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56
Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is
dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)
Those who are responsible for soaking Donbass in blood will not stop. They need to be stopped by
force. Ukrainian citizens have become either consumable or brainwashed. And for Western Ukrainians,
the core supported of Yatsenyuk & Poroshenko clan (forme junta that now is integrated into Porosheko
government) the war is far from their territory. People are dying there in Debaltsevo and Uglegorsk,
Donetsk and Luhansk, while the military and mercenaries are trying to prove their side of the story
through shelling of infrastructure and killing citizens. Donbass meetings and referendums were a
result EuroMaidan, and emergence of separatst are direct result of absurd actions of the new
Ukrainian government, which turn their county into a death factory for the sake of enforcing on the
country Western Ukranian brand of nationalism. Those who are living in peace and whose relatives are
protected from conscption are demanding the continuation of the war the most loudly. They nurture
and inspire her, feeding infernal demons. They created a diabolical request to victims. and they got
them: woman, children, eldery, like in any civil war. But they now infected with their bloodthirsty
bacillus and can't stop. So people like Yatsenyuk and Turchinov need to be stopped first, removed
from this current position and sent to the Hague court before we can talk about peace. And let's
don;t forget that the blood of victims of Odessa massacre in also on them. We are talking about
repetion of civil war in Spain here with their 200 thousand victims. Looks like Europeans learned
nothing from two world war and as soon the the generation the fought the war is in graved a new war
is immediately started.
Notable quotes:
"... Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them. ..."
Laurence Johnson -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 15:51
There are two proxies in the West. Poroshenko is clearly the EU"s man in Ukraine, and
Yatsenyuk is very clearly the US's man in Ukraine.
Whatever Merkel and Hollande come up with for a peace plan, you can guarantee that
Yatsenyuk will derail it as soon as possible.
For Yats, only the supply of weapons, and many more billions of handouts and debt
forgiveness will do. In the world for Yats, the war must go on.
hodgeey nino45 6 Feb 2015 15:27
I think most people who write here are compassionate; there are few people who have not
been touched by tragedy and they learn to be both sympathetic and empathetic, but hesitate to
show it.
Having worked with Russians in Russia I can tell you we are not very different.
nino45 ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 15:19
Thank you for your concern, maybe I said it in a wrong way.. my English is not that good. I
wanted to express the feeling our elders here have when watching the news. Many people have
friends and relatives there, so it is very hard on them. I just wanted to say that ordinary
Russian people show compassion in many ways, well not writing comments here in English, but
calling their relatives and sending them packages...
JCDavis -> ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 14:45
If the US has advisors and a CIA office in Kiev they are there by invitation
It's the other way around. The CIA invited the present government -- traitors all -- to
join in their coup.
JCDavis -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:58
You are badly misreading the situation. Ukraine is pawn in a geopolitical struggle for
world empire. It will be sacrificed in an instant if it suits the purposes of any of these
people. Except Yats, the CIA's pick for the coup, a traitor who will be sacrificed in any
case. Who could trust such a person?
Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:48
Let them negogiate peace. Merkel wants peace, Hollande needs peace, Putin desperately is
seeking peace. Poroshenko is reasonable and negogiable. But imbecile Yatzenuk is
non-negogiable. Let us pray that tkhe talks end with peaceful project.
JCDavis -> harryphilby 6 Feb 2015 13:23
The Yanks don't do peace.
This is true. Obama is Cheney's blackmailed puppet, and Cheney was the only neocon in
Bush's criminal administration who actually wanted to fight Russia. He is quite mad, and he is
the most powerful man in the world. Bad combination.
Euphobia1 6 Feb 2015 13:21
One problem is the history of the Ukraine which except for very short periods has always
been part of Russia. Only an accident of fate made Ukraine a country and many of its citizens
feel Russian and still want to be part of Russia.
Russia never invaded the Ukraine because it didn't have to as it was Russia. It would be
like say East Anglia becoming a separate state in UK just because a politician who lived there
thought it might be nice and then finding itself a sovereign state. Khrushchev did this for
the Ukraine when he was the boss. Khrushchev never thought the Soviet Union would break up and
Ukraine become a separate country for only the second time in it's history.
When the Soviet Union collapsed the USA treated it so badly. Instead of embracing it when
it asked to join the EU Russia was rejected and the West has been encroaching on to it's
borders ever since. No wonder Russia is fearful. The USA likes to fight wars in other people's
countries. Good for business.
Russia is big powerful and proud country. Ukraine used to be the major part of it and many
living there may still want to be part of it too. The West should wake up and start seeking
solutions fast. War is not an answer.
Justthefactsman 6 Feb 2015 13:20
Anybody seen pictures that confirm that Russian Federation troops are in the Eastern
Ukraine ?
With todays satellite technology it is almost possible to recognise a packet of cigarettes,
how come we haven't seen any satellite images of these massive troop movements ?
What has happened about the inquiry that is supposed to be investigating the shooting down
of the Malayan airliner? Why is the progress not being reported.?
Shit, it those crafty nasty Russians who are holding up the investigation. How? By asking
to see the whole truth about the situation, and we wouldn't want to embarrass the coup
inheritors in Kiev by revealing the truth, would we ?
TrueCopy -> Eric Hoffmann 6 Feb 2015 13:17
Dude there is no military solution to the mess. The most effective forces on the ground on
the Ukraine regime side are Ukrainian "volunteer" paramilitary forces, who are coming from the
western part of Ukraine, no one is talking giving them weapons, although Poland has been
supporting them for a while. The Ukrainian army isn't going to fight any better no matter what
they get. The best thing US can provide them is satellite intelligence, that is already doing.
Russia isn't directly involved, but even if the invade Ukraine, there is not much we can do,
it is better to just cut a deal and move on.
JCDavis 6 Feb 2015 13:14
So Hollande and Merkel and threatening Putin with early membership of Ukraine in NATO,
completing Obama's new iron curtain earlier rather than later. Thus this stupid ploy will fail
and Congress will throw gas on the fire (boneheads that they are) and Russia will move in with
real troops and take all of southern Ukraine. This seems inevitable. Ukraine's goose was
cooked when Ukrainian traitors conspired with the CIA Only the carving up is not complete.
zchabj6 6 Feb 2015 13:13
It is in the US strategic interest to have a war on Russia's border indefinitely as they
already had a part in in Chechnya and Georgia. Georgia is now part of NATO so it worked quite
well for the US despite the unnecessary loss of life, not that any nation cares anymore it
seems.
It is not in the interest of Russia, Eurozone, EU or any European state .
Hence the Russian organized Minsk peace process and some belated EU help to make it happen
while the US considers prolonging the war through weapons transfers as they have done and
continue in Syria, another Iran/Russia ally.
Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is
aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them.
"... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
"... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
"... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
"... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
"... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
"... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
"... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
"... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
"... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
"... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
"... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
"... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
"... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
"... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
"... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
"... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
"... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is
Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens,
has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest
income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce
resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and
imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.
You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.
thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15
I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly
horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing
the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,
AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13
The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the
petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.
The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few
years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to
find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.
Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to
expand.
Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong
and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.
Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11
General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding
from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those
billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.
NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09
I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem
incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle
Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the
Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to
that from the Cuban missile crisis.
nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07
The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of
NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still
struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy
was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US
policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the
security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world,
especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has
to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant
policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across
the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and
overall growth of the people of this planet.
desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04
I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also
of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.
Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03
Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is
Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and
Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to
form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or
remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into
their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population
of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.
Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01
laSaya said:
Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian
landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.
Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes,
livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their
places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because
their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?
Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way
forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko
not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.
angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!
Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace
talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to
pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that
cannot be won.
AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??
Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the
investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at
Russia, don't you think they would have used it?
glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50
courtesy of google translate:
Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a
battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a
crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving
the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of
combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without
causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal
actions.
In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their
application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar
actions, while not causing the death of soldier.
If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special
tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person
against whom he may apply such measures
suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38
suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America
He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!
cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36
While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see
them as idiots.
Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an
open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence
in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join
such an adventure.
AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40
CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they
report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.
Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.
Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any
sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement
can be made.
He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.
The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are
large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?
he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic
humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.
If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look
at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended
and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.
He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.
Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and
has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good
business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.
All this was simply because his ego was hurt.
It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash
by now.
If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.
KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57
Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on
Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What
possible benefit is that to you and me?
Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost
billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.
This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In
"Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and
everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the
"government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".
They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning
of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.
roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55
"We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's
territorial integrity."
That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a
similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the
situations analogous?
Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too
high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary
war.
I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked
flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift
their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the
bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on
Ukraine be strike no 3?
Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55
Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the
situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land
in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also
a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied
with Russia.
Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused
by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.
I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could
be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an
astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to
re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt
collector when he comes to your house.
I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a
virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious
problems to deal with.
Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54
Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually
spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their
conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency
reported here;
http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419
Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53
They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not
to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.
BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52
Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the
Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.
In regard to Georgia
The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely
orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.
Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in
Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home
almost overnight.
They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an
attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.
Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued
an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing
them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for
help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all
Georgians today".
During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black
soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and
Augusta.
In regard to the Crimea
The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy
made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in
the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the
Crimea.
Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the
Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine?
When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea
overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.
In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev
The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government,
under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department
Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"
However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as
she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the
existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian
Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against
the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev
using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.
Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.
ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45
"Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over
and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".
"... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
"... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
"... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
"... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
"... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
"... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
"... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
"... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
"... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
"... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
"... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
"... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
"... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
"... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
"... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
"... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
"... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is
Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens,
has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest
income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce
resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and
imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.
You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.
thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15
I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly
horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing
the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,
AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13
The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the
petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.
The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few
years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to
find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.
Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to
expand.
Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong
and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.
Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11
General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding
from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those
billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.
NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09
I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem
incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle
Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the
Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to
that from the Cuban missile crisis.
nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07
The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of
NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still
struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy
was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US
policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the
security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world,
especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has
to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant
policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across
the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and
overall growth of the people of this planet.
desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04
I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also
of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.
Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03
Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is
Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and
Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to
form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or
remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into
their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population
of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.
Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01
laSaya said:
Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian
landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.
Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes,
livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their
places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because
their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?
Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way
forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko
not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.
angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!
Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace
talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to
pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that
cannot be won.
AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??
Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the
investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at
Russia, don't you think they would have used it?
glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50
courtesy of google translate:
Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a
battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a
crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving
the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of
combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without
causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal
actions.
In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their
application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar
actions, while not causing the death of soldier.
If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special
tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person
against whom he may apply such measures
suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38
suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America
He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!
cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36
While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see
them as idiots.
Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an
open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence
in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join
such an adventure.
AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40
CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they
report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.
Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.
Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any
sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement
can be made.
He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.
The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are
large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?
he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic
humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.
If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look
at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended
and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.
He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.
Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and
has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good
business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.
All this was simply because his ego was hurt.
It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash
by now.
If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.
KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57
Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on
Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What
possible benefit is that to you and me?
Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost
billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.
This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In
"Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and
everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the
"government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".
They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning
of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.
roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55
"We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's
territorial integrity."
That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a
similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the
situations analogous?
Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too
high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary
war.
I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked
flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift
their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the
bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on
Ukraine be strike no 3?
Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55
Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the
situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land
in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also
a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied
with Russia.
Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused
by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.
I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could
be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an
astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to
re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt
collector when he comes to your house.
I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a
virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious
problems to deal with.
Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54
Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually
spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their
conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency
reported here;
http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419
Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53
They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not
to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.
BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52
Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the
Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.
In regard to Georgia
The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely
orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.
Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in
Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home
almost overnight.
They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an
attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.
Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued
an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing
them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for
help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all
Georgians today".
During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black
soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and
Augusta.
In regard to the Crimea
The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy
made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in
the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the
Crimea.
Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the
Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine?
When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea
overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.
In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev
The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government,
under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department
Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"
However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as
she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the
existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian
Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against
the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev
using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.
Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.
ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45
"Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over
and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".
Note the headline " Donetsk hit by shells as violence intensifies in Ukraine". No one is responsible for shelling. It was just hit.
Compare this with headlines about supposed "separatists" shellings.
At least three people were killed in a series of shellings in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on Wednesday that pro-Russian
separatists said were Uragan missiles fired by Ukrainian forces. Earlier, the Ukrainian military said two of its soldiers had been
killed and 18 wounded in fighting against pro-Russian separatists in the previous 24 hours
AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29
Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his
own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian
Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian
civil war is being waged.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are
fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been
participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups,"
meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual
citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says,
emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian
army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions
against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against
Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the
Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore
incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels,
restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news
reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public
officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.
If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire
career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false,
then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.
While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be
another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump
into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia
coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news
for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.
Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended
consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??
And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?
Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?
Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to
pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..
greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14
the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists
targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov
battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.
poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The
real civil war has yet to start.
PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13
i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a
spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further
bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians
I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and
miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.
EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12
I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is
intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and
do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a
decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.
AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29
Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his
own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian
Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian
civil war is being waged.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are
fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been
participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups,"
meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual
citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says,
emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian
army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions
against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against
Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the
Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore
incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels,
restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news
reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public
officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.
If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire
career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false,
then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.
While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be
another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump
into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia
coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news
for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.
Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended
consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??
And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?
Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?
Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to
pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..
greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14
the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists
targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov
battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.
poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The
real civil war has yet to start.
PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13
i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a
spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further
bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians
I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and
miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.
EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12
I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is
intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and
do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a
decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.
So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand
Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that
reminds me Spanish civil war.
Notable quotes:
"... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of
state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on
Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48
The situation is far more complex than that.
it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked
Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.
IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48
Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing
cities killing civilians and destroying property.
What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58
Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn
their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to
explain with all those drones they have?
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29
There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very
interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there
has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government
was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web,
like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and
like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What
has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the
Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other
reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens
(and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there,
inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the
Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters
who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to
foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the
"Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's
sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the
sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the
regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the
Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is
therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available
channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and
the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted,
as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
AlienLifeForce
Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to
get Russia involved in conflict but failed.
"democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"
What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.
Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19
The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders
in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the
regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the
third, forth ones.
So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across
Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others
countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until
Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the
command of the Big 6.
LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57
"
The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
How long will it take you?
GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46
I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on
the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk
and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence,
violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked
to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less
than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has
restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East
Ukraine will be forever thankful.
So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand
Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that
reminds me Spanish civil war.
Notable quotes:
"... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of
state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on
Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48
The situation is far more complex than that.
it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked
Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.
IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48
Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing
cities killing civilians and destroying property.
What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58
Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn
their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to
explain with all those drones they have?
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29
There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very
interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there
has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government
was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web,
like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and
like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What
has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the
Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other
reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens
(and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there,
inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the
Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters
who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to
foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the
"Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's
sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the
sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the
regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the
Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is
therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available
channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and
the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted,
as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
AlienLifeForce
Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to
get Russia involved in conflict but failed.
"democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"
What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.
Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19
The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders
in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the
regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the
third, forth ones.
So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across
Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others
countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until
Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the
command of the Big 6.
LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57
"
The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
How long will it take you?
GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46
I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on
the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk
and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence,
violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked
to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less
than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has
restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East
Ukraine will be forever thankful.
It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From
comments:
"The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting
from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from
the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when
reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government'
as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
and
"Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research
it helps with facts"
Notable quotes:
"... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
"... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
"... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
"... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or
historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening
in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian
(and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's
disinformation handouts" ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Selected Skeptical Comments
vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he
realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure
from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be
talking about truce.
This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.
edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?
What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to
do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?
What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate
a civil war in Europe!
scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28
I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like
they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is
committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any
large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate
another country's borders, officially.
Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's
affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely
interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot
more convincing ten years ago than they do today.
ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28
The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased
reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the
propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for
example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the
Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current
or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a
journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is
happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for
The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and
Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07
Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single
American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the
lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind
when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is
greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become
a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.
Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill
each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build
the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev
Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.
BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are
reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to
make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.
GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06
I'm English, but I think you are American.
And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced
weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's
merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02
Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of
Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused,
assaulted, and disappeared.
There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup
that toppled Yanukovych.
HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00
Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The
shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57
Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine,
there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in
Kiev, nor do they want to.
Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US
geopolitical machinations.
When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what
was the US response?
"Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.
MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56
Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of
research it helps with facts
Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54
This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51
German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan
for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary
Victoria Nuland.
Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!
MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45
Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and
Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too
powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!
MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42
Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right,
I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.
Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41
The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the
fascists. All you need to know, everyone.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40
Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan
of democratic transional government.
Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on
Ukraine.
Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.
Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.
Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34
Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st
World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for
sure!
Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44
Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you
HAVE.
HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32
How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the
Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?
Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free"
article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes
only guns can stop guns",
It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they
cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big
money.
During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen
royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of
Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish
independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.
He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.
By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting
us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The
Willing?
As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":
"The men who build the planes and make the tanks
Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."
Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30
Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war
indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)
GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs"
from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons
are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they
expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however,
was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and
East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by
Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection
of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No
matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in
Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets,
and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for
declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is
irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.
And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at
last. The warmongers have their war.
Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they
organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are
working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help
bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe
is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more
insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?
AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08
So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine
it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession
If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co
Persona non grata -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for
crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they
want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements
form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting
nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
Notable quotes:
"... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries
of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting
the buffers.
Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....
This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO
funds.
Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54
Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete
confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that
they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)
Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53
"We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information
and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than
the BBC."
I couldn't stop laughing!
Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine
tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better,
Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the
best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes,
the need to confront Russia at all cost.
Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi
batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very
beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they
said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What
is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?
The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very
easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative
media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their
readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the
truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind
of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments,
very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again
this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the
least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!
Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their
statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are
trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is
gaining the field? All three?
halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52
And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail,
cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and
agents of influence in EU capitals"?
Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is
down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.
micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52
Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the
Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of
the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like
Guernica.
whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48
Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering
power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but
that of the US president himself.
So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?
RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46
Putin must be stopped.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.
Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be
stopped!!?
'' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months
from their general election.
Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of,
Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo
Nazis; thugs.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things
across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts
every monning.
But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate
corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon,
bite the bastards on the arse.
These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down
in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.
Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the
Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.
If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had
not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now.
This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.
And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.
We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO.
So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country
without a mandate from our Parliament?
herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44
The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government
that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed
this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.
In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the
eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.
There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the
mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen
with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.
The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and
BMWs.
Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44
As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already
died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we
forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that
weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.
When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their
throats - especially American 'democracy'.
rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43
"Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to
Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is
effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in
the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in
tears.
NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41
"German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been
right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth
going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."
Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed
any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after
all.
The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got
reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was
torn to shreds with that.
If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co
Persona non grata -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for
crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they
want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements
form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting
nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
Notable quotes:
"... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries
of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting
the buffers.
Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....
This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO
funds.
Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54
Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete
confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that
they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)
Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53
"We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information
and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than
the BBC."
I couldn't stop laughing!
Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine
tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better,
Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the
best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes,
the need to confront Russia at all cost.
Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi
batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very
beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they
said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What
is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?
The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very
easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative
media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their
readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the
truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind
of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments,
very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again
this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the
least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!
Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their
statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are
trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is
gaining the field? All three?
halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52
And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail,
cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and
agents of influence in EU capitals"?
Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is
down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.
micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52
Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the
Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of
the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like
Guernica.
whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48
Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering
power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but
that of the US president himself.
So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?
RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46
Putin must be stopped.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.
Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be
stopped!!?
'' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months
from their general election.
Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of,
Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo
Nazis; thugs.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things
across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts
every monning.
But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate
corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon,
bite the bastards on the arse.
These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down
in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.
Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the
Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.
If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had
not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now.
This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.
And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.
We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO.
So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country
without a mandate from our Parliament?
herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44
The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government
that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed
this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.
In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the
eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.
There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the
mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen
with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.
The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and
BMWs.
Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44
As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already
died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we
forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that
weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.
When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their
throats - especially American 'democracy'.
rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43
"Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to
Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is
effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in
the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in
tears.
NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41
"German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been
right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth
going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."
Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed
any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after
all.
The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got
reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was
torn to shreds with that.
It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From
comments:
"The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting
from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from
the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when
reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government'
as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
and
"Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research
it helps with facts"
Notable quotes:
"... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
"... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
"... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
"... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or
historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening
in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian
(and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's
disinformation handouts" ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Selected Skeptical Comments
vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he
realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure
from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be
talking about truce.
This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.
edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?
What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to
do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?
What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate
a civil war in Europe!
scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28
I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like
they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is
committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any
large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate
another country's borders, officially.
Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's
affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely
interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot
more convincing ten years ago than they do today.
ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28
The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased
reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the
propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for
example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the
Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current
or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a
journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is
happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for
The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and
Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07
Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single
American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the
lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind
when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is
greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become
a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.
Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill
each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build
the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev
Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.
BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are
reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to
make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.
GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06
I'm English, but I think you are American.
And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced
weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's
merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02
Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of
Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused,
assaulted, and disappeared.
There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup
that toppled Yanukovych.
HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00
Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The
shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57
Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine,
there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in
Kiev, nor do they want to.
Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US
geopolitical machinations.
When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what
was the US response?
"Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.
MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56
Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of
research it helps with facts
Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54
This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51
German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan
for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary
Victoria Nuland.
Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!
MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45
Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and
Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too
powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!
MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42
Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right,
I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.
Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41
The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the
fascists. All you need to know, everyone.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40
Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan
of democratic transional government.
Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on
Ukraine.
Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.
Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.
Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34
Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st
World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for
sure!
Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44
Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you
HAVE.
HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32
How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the
Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?
Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free"
article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes
only guns can stop guns",
It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they
cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big
money.
During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen
royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of
Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish
independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.
He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.
By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting
us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The
Willing?
As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":
"The men who build the planes and make the tanks
Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."
Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30
Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war
indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)
GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs"
from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons
are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they
expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however,
was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and
East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by
Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection
of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No
matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in
Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets,
and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for
declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is
irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.
And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at
last. The warmongers have their war.
Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they
organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are
working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help
bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe
is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more
insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?
AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08
So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine
it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession
Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes
sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since
the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic
independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.
Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby
Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue
(MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's
illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic
independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately
fired.
Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not
honor.
I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has
intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How
America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her
program a number of times.
My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character.
I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost
her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even
Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.
For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda
that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian
troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the
right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.
Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this
fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.
As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order
to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's
border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.
Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated
by Washington.
It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.
They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party
on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian
Troops into Crimea."
No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops
to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean
Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established
themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.
So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three
are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.
It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most
independent journalists can escape its influence.
What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia
for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column
dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?
The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production.
The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot
protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing
non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in
an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine
Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports:
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych,
but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows
that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from
the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really
disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to
gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings
were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here:
http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate
government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in
southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians
have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's
help.
The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How
the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.
Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes
sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since
the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic
independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.
Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby
Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue
(MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's
illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic
independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately
fired.
Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not
honor.
I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has
intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How
America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her
program a number of times.
My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character.
I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost
her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even
Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.
For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda
that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian
troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the
right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.
Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this
fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.
As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order
to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's
border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.
Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated
by Washington.
It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.
They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party
on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian
Troops into Crimea."
No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops
to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean
Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established
themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.
So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three
are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.
It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most
independent journalists can escape its influence.
What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia
for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column
dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?
The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production.
The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot
protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing
non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in
an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine
Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports:
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych,
but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows
that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from
the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really
disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to
gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings
were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here:
http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate
government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in
southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians
have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's
help.
The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How
the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.
Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has
intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk,
one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe
and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
Notable quotes:
"... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
"... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
"... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
"... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
"... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
"... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is
deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant
boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.
More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and
several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a
building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.
It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the
checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to
pass.
Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the
case for months. When Médecins sans Frontičres (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on
supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a
conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.
After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact
on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic
diseases; everything is affected.
... ... ...
Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56
More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to
the west to kill. More like the other way around.
Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04
Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not
responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships
that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.
And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.
Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57
What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you
sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.
Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07
And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It
happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33
Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by
hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).
Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26
Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that
virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west
except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser"
peoples to serve as cannon fodder.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14
Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have
resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out,
he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They
should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have
challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of
teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and
refugees.
The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of
Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those
actions. If it walks like a duck...
buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51
Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and
conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of
people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable
as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out
that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the
Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to
argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?
Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43
They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn
(with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's
corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing.
They are hiding behind Yats.
Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25
Until recently, I also thought as you.
But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.
Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.
Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)
EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58
You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the
more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.
I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite
interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough
to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass
powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.
However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have
needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have
happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I
say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire
Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.
To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic
identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of
like fanatics.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52
There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is
backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an
enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By
contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.
So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown,
they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.
The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko,
Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most
likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.
You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the
EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.
BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51
Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper
strength, NOT the real strength).
Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to
leave.
Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus
chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).
It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost
at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered)
to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not
take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the
PL govt. (Turch.).
Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have
had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA
needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12
What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?
When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The
country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and
social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they
have failed the ultimate test.
These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true
for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the
so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany
after 1918 and 1945.
Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this
generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this
national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their
country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.
Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like
Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans
after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for
themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace
and political stability.
That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but
repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their
maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02
You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men
are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post
writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.
Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people
in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a
year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your
statement of 9000 people is meaningless.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11
What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity
of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.
For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians
immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the
time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian
defections.
The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian
people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat,
and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.
At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and
frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian
military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these
troops?
What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many
suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize
the things that might happen.
But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05
Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is
destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by
the rebels.
Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000
wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own
people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire
villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.
For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation
in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.
All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of
reasonable people.
Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains
are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now
may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
Notable quotes:
"... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is
a right wing nazi supporting rally.
Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47
Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.
Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42
Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far
away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.
yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30
...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically
elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted
him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world,
it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.
yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17
"Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they
see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.
BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26
If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.
US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually
killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.
If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.
centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23
The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.
Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.
Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic
spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is
wholly constrained.
It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.
From the Pew Research Center:
Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and
say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the
U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .
For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum
was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/
I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having
been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?
Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57
And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?
Ukraine freedom support act.
Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language
broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda
Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in
the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?
I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them
about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.
Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.
jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46
And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.
New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin
And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new
Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?
Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains
are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now
may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
Notable quotes:
"... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is
a right wing nazi supporting rally.
Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47
Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.
Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42
Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far
away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.
yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30
...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically
elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted
him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world,
it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.
yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17
"Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they
see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.
BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26
If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.
US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually
killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.
If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.
centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23
The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.
Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.
Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic
spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is
wholly constrained.
It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.
From the Pew Research Center:
Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and
say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the
U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .
For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum
was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/
I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having
been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?
Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57
And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?
Ukraine freedom support act.
Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language
broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda
Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in
the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?
I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them
about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.
Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.
jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46
And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.
New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin
And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new
Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?
Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has
intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk,
one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe
and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
Notable quotes:
"... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
"... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
"... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
"... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
"... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
"... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is
deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant
boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.
More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and
several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a
building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.
It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the
checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to
pass.
Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the
case for months. When Médecins sans Frontičres (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on
supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a
conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.
After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact
on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic
diseases; everything is affected.
... ... ...
Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56
More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to
the west to kill. More like the other way around.
Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04
Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not
responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships
that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.
And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.
Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57
What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you
sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.
Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07
And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It
happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33
Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by
hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).
Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26
Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that
virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west
except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser"
peoples to serve as cannon fodder.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14
Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have
resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out,
he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They
should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have
challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of
teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and
refugees.
The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of
Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those
actions. If it walks like a duck...
buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51
Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and
conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of
people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable
as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out
that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the
Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to
argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?
Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43
They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn
(with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's
corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing.
They are hiding behind Yats.
Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25
Until recently, I also thought as you.
But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.
Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.
Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)
EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58
You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the
more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.
I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite
interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough
to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass
powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.
However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have
needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have
happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I
say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire
Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.
To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic
identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of
like fanatics.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52
There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is
backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an
enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By
contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.
So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown,
they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.
The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko,
Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most
likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.
You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the
EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.
BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51
Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper
strength, NOT the real strength).
Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to
leave.
Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus
chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).
It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost
at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered)
to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not
take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the
PL govt. (Turch.).
Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have
had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA
needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12
What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?
When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The
country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and
social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they
have failed the ultimate test.
These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true
for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the
so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany
after 1918 and 1945.
Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this
generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this
national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their
country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.
Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like
Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans
after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for
themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace
and political stability.
That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but
repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their
maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02
You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men
are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post
writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.
Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people
in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a
year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your
statement of 9000 people is meaningless.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11
What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity
of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.
For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians
immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the
time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian
defections.
The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian
people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat,
and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.
At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and
frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian
military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these
troops?
What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many
suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize
the things that might happen.
But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05
Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is
destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by
the rebels.
Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000
wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own
people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire
villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.
For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation
in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.
All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of
reasonable people.
Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal
to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda
involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization,
or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for
mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
Notable quotes:
"... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was
supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when
it can be blamed on the rebels.
Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring
the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling
with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that
try to point of the media hypocrisy.
Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal
to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda
involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization,
or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for
mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
Notable quotes:
"... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was
supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when
it can be blamed on the rebels.
Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring
the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling
with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that
try to point of the media hypocrisy.
"... Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport? ..."
"... You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles, *explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you? ..."
Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical
stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport?
After the fiasco of the Graun/BBC trumpeting Ukrainian's supposed victory just before they
were crushed at Ilovaisk you should have learned your lesson.
But, once again you have made yourselves look like idiots, and once again Russian and
Novorossiyan news sources have been proved to be accurate
Vermithrax -> ShermanPotter 23 Jan 2015 07:38
In my youth the USSR stood at the West German border with a 13-1 tank superiority. Then
they were a threat. Now they are hundreds of miles further east with a fraction of the forces
at their disposal. They are being used as a convenient bogeyman for policies that do not
benefit Europe one jot. They have all the oil and gas Europe needs without the fundamentalist
religion. In many ways now they are a natural ally, especially as the alternative is that
China will benefit from it.
I suppose there will always be some Grima Wormtongue's who think being America's fawning
client state is a good idea.
unclesmurf ijustwant2say 22 Jan 2015 17:32
Putin, is being attacked by the same mechanism that has been attacking governments around
the globe for the last seventy years. The one described here:
And of course the do not care *at all* about Putin. What they care about, is that how they
may get their hands on the huge natural resources of the vast slab of the planet called
Russia. You see, Putin, the bad guy, is keeping everything PUBLIC, with the earnings of
everything, oil, gas, weapons, going to the Russian state and nor to the bank accounts of very
few, insanely rich individuals.
But I assume you are ok with the UK privatizing British Aerospace, and having now to pay a
huge surcharge to the shareholders of QinetiQ. Simply to buy the *same* weapons, designed by
the *same* engineers and built by the *same* technicians. But No: "We HAVE to privatize it".
I also assume you are ok with the trains here in the UK being a complete ripoff, because
they are of course private, even if it is the government who pays for the track and even if it
they private rail companies are subsidized (as if the huge ticket prices were not sufficient)
by the Government, to the tune of BILLIONS annually.
But No: "We have to privatize it".
You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles,
*explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you?
thingreen -> edwardrice 22 Jan 2015 17:28
Interesting, though that working 'class' people make up bulk of soldiers is not exactly a
startling revelation in any war - if you looked at the casualty lists for our anti-terrorist
operations against the freedom fighters of PIRA you'd see a similar make up of people who I
suspect many here would consider as dupes and economic conscripts.
Simon311 Damocles59 23 Jan 2015 07:31
How are they "so-called" rebels?
It is clear these areas are beyond Kiev' s control and it is time to acknowledge this.
And If Abkhazia and Ossetia are "basket cases" why are they not asking to join the
wonderful nation of Georgia?
Simon311 Robert Looren de Jong 23 Jan 2015 07:29
Whatever it is clear that the people in these regions are not going to be reconciled to the
Kiev Government.
Time to recognise this and end the fighting.
wombat123 -> Custodis 23 Jan 2015 07:26
The people labeled "rebels" started off by refusing to recognize the leaders of the coup as
a lawful government, which in fact, they were not under the Ukrainian constitution. These
people included most of the police officers in eastern Ukraine. The killing started when the
supporters of the coup came east and attacked those refusing to accept the coup so the
fighting did not start with a rebellion as the term is normally understood.
It is perverse to label those who oppose the violent overthrow of lawful authority as
"rebels". It was clear that most people in the east thought the coup was a criminal act and
its leaders were not the lawful government. It is quite clear that it was the supporters of
the coup who are the aggressors and they came east and attacked people who did not accept the
coup as lawful.
Some of the first combat started when supporters of the coup started attacking police in
the east. Were the police officers "rebels" for opposing the armed overthrow of their
country's constitutional order and elected government? "Rebel" does not seem like an honest
term for someone in that situation.
DCarter -> Gaz0007 23 Jan 2015 07:06
The USSR collapsed largely because it's people, particularly in the non-Russian
republics, desired the same rights and freedoms as people in Western Europe and North
America...all of whom managed to maintain those freedoms throughout the Cold War by forming
a military alliance called NATO.
In retrospect though those freedoms were illusory, or at best transient, and all we did was
to trade domination by a party apparatus for domination by a corporate oligarchy. And it is in
those corporate interests that NATO now acts, not in the interests of the people if Eastern
Europe or Western Europe or even North America.
Solongmariane -> Spiffey 23 Jan 2015 07:01
DNR is getting experienced with the ceasefires from KIEV. It's just asking a time-out to
recuoerate losses, to send re-inforcements, and to get new weapons. It was so at 6 sept, and
19 dec. Not again, such time out.
SHappens 23 Jan 2015 06:42
The main pro-Russian rebel leader in eastern Ukraine says his troops are on the offensive
and he does not want truce talks with Kiev anymore.
At lest this has he merit to be clear. No more hypocrisy as Kiev never intended to respect
any ceasefire but used this time to regroup.
On the other hands, when you read this below, the dice are loaded and the US goals is war
against Russia whatever on the ground. This is a dialogue of the deaf.
---
"This tactic of avoiding questions about what the Ukrainian government is doing by pointing to
Russia is becoming increasingly obvious," the journalist said.
Here is an excerpt from the briefing:
Gayane Chichakyan: Do the actions of the Ukrainian government comply with the Minsk
agreement?
Jen Psaki: In general Russia has illegally – and Russian-backed separatists have illegally
– come into Ukraine, including Donetsk. Ukraine has a responsibility and an absolute right to
defend itself. We certainly expect both sides to abide by the Minsk agreements. We have not
seen that happen, we've seen a lot of talk, not a lot of backup from the Russian side.
GC: I am specifically asking about the actions of the Ukrainian government. Can you give a
more definitive answer, whether or not they comply with the Minsk agreements?
JP: You are not talking about a specific incident, I think I'll leave it at what I said.
GC: With the Minsk agreement, do they comply? You pass a judgment that Russia is not
complying with the agreement, can you assess whether Ukraine is complying?
JP: I listed a range of specific ways Russia is not complying.
GC: Under the agreement sides must avoid deploying and using heavy artillery. Isn't it what
the Ukrainian government is doing right now?
JP: First of all, let's start again with the fact that Russia has illegally intervened in
Ukraine and come into a country that was a sovereign country. So I am not sure that you are
proposing that a sovereign country doesn't have the right to defend themselves.
GC:I am asking specifically about the actions of the Ukrainian government, you are veering
off.
"... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
"... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously
he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future
leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.
For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's
reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war.
After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of
Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.
Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57
That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war
party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow
"win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian
army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.
The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing
most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's
really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the
agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will
emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?
EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45
Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic
political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.
From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle --
to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.
EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38
Cargo 200 reports are all false?
They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same
statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000
Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that
not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively
identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that
could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything
I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers,
but that nobody denies.
Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34
Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC.
They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of
a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant
fascist gear, why worry?
Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The
National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching
behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people
wear is in the end less important that what they do.
The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the
riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the
shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this
should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS
insignia?
wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13
Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose
violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is
legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.
Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government
through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement
with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this
without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the
civil war but serious war crimes as well.
MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42
At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in
endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were
driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is
beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has
been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.
EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28
We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of
the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.
Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners
of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated
all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe
that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces
deployed.
At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more
than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts
that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and
associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing
some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.
A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will
not do.
Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12
I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view,
description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I
have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear
friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you
might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself
and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based
comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible
truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your
case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like
baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended
you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if
you provide some facts, I have not noticed
unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty
over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.
Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?
Here's one to try on
It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even
attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of
Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.
Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.
Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media
for Universities Project.
If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:
As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated
net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in
organized crime.
EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they
withdraw.
Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.
The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as
possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.
To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete
encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play
games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.
Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will
finally end this war.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48
The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took
blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th
brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost.
Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk
during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as
far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from
far range artillery.
Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015
Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and
maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!
EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns
stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a
happy ending!
That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about.
They'll lose their jobs if they do.
Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under
economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev
is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28
What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's
probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take
casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an
indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.
On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that
their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would
be a decisive victory for the rebels.
It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a
decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what
I really want to see).
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015
DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports
are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter
announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people
who are reasonably objective).
Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians
are being backed down at multiple points on the front.
ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19
What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the
innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you
seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time
for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is
pointless.
Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in
the political world towards actually caring about the people.
A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that
BOTH sides have played games.
Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it
power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong,
biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.
However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong
far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of
influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record
of backing the 'right' groups.
Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.
There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.
When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both
sides.
Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?
You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the
Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units -
under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?
Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any
chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe
Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting
through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when
it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle
eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even
though these cost far less to provide.
The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become,
for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all
citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural
sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).
This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev
changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes
corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is
not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we
can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic'
media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?
But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside
influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build
a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will
be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!
But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour,
nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this
potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.
Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not
changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price
is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a
humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop?
What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy
ending!
JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18
Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers ,
MH-17 , buss etc .
Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.
PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17
To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.
What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to
the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from
their airports, is not it?
Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The
artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up
operation, it is normal procedure in this war."
If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for
you.
Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17
No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...
But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other
positions.
Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk
I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that
Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever
been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that
wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse
to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup,
and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so?
Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their
freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is
that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and
the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.
graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in
Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside
Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in
Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based
on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.
For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?
"... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
"... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously
he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future
leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.
For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's
reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war.
After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of
Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.
Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57
That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war
party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow
"win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian
army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.
The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing
most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's
really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the
agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will
emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?
EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45
Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic
political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.
From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle --
to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.
EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38
Cargo 200 reports are all false?
They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same
statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000
Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that
not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively
identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that
could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything
I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers,
but that nobody denies.
Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34
Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC.
They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of
a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant
fascist gear, why worry?
Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The
National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching
behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people
wear is in the end less important that what they do.
The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the
riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the
shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this
should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS
insignia?
wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13
Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose
violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is
legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.
Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government
through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement
with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this
without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the
civil war but serious war crimes as well.
MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42
At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in
endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were
driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is
beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has
been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.
EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28
We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of
the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.
Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners
of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated
all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe
that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces
deployed.
At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more
than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts
that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and
associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing
some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.
A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will
not do.
Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12
I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view,
description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I
have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear
friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you
might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself
and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based
comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible
truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your
case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like
baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended
you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if
you provide some facts, I have not noticed
unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty
over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.
Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?
Here's one to try on
It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even
attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of
Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.
Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.
Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media
for Universities Project.
If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:
As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated
net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in
organized crime.
EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they
withdraw.
Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.
The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as
possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.
To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete
encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play
games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.
Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will
finally end this war.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48
The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took
blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th
brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost.
Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk
during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as
far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from
far range artillery.
Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015
Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and
maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!
EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns
stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a
happy ending!
That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about.
They'll lose their jobs if they do.
Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under
economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev
is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28
What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's
probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take
casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an
indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.
On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that
their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would
be a decisive victory for the rebels.
It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a
decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what
I really want to see).
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015
DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports
are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter
announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people
who are reasonably objective).
Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians
are being backed down at multiple points on the front.
ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19
What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the
innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you
seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time
for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is
pointless.
Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in
the political world towards actually caring about the people.
A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that
BOTH sides have played games.
Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it
power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong,
biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.
However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong
far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of
influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record
of backing the 'right' groups.
Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.
There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.
When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both
sides.
Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?
You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the
Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units -
under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?
Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any
chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe
Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting
through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when
it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle
eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even
though these cost far less to provide.
The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become,
for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all
citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural
sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).
This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev
changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes
corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is
not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we
can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic'
media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?
But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside
influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build
a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will
be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!
But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour,
nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this
potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.
Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not
changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price
is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a
humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop?
What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy
ending!
JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18
Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers ,
MH-17 , buss etc .
Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.
PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17
To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.
What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to
the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from
their airports, is not it?
Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The
artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up
operation, it is normal procedure in this war."
If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for
you.
Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17
No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...
But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other
positions.
Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk
I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that
Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever
been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that
wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse
to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup,
and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so?
Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their
freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is
that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and
the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.
graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in
Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside
Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in
Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based
on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.
For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?
From comments: "With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of
Russian soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and
extremely professional. "
I still don't see what Putin is getting out of his Novrossya rampage.
Bingo. He's getting nothing, and that's why he's so dovish and reluctant to commit. It's
just one of those instances where he can't ignore the fact that he's got a people to answer
to. We all want a free Novorossia and a Crimea that's reunited with the rest of us and forever
safe from Ukrainian petty imperialism.
We don't need Putin or the television to tell us that. On the contrary, it's because of the
Russian people that Putin, however hard he might try to be his usual neither-here-nor-there
self, can't afford to not have a bottom line in this.
Tom20000 Eye Spy 19 Jan 2015 19:45
I don't think you understand what free speech is. The guardian is a private organisation
with no obligation to show all comments.
Georgethedog 19 Jan 2015 19:52
"During a meeting with the president, Krivenko even handed Putin a list of about 100
soldiers killed in eastern Ukraine"
With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of Russian
soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and extremely
professional.
Good Luck Kiev Junta!
Vignola1964 -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:31
There is much I do not know about this and other conflicts taking place around the world at
the moment, but we can all feel the sinister hands behind the scenes, driving ordinary people
into hostilities. There are no innocents anywhere.
In my opinion, the 1% profit from the other 1% constantly at conflict at any one time. The
more the merrier as far as they are concerned. For me this is evil.
kowalli -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:16
It must be embarrassing for the general public.
??? general public just think why west can't give any real proof, but give us bunch of
lies. You really think that this 7 guys can do anything?
You didn't even tell us results of mh17 Boeing or why ukrainians are shelling civilians like
USA in Iraq.
West just copypasting what USA tell them and think that they are exceptional people.
RicardoFloresMagon -> vr13vr 19 Jan 2015 19:14
Whether the claims have any merit or not, just the existence of all those groups who
file petitions and challenge authorities suggests there is much more democracy in Russia
than it is in the US. I can't even imagine similar organizations in the US criticizing and
pressuring Obama's administration or questioning military commanders whether the death of
their sons in Iraq was justified.
InternationalANSWER
United for Peace and Justice
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Code Pink
Not in Our Name
GI Rights Network
and a few more...
... not to mention millions protested the war before it even started in every major city.
JanZamoyski -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:11
A nice leverage to control an escaped satellite state. Either by constant war which will
bleed Ukraine and damage it chances of joining EU / NATO or by planting an autonomous, hostile
region which MPs are going to paralyse the Ukrainian parliament. Like they need more fist
fights...
Christine Cannon -> Alexander Sokolov 19 Jan 2015 19:11
So why are these young boys killing their neighbors. what is in it for them. Death
psygone -> Vignola1964 19 Jan 2015 19:10
"UK observers" is a little bit different than "deployments of HM Special Forces"
Popeyes 19 Jan 2015 19:04
This is nothing more than a proxy war between the West and Russia, and as Russia supports
and arms Donbass, Washington has been supplying Kiev with weapons including stingers,
anti-tank missiles, anti-armor weapons and other heavy weapons, as are many NATO countries.
Poroschenko has just signed a decree that mobilizes up to 50,000 "healthy men and women"
aged 25 to 60 to the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine... just how does that sit with the E.U? The
U.S wanted a full scale war when this all started last year and it seems nothing has changed.
JanZamoyski -> cheburawka 19 Jan 2015 19:03
The same silly argument yet again. Kremlin isn't interested in occupying Ukraine. Putin is
too smart for that.
This isn't Chechnya with its 1 million population, but a much bigger country with 45
million population. Despite some sympathetic population, many Ukrainians would react with
hostilities to such occupation. This would mean long bloody and expensive conflict Putin
doesn't want to pay for.
Chechnya despite it size was hell for Russia and Putin who was PM during second Chechnyy
war realises Ukrainian occupation would be the end of him.
In the end in Chechnya Putin found some locals to fight his war for him and that's what
happened to some extent in Crimea and Donbass.
The overblown issue of ethnic Russian population being oppressed was a joke, but with some
external military help it doesn't matter now.
Thanks to 5000+ dead in this conflict is fuelling itself and all Putin has to do is feed the
flame with equipment, ammo and some "volunteers" if necessary.
FFS this "war" has been on for seven months now. Where do you think the rebels are getting
their money, ammo and vehicles from ? From babushkas donations and not existing pensions ?
This region needs regular humanitarian food conveys but somehow has never ending supply of
military vehicles and ammo. Stop trolling or open your eyes.
Anette Mor 19 Jan 2015 19:03
260 russian nationals secretly killed in east ukraine? Out of 5000? Totally looks like an
invasion to me. There are at least half a million with Russian passports permanently living or
visiting close family. Time to stop writing this useless none stories and start contributing
to finishing that war.
cherryredguitar -> False_Face 19 Jan 2015 19:42
You haven't got a bit of evidence that there is some sort of American conspiracy here.
I've got a documented American admission that they funded these Russian Soldiers Mothers
groups.
Now you may think that it's entirely a coincidence that the Russian Soldiers Mothers groups
are saying exactly what the Americans who fund them would want them to say, but some of us are
a tad more cynical, made that way by the lies of the warmongers.
tanyushka -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:39
Actually, Kiev was the first capital of Russia & the first royal dinasty, the Ruriks, lived
there & then moved to Moscow... once in Moscow came the time of Romanovs, but much later...
do you suggest Russia should also claim Kiev since it was its first capital?
Putin has only said he's going to seek re-election, which is perfectly legal... why
shouldn't he if he is a popular president? do you suggest Russia should change its
Constitution to please its enemies?
about economic ruin... well, that was Boris the drunkard, the favourite of the West, &
oligarchs like Khodorkovsky, Brezovsky, etc. Never Heard of the Wild, Wild East?
Putin brought order and control & the economy has been doing great so far... check your
info instead of repeating lies...
onu labu -> MacCosham 19 Jan 2015 19:39
Note that hundred of military personnel die every year in Russia from various causes.
noted.
Vignola1964 -> psygone 19 Jan 2015 19:38
It might not occur to you but special forces operatives tend to know potential adversaries
quite well. They know how they are trained, might even have worked alongside them. They are
professional. Hague was not. He should never alluded to any official or unofficial UK presence
in Maidan. The fact that he did was worse than poor form..it endangered those same observer's
lives. Were Hague to utter the words that would deny you your rejoinder to my point, even you
would question his sanity.
Eye Spy -> Robert Looren de Jong 19 Jan 2015 19:34
are you for real.
So the people of Crimea were all forced to go and vote at gunpoint and all these Russian
guns at the heads of the voters were airbrushed out of the images that were beamed into our
homes...well I never
that means that there were thousands of Crimeans who were shot and buried because they
decided to take the bullet....oh my gosh
that means when the Americans roll in to liberate the captive Crimean' they are going to be
met with flowers being thrown at their feet and they will discover mass graves....sounds like
Iraq.
You are fanciful but I can be just as inventive.
Scipio1 19 Jan 2015 19:34
I see the Guardian has published a photograph of the latest friend of freedom and democracy
- Yatsenuik - who was part of the corrupt Orange regime of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko,
2004-2010, and who also recently accused the USSR of invading Ukraine and Germany after 1941.
Does this mean something I wonder?
As for Russian troops being in eastern Ukraine, well this seems probable. However, this is
quite different from an invasion. An invasion would involve tens of thousands with air support
and taking of towns and large areas of land.
Clearly this has not and will not happen. Principally because no-one wants to take on a
basket case like Ukraine. Russian troops are probably present but this is to ensure that their
kith and kin in the Don Bas are not ethnically cleansed and murdered by Russophobic neo-Nazi
outfits like the Azov Battalion, the Aidar Battalion, Pravy Sector (whoops, I mean the
National Guard of course) whose multiple atrocities in the East have been blacked out by the
western media, even the trendy faux media like ....
It is difficult to work out exactly what the Kiev regime is trying to do in its anti-terror
operation. Obviously not trying to win hearts and minds in the east by systematic bombardment
and wiping out the infrastructure (very much in the style of the IDF - the hasbara doctrine).
One would have thought that the massive despoliation of the most productive region of the
Ukraine was against their national interests. It would have been a bit like the British during
their long war against the IRA shelling Cross Maglen or West Belfast.
But of course there is no genuine government in Ukraine, this insofar as Yatsenuik,
Poroshenko and Kolomoisky are simply carrying out the orders the US Ambassador in Kiev. The US
simply wants to keep the pot boiling and making maximum chaos of Russia's western borders.
Yes, the US will fight to every last Ukrainian.
Oh, and by the way there are plenty of foreign troops in West Ukraine, including Poles, US
advisers, international fascist and neo-Nazi groups like the above mentioned Azov Battalion.
And arms are also pouring in from NATO.
Did the EUSA-NATO juggernaut, in their relentless push eastwards, think they could prompt
yet another colour revolution in a country that had democratically voted in Yanukovich who
wanted to maintain a non-aligned status. Russian reaction was very predictable to what they
considered to be a massive provocation, and yet regime change was pursued a l'outrance by the
US and its vassal states in Europe. And of course the regime change in Ukraine was to be
followed by regime change in Russia.
So who exactly are the aggressors here? Who is the genuine threat to world peace? Well of
course it depends who you ask. But outside the Anglosphere the answer of the majority of the
world's population is resounding. The great rogue state is .....
kowalli 19 Jan 2015 19:33
Western guys are funny - they keep talking about anything, but when they are asked about
facts - they can give you anything except of more lies...
There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In
June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling
Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors
are even imaginable.
But that was then - a previous regime.
On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the
exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern,
attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other
countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason
given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister
Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his
government.
Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For
Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets.
They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary
and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.
In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners
do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save
a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.
The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact
bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared.
In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money
from the European Bank and the IMF.
The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor
on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after
her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid
shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina
Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.
Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.
By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some
there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.
As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after
the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible
organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former
warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.
These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January
interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security
personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason
to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process.
He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them
with him if he dies.
Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December
after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our
eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza.
This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw
all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.
Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists
that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against
Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed
2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have
sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny.
We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"
Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after
the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.
There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In
June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling
Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors
are even imaginable.
But that was then - a previous regime.
On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the
exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern,
attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other
countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason
given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister
Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his
government.
Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For
Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets.
They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary
and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.
In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners
do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save
a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.
The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact
bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared.
In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money
from the European Bank and the IMF.
The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor
on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after
her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid
shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina
Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.
Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.
By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some
there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.
As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after
the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible
organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former
warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.
These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January
interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security
personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason
to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process.
He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them
with him if he dies.
Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December
after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our
eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza.
This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw
all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.
Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists
that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against
Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed
2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have
sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny.
We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"
Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after
the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.
"... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?
PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35
That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent
responsible for its success or failure.
What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100%
responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???
For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which
is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:
Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
DPR and LPR leaders
Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36
Ł2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended
up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled,
then Ł3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere
near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!
HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26
The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their
citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.
Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59
You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All
infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply
than main Ukraine.
The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help
people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.
"... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?
PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35
That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent
responsible for its success or failure.
What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100%
responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???
For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which
is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:
Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
DPR and LPR leaders
Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36
Ł2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended
up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled,
then Ł3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere
near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!
HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26
The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their
citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.
Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59
You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All
infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply
than main Ukraine.
The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help
people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.
A widening rift between Moscow and Washington over cruise missiles and increasingly daring
patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines threatens to end an era of arms control and bring
back a dangerous rivalry between the world's two dominant nuclear arsenals.
Tensions have been
taken to a new level by US threats of retaliatory action for Russian development of a new cruise
missile. Washington alleges it violates one of the key arms control treaties of the cold war, and
has raised the prospect of redeploying its own cruise missiles in
Europe after a 23-year
absence.
On Boxing Day, in one of the more visible signs of the unease, the US military launched the
first of two experimental "blimps" over Washington. The system, known as JLENS, is designed to
detect incoming cruise missiles. The North American Aerospace Command (Norad) did not specify the
nature of the threat, but the deployment comes nine months after the Norad commander,
General Charles Jacoby, admitted the Pentagon faced "some significant challenges" in
countering cruise missiles, referring in particular to the threat of Russian attack submarines.
Those submarines, which have been making forays across the Atlantic, routinely carry
nuclear-capable cruise missiles. In the light of aggressive rhetoric from Moscow and the expiry
of treaty-based restrictions, there is uncertainty over whether those missiles are now carrying
nuclear warheads.
The rise in tension comes at a time when the arms control efforts of the post-cold-war era are
losing momentum. The number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia actually
increased last year,
and both countries are spending many billions of dollars a year modernising their arsenals.
Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and a failing economy, Vladimir Putin is putting
increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons as guarantors and symbols of Russian influence. In a
speech primarily about the Ukrainian conflict last summer, Putin pointedly referred to his
country's nuclear arsenal and
declared other countries "should understand it's best not to mess with us".
The Russian press has taken up the gung-ho tone. Pravda, the former mouthpiece of the Soviet
regime, published an article in November titled "Russian prepares a nuclear surprise for Nato",
which boasted of Russian superiority over the west, particularly in tactical nuclear weapons.
"The Americans are well aware of this," the
commentary said. "They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it's too
late."
Some of the heightened rhetoric appears to be bluster. The new version of the Russian military
doctrine, published on 25 December, left
its policy on nuclear weapons unchanged from four years earlier. They are to be used only in
the event of an attack using weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapon onslaught which
"would put in danger the very existence of the state". It did not envisage a pre-emptive strike,
as some in the military had proposed.
However, the new aggressive tone coincides with an extensive upgrading of Russia's nuclear
weapons, reflecting Moscow's renewed determination to keep pace with the US arsenal. It will
involve a substantial increase in the number of warheads loaded on submarines, as a result of the
development of the multi-warhead Bulava sea-launched ballistic missile.
The modernisation also involves new or revived delivery systems. Last month
Russia announced it would
re-introduce nuclear missile trains, allowing intercontinental ballistic missiles to be moved
about the country by rail so they would be harder to target.
There is also mounting western anxiety over Russian marketing abroad of a cruise missile
called the Club-K, which can be concealed, complete with launcher, inside an innocuous-looking
shipping container until the moment it is fired.
However, the development that has most alarmed Washington is Russian testing of a medium-range
cruise missile which the Obama administration claims is a clear violation of the 1987
intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, the agreement that brought to an end the
dangerous standoff between US and Russian cruise missiles in Europe. By hugging the contours of
the Earth, cruise missiles can evade radar defences and hit strategic targets with little or no
notice, raising fears on both sides of surprise pre-emptive attacks.
At a
contentious congressional hearing on 10 December, Republicans criticised two of the
administration's leading arms control negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller of the State Department and
Brian McKeon of the Pentagon, for not responding earlier to the alleged Russian violation and for
continuing to observe the INF treaty.
Gottemoeller said she had raised US concerns over the new missile "about a dozen times" with
her counterparts in Moscow and Obama had written to Putin on the matter. She said the new Russian
cruise missile – which she did not identify but is reported to be the Iskander-K with a reach in
the banned 500-5,500km range – appeared to be ready for deployment.
The Russians have denied the existence of the missile and have responded with
counter-allegations about American infringements of the INF treaty that Washington rejects.
McKeon said the Pentagon was looking at a variety of military responses to the Russian
missile, including the deployment of an American equivalent weapon.
"We have a broad range of options, some of which would be compliant with the INF treaty, some
of which would not be, that we would be able to recommend to our leadership if it decided to go
down that path," McKeon said. He later added: "We don't have ground-launched cruise missiles in
Europe now, obviously, because they are prohibited by the treaty but that would obviously be one
option to explore."
Reintroducing cruise missiles into Europe would be politically fraught and divisive, but the
Republican majority in Congress is pushing for a much more robust American response to the
Russian missile.
The US military
has also been rattled by the resurgence of the Russian submarine fleet. Moscow is building new
generations of giant ballistic missile submarines, known as "boomers", and attack submarines that
are equal or superior to their US counterparts in performance and stealth. From a low point in
2002, when the Russian navy managed to send out no underwater patrols at all, it is steadily
rebounding and reasserting its global reach.
There have been sporadic reports in the US press about Russian submarines reaching the
American east coast, which have been denied by the US military. But last year Jacoby, the head of
Norad and the US northern command at the time, admitted concerns about being able to counter new
Russian investment in cruise missile technology and advanced submarines.
"They have just begun production of a new class of quiet nuclear submarines specifically
designed to deliver cruise missiles,"
Jacoby told Congress.
Peter Roberts, who retired from the Royal Navy a year ago after serving as a commanding
officer and senior UK liaison officer with the US navy and intelligence services, said the
transatlantic forays by Akula-class Russian attack submarines had become a routine event, at
least once or twice a year.
"The Russians usually put out a sortie with an Akula or an Akula II around Christmas It
normally stops off Scotland, and then through the Bay of Biscay and out over the Atlantic. It
will have nuclear-capable missiles on it," he said.
Roberts, who is now senior research fellow for sea power and maritime studies at the Royal
United Services Institute, said the appearance of a periscope off the western coast of Scotland,
which
triggered a Nato
submarine hunt last month, was a sign of the latest such Russian foray.
He said the Russian attack submarine was most likely heading for the US coast. "They go across
to eastern seaboard, usually to watch the carrier battle groups work up [go on exercises].
"It's something the Americans have been trying to brush off but there is increasing concern
about the American ability to track these subs. Their own anti-sub skills have declined, while
we have all been focused on landlocked operations, in Afghanistan and so on."
The Akula is being superseded by an even stealthier submarine, the Yasen. Both are
multipurpose: hunter-killers designed to track and destroy enemy submarine and carrier battle
groups. Both are also armed with land-attack cruise missiles, currently the Granat, capable of
carrying nuclear warheads.
On any given sortie, Roberts said, "it is completely unknown whether they are nuclear-tipped".
A
Russian media report described the Akula as carrying Granat missiles with 200-kilotonne
warheads, but the reliability of the report is hard to gauge.
The US and Russia removed cruise missiles from their submarines after the 1991 Strategic Arms
Reduction treaty (Start), but that expired at the end of 2009. Its successor, New Start, signed
by Obama and the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, in 2010 does not include any such
limitation, nor does it even allow for continued exchange of information about cruise missile
numbers.
Pavel Podvig, a senior research
fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the leading independent analyst of
Russian nuclear forces, said: "The bottom line is that we don't know, but it's safe to say that
it's quite possible that Russian subs carry nuclear SLCMs [submarine-launched cruise missiles].
Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and
founding publisher of ArmsControlWonk.com,
believes the JLENS blimps are primarily a response to a Russian move to start rearming attack
submarines with nuclear weapons.
"For a long time, the Russians have been saying they would do this and now it looks like they
have," Lewis said. He added that the fact that data exchange on cruise missiles was allowed to
expire under the New Start treaty is a major failing that has increased uncertainty.
The Russian emphasis on cruise missiles is in line with Putin's
strategy of "de-escalation", which involves countering Nato's overwhelming conventional
superiority with the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would inflict "tailored damage" on
an adversary.
Lewis argues that Putin's accentuation of Russia's nuclear capabilities is aimed at giving him
room for manoeuvre in Ukraine and possibly other neighbouring states.
"The real reason he talks about how great they are is he saying: 'I'm going to go ahead and
invade Ukraine and you're going to look the other way. As long as I don't call it an invasion,
you're going to look at my nuclear weapons and say I don't want to push this,'" he said.
With both the US and Russia modernising their arsenals and Russia investing increasing
importance its nuclear deterrent, Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information
Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said we are facing a period of "deepening
military competition".
He added: "It will bring very little added security, but a lot more nervous people on both
sides."
InvisibleOISA -> Ethelunready 4 Jan 2015 23:53
Just how many warheads have the Iranians lofted towards Europe in the past quarter century?
Anyhow, the Yanqui ABM system is a pathetic blunderbuss. But extremely profitable for Boeing.
For instance:
US ABM test failure mars $1bn N. Korea defense plan
06.07.2013 10:03
A $214-million test launch of the only US defense against long-range ballistic missile
attacks failed to hit its target over the Pacific Ocean, according to the Missile Defense
Agency. There have been no successful interceptor tests since 2008.
InvisibleOISA 4 Jan 2015 23:41
Hey Julian. What a wussy propaganda piece. How about a few facts to put things in
perspective.
"All told, over the next decade, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the
United States plans to spend $355 billion on the maintenance and modernization of its nuclear
enterprise,[3] an increase of $142 billion from the $213 billion the Obama administration
projected in 2011.[4] According to available information, it appears that the nuclear
enterprise will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years.[5]
Beyond these upgrades of existing weapons, work is under way to design new weapons to
replace the current ones. The Navy is designing a new class of 12 SSBNs, the Air Force is
examining whether to build a mobile ICBM or extend the service life of the existing Minuteman
III, and the Air Force has begun development of a new, stealthy long-range bomber and a new
nuclear-capable tactical fighter-bomber. Production of a new guided "standoff" nuclear bomb,
which would be able to glide toward a target over a distance, is under way, and the Air Force
is developing a new long-range nuclear cruise missile to replace the current one."
And what about NATO, the u$a poodle.
NATO
"The new B61-12 is scheduled for deployment in Europe around 2020. At first, the guided
bomb, which has a modest standoff capability, will be backfitted onto existing F-15E, F-16,
and Tornado NATO aircraft. From around 2024, nuclear-capable F-35A stealthy fighter-bombers
are to be deployed in Europe and gradually take over the nuclear strike role from the F-16 and
Tornado aircraft."
Source: Arms Control Association
VikingHiking -> Rudeboy1 4 Jan 2015 23:25
To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over
the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor
trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million
artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million
tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and
icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment,
aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."
"Imperialist Powers paid for the blood of Soviet soldiers with limited supplies of obsolete
weapons, canned food and other war materiel which amounted to about 4% of total Soviet
production during WarII".
During Cold War all traces of Lend Lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized
and removed; photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns
were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines.
Five eights of the total German War effort was expended on the Russian front.
So it was a combination of allied arms and resources which kaputed the Nazi's, namely
1) The Russian Army
2) THE American Air Force
3) The British Navy and Merchant Marine
4) Hitler's Stupidity
Beckow -> StrategicVoice213 4 Jan 2015 23:03
Are you done with your boasting? By the way, you forgot Hollywood and GMO foods.
Leaving aside the one-side nature of your list (internet or web were also invented in CERN
by a European team), technology or business are not the same as intelligence.
Most Americans simply don't understand the world, its history, other cultures, don't see
others as having independent existence with other choices. They don't get it because they are
isolated and frankly quite lazy intellectually. Thus the infamous "we won WW2 in Normandy"
boast and similar bizarre claims.
Are other often similar? Yes, absolutely. But most of the others have no ability to provoke
a nuclear Armageddon, so their ignorance is annoying, but not fatal. The article was about the
worsening US-Russia confrontation and how it may end (or end everything). The fact that US has
actively started and provoked this confrontation in the last few years, mostly out of blissful
ignorance and endless selfishness. Thus we get "defensive missiles against Iran on Russia's
border", coups in Ukraine, endless demonizations...well, I think you get the picture. If you
don't, see the original post
irgun777 4 Jan 2015 22:59
" increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines "
What motivates the Cry Wolf tune of this article ?
Don't we also conduct nuclear and nuclear capable submarine patrols ? Even our allies
and friends operate routinely " nuclear capable submarines "
Our military budget alone is 10 times the Russian , we have over 600 military bases around
the world , some around Russia. We still continue to use heavy , nuclear capable bombers
for patrol , something Russia stopped doing after the Cold War. Russia did not
support and financed a coup in our neighbors . Something Ron Paul and Kissinger warned us
not to do.
Georgeaussie 4 Jan 2015 22:55
This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress.
I think its interesting that Americans believe their military personal are defending there
country when the United States is usually the aggressor. And that is my view,. And as for
people saying Russian bots and Korean bots(which i don't know if they exist) you are sounding
just as bad as them, every country has propaganda and everyone has a right to believe what
they want, wether its western media or eastern media. People on here don't need people like
you with you extreme biases, yes have an opinion, but don't put other peoples opinion down
because you think your right, collectively there is no right or wrong, do you know whats going
on around closed doors in your govt? Well sorry you probably know less then you think, i like
to read different media reports and its interesting, do you "obama bots" know that Russia is
helping look for the black box of the air asia flight? I just thought it was interesting not
reading that in my "western media" reports over the weeks. So comment and tell me if you
honestly think "western bot" are correct and "eastern bots" aren't b/c i would like too know
how there i a right and and wrong. In my OPINION there isn't if anything you are both wrong.
Veritas Vicnit 5 Jan 2015 00:05
p1. 'Russian General: We Are At War'
"Gen. Leonid Ivashov... issued a sharp warning about the nature of the strategic crisis
unfolding in Ukraine: "Apparently they [US and EU officials] have dedicated themselves, and
continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They
present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda
employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of
aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is a project of the West, a new type of
war: ... wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . under the
cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine.
They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see
that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is
being prepared." (Russian General: 'We Are At War', February 22, 2014)
"what David Petraeus has done for counter-insurgency warfare, Stuart Levey [later David
Cohen] has done for economic warfare" [Sen. Joe Lieberman]
Russian military sources have disclosed their recognition that offensive operations
(economic warfare, proxy warfare, regime change operations, etc.) are active as is the
mobilisation of military architecture.
MattTruth 5 Jan 2015 00:05
Russia is not a threat to USA. The elite of USA just need a war and need it soon.
afewpiecesofsilver -> Continent 5 Jan 2015 00:00
That's exactly why the US/NATO is trying to 'wedge' Ukraine into their EU. Then they can
develop military bases in traditionally, socially, culturally, verbally Russian Ukraine, right
on Russia's border....After the well known, publicized and continuous international bullying
and abuse of Russia and Putin over the last couple of years, and now the recent undermining of
it's oil economy by US and NATO, anyone who is condemning Putin and Russia obviously can't
read.
moosejaw12999 5 Jan 2015 00:00
Might give a few minute warning on cruise missiles but will do nothing against drones will
it Barry ?
When you start a game , you should think for a minute where it might end . Americas worst enemy is always her own disgruntled people . Drones will be the new weapon of choice in Americas upcoming civil war .
Ross Kramer 4 Jan 2015 23:58
"Russia is a regional power" - Obama said last year. Yeah, sure. Just by looking at the map
I can see it is twice bigger than the US in territory. Its tails touches Alaska and its head
lays on the border with Germany. How on Earth the biggest country in the world with the
nuclear arsenal equal to that of the US can be "just a regional power"?
Now It's The Post Covering Up John McCain's Mob Connections
AN AFP EXCLUSIVE
IF YOU STILL DOUBT that the big media is determined to keep under wraps
the organized crime origins of the $200 million fortune of John McCain and
his wife Cindy, take note of how the prestigious Washington Post
touched on the issue in its July 22 edition. Rather, instead, note how the
Post covered up the matter.
The Post reported: Cindy Lou Hensley grew up as an only child, and
a privileged one, in a large rancher in an upper-class section of Phoenix.
Her dad, Jim Hensley, founded what became a large Anheuser-Busch
distributorship, and her mom, Marguerite, was a proper belle who emphasized
impeccable manners.
The Post also added, almost discretely, that Mrs. McCain's wealth
"may" exceed $100 million (although most sources estimate it is worth $200
million or more) and -- for the record -- that "she was the apple of her
father's eye."
The Post did not mention that Mrs. McCain's father was a
highly-placed fixture in the Arizona branch of the national organized crime
syndicate: He was the chief henchman of the late Kemper Marley, Arizona point
man for infamous mob chief Meyer Lansky and his powerful partners-in-crime,
the super-rich Bronfman family of Montreal.
In that capacity -- for 40 years until his death in 1990 -- Marley was
undisputed political boss of Arizona, acting as the behind-the-scenes power
over both the Republican and Democratic parties.
As such, his wealth and connections played the primary role in advancing
John McCain's political career from the start.
Although some Democrats have muttered that Mrs. McCain's business
interests could impact on her husband's decision-making as president, none
has dared cross the line and make reference to the fact this vast wealth was
spawned by what others have indelicately (although quite correctly) called
"the Jewish Mafia."
Correspondents for American Free Press have repeatedly referenced
the McCain fortune's ties to the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate going back to 2000
when McCain first ran for president. Most recently, in its July 14/21 issue
AFP reported the story again. At that time, AFP pointed out that in its June
30 edition, Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post's parent company)
also suppressed McCain's mob link.
Newsweek said Mrs. McCain's family "was deeply rooted in Arizona,"
and that her father "was one of the most prominent men in the state," who was
"a World War II bombardier . . . shot down over the English channel," -- in
other words, a war hero like McCain.
Newsweek did not mention (or even hint of) the racketeering,
corruption and murder associated with Hensley and his patrons.
Newsweek said Hensley "borrowed $10,000 to start a liquor business"
which became one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributorships in the
country and pointed out that the vast Hensley influence and fortune "got
[McCain] access to money and connections" after he divorced his ailing first
wife and married his then mistress, Cindy Hensley, and settled in Arizona
where he first ran for office in 1982. But there was much more to the
story.
Newsweek did not mention what AFP had reported and which is
republished here in order to keep this important story before the American
public:
To repeat: McCain's father-in-law was the top
lieutenant for Kemper Marley, the Lansky syndicate's chief Arizona
operative who acted, in turn, as the front man for the Bronfman family -- key
players in the Lansky syndicate.
During Prohibition, the Canadian-based Bronfmans supplied -- and thus
controlled -- the "spigot" of liquor funneled to Lansky syndicate
functionaries in the United States, including Al Capone in Chicago.
After Prohibition, Lansky-Bronfman associates such as Marley got control
of a substantial portion of liquor (and beer) distribution across the
country. Marley's longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, revealed that
it was the Bronfmans who set Marley up in the alcohol business.
In 1948, 52 of Marley's employees (including Jim Hensley, the manager of
Marley's company) were prosecuted for federal liquor violations. Hensley got
a six month suspended sentence and his brother Eugene went to prison for a
year.
In 1953 Hensley and (this time) Marley were prosecuted by federal
prosecutors for falsifying liquor records, but young attorney William
Rehnquist acted as their "mouthpiece" (as mob attorneys are known) and the
two got off scot-free. Rehnquist later became chief justice of the Supreme
Court and presided over the "fix" that made George W. Bush president in a
rightly disputed election.
Arizona insiders say Hensley "took the fall" for Marley in 1948 and Marley
paid back Hensley by setting him up in his own beer distribution
business.
Newsweek implied Hensley's company was a "mom and pop" operation
that became a big success, but the real story goes to the heart of the
history of organized crime.
Hensley's sponsor, Marley, was also a major player in gambling, a
protégé of Lansky associate Gus Greenbaum who, in 1941, set up
a national wire for bookmakers. After Lansky ordered a hit on his own
longtime partner, Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, who was stealing money from the
Flamingo Casino in Las Vegas -- which was financed in part by loans from an
Arizona bank chaired by Marley -- Greenbaum turned operations of the wire
over to Marley while Greenbaum took Siegel's place in tending to Lansky's
interests in Las Vegas.
In 1948 Greenbaum was murdered in a mob "hit" that set off a series of
gang wars in Phoenix, but Marley survived and prospered as did Jim Hensley,
who sponsored McCain's rise to power.
McCain's father-in-law also dabbled in dog racing and expanded his fortune
by selling his track to an individual connected to the Buffalo-based Jacobs
family, key Prohibition-era cogs in the Lansky network as distributors of
Bronfman liquor.
Expanding over the years, buying up race tracks and developing food and
drink concessions at sports stadiums, Jacobs enterprises were described as
being "probably the biggest quasi-legitimate cover for organized crime's
money-laundering in the United States."
In 1976, Hensley's mentor -- Marley (at the height of his power) -- was
the key suspect behind the contract murder of journalist Don Bolles who was
investigating the mob in Arizona, but Marley was never prosecuted.
Since McCain's career was sponsored by the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate, it
is no coincidence McCain recently traveled to London where Lord Jacob
Rothschild of the international banking empire raised money among American
expatriates on McCain's behalf.
Rothschild has long been allied with the Bronfman family as major patrons
of Israel.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is
the author of Final Judgment , the controversial "underground
bestseller" documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the
assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of
The High Priests of War ,
The New Jerusalem ,
Dirty Secrets ,
The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within and
The Golem: Israel's Nuclear Hell Bomb . All are available from AFP:
202-547-5585. He has lectured on these topics in places as diverse as
Malaysia, Japan, Iran, Canada, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as
long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue
SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
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.
